In the late 1800's Newfoundland Protestants were mostly Anglican and Methodists. There was a strong Wesleyan movement in Newfoundland. The Methodist church had grown up largely due to the influence of Rev. Coughlan. Reverend Ananias Mercer was a Methodist Minister from Bay Roberts Newfoundland. He married Violet Richardson who was born in the West Indies but whose birth was register at Somerset House England. The young couple moved west on the CPR in 1912 and ended their journey at a divisional point of the railway at Broadview, Saskatchewan. This was the place where you had to change your watch from Central to Mountain Time and was a small farm community. On November 15, 1914 their first child, Nelson Richardson Mercer was born in Broadview. Later they were to have four other children, Wendell, Violet, Lily and Ivy.

Rev. Ananias was called to serve in Piapot, Saskatchewan and that is where Nelson attended high school. The children were raised as Methodists, and not allowed to smoke, use snuff or tobacco, drink, play cards or dance.

Nelson was born at the start of the world war one to a world in turmoil, and to a struggling community of homesteaders. Probably because of the unsettled nature of life, people in the community developed a great spirit of cooperation with each other. This spirit of working together seems to have made a great impression not only on the formation of Nelson, but on the formation of churches.

As Dr. Mercer reflected back in one sermon, the spirit of having Methodists and Presbyterians cooperating was well along on the Prairies before official church union ever happened between the churches back east.

It may be in fact seen that a spirit of working together was a byword for the times. The CGIT was formed in 1915 by a union on Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and some YMCA and YWCA members. Church services in small Saskatchewan communities also required much cooperation. Stories are told of cold winter nights, heating logs to warm buildings, running to neighboring homes to get water to wash the dishes.

When Nelson was only 7, in 1921, Nellie McClung was in England speaking in favor of ordaining women into the Methodist church. The idea did not take hold immediately but the seed was planted.

In 1925, when Nelson was 11, something phenomenal happened. Three of the largest church denominations decided to form a union in Canada. Presbyterian Church in Canada, Methodist Church of Canada and Newfoundland, Bermuda and Congregationalist Church of Canada. The Congregationalists came from a Puritan background. They were established in Nova Scotia in 1751 and during the American Revolution sided mostly with the Americans. In 1879 the movement had spread to Western Canada. The Presbyterian Church was formed in the sixteenth century during the Reformation. It was strongly influenced by French Calvinists. In the 1700s this movement had come to Canada. The Presbyterian church’s tradition emphasized preaching, scripture reading and a simplicity in church decor and worship style. The Presbyterians brought to the union the beliefs in predestination and personal righteousness. Congregationalists believed in a speaking God who talks to us and they followed the Apostles’ Creed. The Methodists, of whom Nelson was one, believed in personal testimony about God and in a desire to better mankind. A fourth group, a group of Saskatchewan churches, Union churches, joined the larger church.

These churches on June 10, 1925 joined to form the United Church of Canada. The first service was held in a hockey arena in Toronto.

But then an amazing thing happened. The movement of union did not appeal to everyone. About one third of the Presbyterians decided to keep their own church and so all across the country big changes happened in little churches. A present church would be renamed United. Or a present church that was Presbyterian would vote to remain Presbyterian and those who were United would move to another church. Or those who chose to be United would stay and those who chose to still be Presbyterian would leave. Reverent Ananais Mercer became a minister of the United Church, serving at Arcola, Saskatchewan.

The United Church quickly was bathed in controversies and challenges. In 1925 Lydia Gruchy, a lay minister in Saskatchewan among ethnic Canadians, wanted to administer the sacraments and become ordained. She applied but was refused for years. As Dr. Mercer put it, this “mere slip of a woman”, a gold medalist in her studies, continued her appeal and the moderator of the church took up her cause. Catholics said women however should not be ministers. Anglicans also said no and Lutherans said no. Eventually in 1936 she was ordained, the first woman minister in the United Church. Sixty years later around half of the candidates for ministry are now female.

The 1920s were exciting times. Charles Lindberg made his nonstop flight New York to Paris, Richard Byrd led an expedition to the Antarctic. But in 1929 the stock market crashed on October 29 and trade declined between Canada and the U.S. Saskatchewan farmers faced sagging farm prices. Nelson finished his studies at the University of Saskatchewan at Saskatoon with a B.A. with the full intention of going into architecture or medicine. It was 1935 and entering the ministry had not crossed his mind until a pastor asked him to consider it. Dr. Mercer years later recalls that saying yes was a long process, taking about 3 years. As he tells it “ I went into the ministry kicking and struggling, but it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise.”

In 1934 over 100,000 farmers were on some form of government aid. Drought hit the prairies and the Bank of Canada was created to control currency and foreign exchange. PM Bennett tried to establish minimum wage and maximum hours legislation and to set up employment insurance.

Nelson Mercer, amidst this turmoil entered the ministry as a candidate in September 1932. He got his theological training at St. Andrew’s Theological College, Saskatoon. He was ordained at Saskatoon on June 5, 1938.

It was lucky he was used to some tumultuous times because his first posting was in 1938 to a tiny place called Hudson Bay Junction. He recalls that working there was a great adventure. He noted in later years that although he was there during the Depression, everyone else was as poor as he was so it didn’t matter. “It was like being part of a big family. People would invite me over for supper or to spend the night. It was fabulous.”

However, times remained difficult. War broke out and taxes increased in Canada to pay for the war. In 1939 Nelson also had fallen in love. He met a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan in arts education and physed by the name of Roberta Margaret Goodfellow and they married in 1939. Over the next years he was also serving at Shell Lake, Saskatchewan and their first child, a girl, was born in Maple Creek on May 20, 1940. They named her Shirley Joyce. In 1942 on April 5th a second daughter arrived - Roberta Joan. Also in that year the young family moved to a new calling in Nipawin. Meanwhile the skills of this small town preacher were getting noticed on a wider basis and he was asked to serve in 1943 at Know Church in Brandon, Manitoba. He was serving there when the war ended, the economy of the country adjusted again to peacetime and returning soldiers came home to start marriages and families.

Postwar church attendance soared, probably out of gratitude for the return of peace and Dr. Mercer was heard and appreciated by more and more people.

But the international scene was still not all roses. The atomic bomb had entered the world and the hydrogen bomb was developed soon after the war. In 1948 Israel was recognized as a state. Reverend Mercer and his wife had another child, Robert Nelson, born December 1, 1948 in Brandon.

In 1949 Reverend Mercer accepted a call to Southminster Church in Lethbridge, Alberta. His sermons were now broadcast on radio stations for an even larger audience who could not make it to church. He became adept not just at preparing a sermon, but at preparing one that lasted exactly 20 minutes and was meticulous in his timing, often removing text of his own words if another earlier speaker’s comments or announcements went on unexpectedly long.

In 1949 Dr. Mercer’s father died.

In Lethbridge he was now at one of the senior churches and his church in fact sponsored the formation of others, one of which was McKillop United. The Sunday school was huge. One department had over 200 children and the Sunday school had over 100 teachers and officers in 1953. Dr. Mercer had a fourth child, a son, John Russell, born in Lethbridge January 3, 1951 and then on June 12, 1953 a fifth child, Harry George, born in Lethbridge.

Dr. Mercer’s mother died n 1953.

Reverend Mercer was showing a tolerance for new ideas that was quite amazing. In 1952 he preached a sermon series about the Hutterites, Doukhobors, British Israelites, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Latter Day Saints. He spoke frequently about tolerance for the understanding between the faiths, often quoted Martin Luther, was on good terms with the Anglicans and found things to praise in the Catholics. Here was a man with no bigotry in him, and the people loved him. He warned about what he felt were real dangers. He preached against gambling. He dared to address thorny issues like capital punishment, Sunday shopping, and dealt with the reluctance of some people to accept the new Sunday school curriculum.

In 1955 he accepted a call to a very large church Westminster United in Winnipeg. Winnipeg, since the 1920s has been a group of isolated ethnic communities, with some hard feelings between them. The new mayor, Stephen Juba in 1965 tried to reduce hostility between ethnic groups and Dr. Mercer had a role to play in this area also. While serving at this church he was named President of the Manitoba Conference, President of Winnipeg InterCity Council and he served on the Board of Governors of several groups. His sermons were now broadcast in Manitoba and most Sundays he preached both a morning and an evening sermon.

In 1957 the U.S. Atlas Intercontinental ballistic missile was tested and Dr. Mercer preached on “Rockets and Responsibilities”. In November he preached on “Living under an Atomic Cloud”. He dared touch on issues that were complex - Protestants and Race Relations, beverage alcohol, sports promoters in the day to day world, and difficult issues morally - belief in miracles, “Can you ever justify yourself?”. what is prophecy, “Too busy to be a friend”. His sermon themes wove a web between the everyday concerns, philosophical greater principles and the eternal message of scripture, so that when a social action issue was raised Dr. Mercer did not preach on it just to be current or modern or to have causes, but to put it in the right perspective of God’s will. His approach was becoming widely known - of seeking first God and pursuing worldly social action as a vital but still only secondary sidelight.

Dr. Mercer was on the executive of the Winnipeg Canadian Club and on the board of governors of Balmoral Hall. And on June 1st 1962 he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree at St. Andrew’s College Saskatoon. While he was in Winnipeg, he also helped launch the formation of the United Church Women’s Organization. This group, formed in 1962 united the Women’s Association, a fund raising group and the Women’s Missionary Society and was immediately the largest women’s organization in Canada.

In 1962 Dr. Mercer accepted a call to Central United Church in Calgary. He kept in contact with Westminster though and was the one who greeted their 75th anniversary in 1967.

Now in Calgary, he had new challenges. In the previous ten years, Calgary’s population had nearly doubled and this phenomenon of rapid growth continued for the next ten years.

United Church councils were discussing capital punishment, marriage and divorce, immigration, temerance. Martin Luther King was leading protests in the U.S. Gambling raised its head as an issue, as did pornography. Dr. James Mutchmor, moderator of the United Church in 1962 encouraged good labor relations and good treatment of prisoners. In 1962 the Bay of Pigs invasions occurred, with the USSR sending missiles to Castro in Cuba and the U.S. setting up a blockade. Yuri Gagarin and John Glen were setting the world on end by becoming the first men into space. How were people to deal with these issues? Dr. Mercer provided, not simple answers, but informed and carefully weighed thoughts. Looking back on the 60s Dr. Mercer once said that people were wanting to break down every institution and it really shook up the church. Everybody was shouting and no one was listening. His solution started with listening. He said we have a “whole pile of rednecks in this country who won’t listen to anybody but themselves, this is a real time for listening. A minister has to listen five times as much as he talks”.

Dr. Mercer dared also to take stands. One news article of the 1960s captures his attitude, voiced in one sermon “If you’re afraid of what people will say, you’ll accept situations as they are and never find the inner spiritual meaning”. He said we have to overcome the fear of public disapproval and, as Christ did, not aim for personal reputation.

Central United Church was one of the two largest United churches in Canada. It had a membership of 3500 and Dr. Mercer came in the footsteps of two well-loved ministers, Dr. C. Andrew Lawson, who had gone onto the other huge United Church, Timothy Eaton Memorial in Toronto, and Dr. Gerald Breen Switzer, who had preached in Calgary 12 years and was moving to Vancouver. The church required a minister who could speak on the radio every week, continuing the 40 year tradition of radio broadcast to southern Alberta and parts of the U.S. It was not an easy job assignment. To be a good minister anywhere is difficult, but to try to meet the needs of a crowd that large, and to be compared to two previous ministers who each had nearly attained superhuman status must have been very challenging. And yet Dr. Mercer simply continued in his humble way to preach the word, to guide his flick and his way touched the hearts of his listeners.

Preaching at a big downtown church had additional challenges. Calgary was a growing city, fairly bursting at the seams with activity, setting up a new university. People were moving with their young families out to the suburbs, the people in the downtown core as residents were very few and those who were there were often transients. As Dr. Mercer said later “There’s a seamy side to every community. It’s just more evident in the inner-city. For a minister, an inner-city church is regarded as a tough job”. But he accepted this challenge with gusto. As he put it “As the years go on and you get more experience, you want a tougher job”.

Central United Church was a leader in the community and Sunday school attendance was high. The local newspaper, the Calgary Herald, regularly would send a reporter just to hear Dr. Mercer’s sermon and report on it the next day in the paper. Dr. Mercer wrote religious commentary articles periodically in the paper himself.

In 1963 Central sponsored a dinner for 250 men at Christmas. In 1964 Central established a daycare nursery. Dr. Mercer supported the Establishment by Dr. W.E. Mullen of an interdenominational counseling service, the Pastoral Institute and also with his encouragement came the formation of groups to help the homeless, the minorities, natives, alcoholics. Dr. Mercer once said that you have to keep the city human. But his idea was not just to give handouts to people. His aim was higher. He was not just interested in good public relations and in one interview said that if a church regards itself as an institution maintained by men, concerned for public relations, this road is a slippery one that could lead to death.

Dr. Mercer also was named president of the Calgary Interfaith Community Action Committee. This group from several faiths met regularly to discuss such issues as Sunday sport, religion in schools, intermarriages, ecumenism. The group included Father P. O’Bryne, a Catholic Bishop, Rabbi Shelden Edwards, Canon Murray, Anglican, Rev. Matson (Lutheran) and Dr. Murdo Nicholson (Presbyterian). Dr. Mercer was always open to seeking areas of agreement between the denominations. He was a guest speaker not only at other United churches but also at Anglican churches, United Fund luncheons and his sermons reflected his great willingness to see good in all others.

In 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated he threw out his plans for the regular sermon and quickly put together what proved to be one of his most famous and outstanding sermons “Profile in Courage - John F. Kennedy in memoriam”. This sermon is now retained at a Kennedy Museum in Boston.

Within the church there were also controversies to deal with. There was a new Sunday school curriculum, intended to make Bible study for children more interesting and relevant, but met with considerable opposition from some members. There was an attempt to win interest in religion and the churches by a radio jingle campaign with slogans to music such as “Doesn’t it get a little lonely sometimes, out on that limb, without Him?” This jingle campaign met with considerable opposition. A minister thought by those outside the church to have a very calm existence, actually has to deal with some very angry people periodically and again Dr. Mercer’s skills of calm rational though were called into service frequently. Dr. Littlejohns, years later, would recall simply in admiration for his colleague Dr. Mercer “This man is unflappable”.

There were also controversies in the community - whether parents on welfare should have to undergo government-enforced sterilization, whether provinces should be allowed to raise revenue by allowing lotteries, what to do about juvenile delinquency. How did a churchman stand on these issues? Should the church take a stand on divorce, on immigration, on disarmament? What should the church do about Asian starvation? Dr. Mercer did not rush thoughtless into the controversies, but he was not afraid to study them, to weigh ideas carefully, and to humble present his informed and impassioned beliefs. He was an ultimate believer in the right of people to make their own decisions. In 1967 when at Expo a Reverend Ray Hord suggested US draft dodgers from Vietnam war get Canadian government financial aid, Hord, referred to Canadian International relations and made a casual remark calling PM Pearson “a puppy dog on LBJ’s leash”. Church officials apologized to Pearson but Dr. Mercer in a sermon later reported in United Church archives commented on the issue saying “ Ray Hord must be allowed to have his say and do his own apologizing”.

But the church all across the country was facing other problems. Television had centered homes. The Vietnam was had started and so had protest rallies. The hippie generation of peace and love was rejecting institutions like the church and all across North America there was a mood not necessarily to reject God, but to question institutionalized religion. Central United’s church attendance, like everyone else’s dropped off.

In 1967 CFCN radio that had broadcast Central’s sermons for over 40 years, ended its contract and another station was found in its place.

In 1968 Dr. Mercer’s wife of 29 years became very ill with cancer. Dr. Mercer made it part of his job to minister to her needs and it was he who was chosen to administer morphine to her for her pain. Unfortunately near the low point of her illness he himself had a sudden heart attack and for a time the two of them were in the same hospital on different floors. When she died in March 1968, Dr. Mercer was only able to attend the funeral with great difficulty, in a wheelchair. Dr. Mercer was able to return to the pulpit in June, bravely soldering on. There was still work to do. Another group, eastern conference of Evangelican Bretheran had joined the United Church and in 1969 the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) was considering joining. Dr. Mercer preached on whether Christian faith brought piece of mind, on tensions and collaborations between Protestants and the Roman Catholics.

In December 1969 Dr. Mercer confided in a letter to his secretary that he had met a lovely woman, Clare Robertson, widow of the late Ted Robertson and they planned to be married. The marriage took place January 10 of 1970 and Dr. Mercer’s next few sermons were entitled “The Greatest Thing in the World”, “The Mark of Love”, and “The Permanence of Love”.

But despite this personal happiness, the church continued to have its ups and downs. In 1970 a new red hymn book was introduced, replacing the old blue one, with considerable controversy. In 1968 a young Pentecostal preacher names Troy Perry admitted openly to being homosexual and then announced his intention to have his church join the National Council of Churches. This sparked a debate which brewed in churches across North America - should homosexuals be allowed to also be ministers? This issue divided the United Church over the next few years much more dramatically than had any other issue - not advertising ethics, not medicare, not hymn revision. This was an issue that simmered for years.

In February 1971 the United Church proposed liberalizing abortion laws, but in August 1972 a movement in the church wanted the government to only allow abortion in cases of extreme social and medical situation.

In 1971 the General Council of the United Church met jointly with the Anglican Synod at Niagara Falls and read the first draft of a plan of union. An Anglican-United Church hymn book was prepared and union seemed about to happen. However, by 1975 the union was rejected, and the Disciples of Christ also rejected union with the United Church.

Right in his own community, Dr. Mercer also faced a more immediate issue. The land on which the downtown church stood was now very valuable commercial property. The building was now over 50 years old and land prices were booming. Several downtown churches were being approached to consider selling their land to businesses although St. Francis church under Monsignor John O’Brien said his church simply was not for sale and Dr. John Kon of Chinese Pentecostal Church said he was not interested in selling. However Dr. Mercer was more open to considering the options. One proposal in fact was to erect an office tower and to locate the church on one of several floors of the tower. The advantages might be greater assess to residential people, more modern facilities with meeting rooms and of course the needed revenue of the sale of the land. Dr. Mercer was well aware of the opposition to the proposal and the group that formed to save the church. He was well aware of the grandeur of the architecture some claimed was essential to preserve. One newspaper interview quotes him as saying “It would be folly not to consider every offer”. In the end angry meetings between the dissenting groups of the church over the possible sale stalemated the decision so long that eventually no current offers existed for purchase of the property and there was a downturn in the economy, land prices dropped, and the church received no current offers for purchase. Repairs were undertaken to the existing building.

Those churches which had also considered being a high rise with worship centre and community centre included, First Lutheran and Bethel Baptist, eventually also did not have the vision realized.

In 1973 Dr. Mercer was elected President of the Alberta Conference of the Church (also of Northwest Conference). This was a unique honor since he had already been president of Manitoba Conference. He was also on the Senate and the Board of Governors of St. Stephen’s College. In August of 1974 he attended General Conference of the Church of Guelph, Ontario. Issues discussed included amnesty international, faith healing, genetics, violence in hockey, the Income Tax Act, inflation, women ministers, sexuality, Vietnam, abortion, boycotts, alcohol. Dr. Mercer was no stranger to these issues. He had already preached a sermon series in May on an ethic of sexuality and a sermon in September 1972 on violence and the Christian. During his stay at Central a United church woman approached him to see if he would perform a marriage ceremony between herself and a Catholic man. Dr. Mercer agreed and RC Bishop Paul O’Bryne also agreed. This event was ground-breaking.

1975 was an important year for Central church as Dr. Mercer helped it celebrate its 100th anniversary. A Centennial book was written entitled “They Gathered at the River” and a Centennial banquet was held. Typically of Dr. Mercer’s approach, this banquet invited a wide range of people. Reverend Chief John Snow attended. Dr. Mercer had the class, as was so typical of him, of giving over the pulpit on the actual day. Originally the guest speaker was to be Reverend Andrew Lawson, a much loved former preacher at Central. But Reverend Lawson had passed away suddenly just a few months before, so his son Jim, also a minister, was invited to give the guest sermon, flooding the congregation with memories.

By 1976 Central had become the mother church of 25 branch congregations, and as a senior citizen, had taken more of a backseat role herself. Her congregation now numbered 1223 members, sermons were only preached once a Sunday and the Sunday school was much smaller. Central in 1975 still had the most weddings in Calgary Presbytery but a suburban church had taken over as the largest in size.

In August of 1976 Dr. Mercer attended a conference in Pennsylvania entitled “Seminar on the New Testament”. Dr. Mercer was now a senior minister, over 60 years old, but still wide-eyed and as excited about learning as a small child.

He continued to innovate. He participated in ecumenical sermons given on the Stampede Grounds. In 1976 he invited a dozen persons to come four Thursday evenings to join him in preparing of his sermon for the following Sunday. He held adult classes of Bible study.

In 1977 a controversy arose about marketing boards and inland terminals. The United Church expressed concern over the matter and one Calgary Herald columnist criticized the United Church for getting involved in what he called “cowboy politics”. Dr. Mercer wrote an open letter to the columnist noting “I am perplexed by your vicious attack upon certain members of the United Church, also its executive body, for entering into the debate. I defend the right of the United Church - and any other body - to enter into debate on any matter of its choosing and be wrong”. He went on, to add “That you have feelings about the church is normal and to express them is your right. However to ridicule the church for expressing its views on public matters is something else”.

In 1977 the General Conference was held in Calgary. Issues discussed included baptism, abortion, the arms race, national broadcasting, energy policy, gambling, the handicapped, husband and wife ministries, licensing lay preachers and penal reform. Dr. Mercer had already discussed therapeutic abortion in a sermon in October 1974.

In May of 1977 the Medical Ethics Committee of the Foothills Hospital, trying to put theologic and ethical view on the legal and medical decisions facing the medical profession.

In October of 1977 he was invited back to one of his first pastoral charges, to be the speaker at the anniversary of Nipawin United Church.

On the theme of union between the United Church and the Anglicans, Dr. Mercer had made his views known several times. The vacillating of other people seems to have frustrated him. At one time he said it was time to abandon timid approaches and just go ahead with a complete merging. “The time has come when both denominations must aim at nothing less than the full union of both our churches. We have to think upon our children who are not much impressed by denominationalism or old ways. If they are to remain in the church they are demanding a far more exciting church than they know at the present time.” It must have come then as a real disappointment that the union was eventually voted against. And his words proved prophetic about church attendance.

In January of 1978 Dr. Mercer’s sermon was filmed on National TV on a program entitled CBC “Meeting Place”. As is somewhat typical of the man, the church bulletin of that day makes no mention at all of the fact.

Towards the end of his tenure at Central and facing retirement, Dr. Mercer preached several sermons leaving us with messages to carry on. Titles included “The Attitude of Gratitude”, “The Encouragement of the Scriptures”, “Advice to a Young Christian” and his final one which rounded out his philosophy in a beautiful sermon entitled “Christ’s Parting Gift”.

He retired June 26, 1979 after 41 years in the active ministry. The retirement was a time of many tributes. Newspapers interviewed him and a tribute dinner was held at the University of Calgary. At the dinner were guest speakers from many faiths - Father Pat O’Byrne, Roman Catholic, Rabbi Lewis Ginsberg, and speakers from Anglican diocese, Interfaith, Lutheran Association, Mount Royal College, Alberta Conference, The City of Calgary. Looking back on his 41 years Dr. Mercer said that the best part of it all was the interdenominational friendships. “These different beliefs which kept our fathers apart in the past are being resolved.”

However, the retirement was anticlimactic because after a brief holiday, Dr. Mercer was back in the pulpit that very August for several weeks, and thereby started a long career of interim ministry. He preached at Red Deer Lake and was a chaplain at the Fanning Centre and at the Alberta Children’s Hospital. He later was an interim minister in retirement at Midlands, McDougall, St. Andrew’s, Knox United in Taber, First United in Lethbridge and Southminister United, one of his earlier parishes in Lethbridge. It is evident from tapes and memories we have of sermons during retirement that the man, if anything, got even better with age. There again is the warm and resonant voice. There again is the careful logic, the well-supported reasoning. There still is the shy laugh, the gracious guest so respectful of the intelligence of his listeners. And there again is the vigor. He did not avoid or lose touch with what mattered, even daring to approach, after careful thought, some of the touchiest issues still besetting the church.

In 1980 General Council considered a report entitled “In God’s Image..Male and Female” and the issue of whether to allow homosexual clergy smoldered for a while. A Community of Concern was formed within the church to resist having a homosexual clergy and by August 1988 at the 32nd General Council the debates were strained and controversial. A ‘pro-homosexual clergy’ group had been formed, called Affirm and the two groups were in a face-off. The Study under question simply proposed that homosexuality should not bar a person from becoming a ministerial candidate. Commissioners received but did not accept the report. In Mercer’s series of sermons in 1989, preached in Lethbridge, we have a record of the thinking of a senior leader seeing his flock being torn a sunder and calling us gently to reason. On January 29th he preached a sermon entitled “Doing Justice - Seeking Peace” at Southminster United. The sermon, which taught about love and tolerance in the face of homosexuality (notes are included) was received with such relief by the congregation that he was requested to repeat it the next week at First United in Lethbridge.

Dr. Mercer’s stand did not always win. He wanted us to unite with the Anglicans. We did not. He wanted us to consider closer relations with the Catholics, but we did not join them. He wanted us to not hold homosexuality against a person but many others in the church could not tolerate this idea and thousands left the church. And yet - and yet...slowly it is possible things are changing.

In 1983 the World Council of Churches met in Vancouver and the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury shared communion with others of several denominations included the United. In 1984 a United Church policy entitled “A Sunday Liturgy” saw value in having a weekly communion the Catholics have. In 1984 Canadian Interfaith Network formed in Ontario with RCS, United, Baptists, Reform, Anglican and Lutheran working together in interchurch communion. In 1986 the United Church officially recognized that native religions had some merit and apologized to native people for denying the value of their spirituality. And in 1993, despite the fact that thousands left the United Church over the homosexual debate, the United Church is still the largest Protestant denomination in the country.

On December 31, 1989 Dr. Mercer preached the New Year’s Eve sermon in Lethbridge. It was entitled “Journey of the Magi” and it told of hope for the future. It was an eloquent message, not of despair that the world was turning out badly, but the contrary, of great hope. Dr. Mercer did not, even at age 75, cling to the past just because it was old. He praised the magi for going home by another way. And he left us to be open to new ways of accomplishing the message of the Bible. It was his last sermon.

In March of the next year he had chest pain and although the heart was originally ruled out as the cause, the source was an enigma for a long time. Dr. Mercer, long known for his habit of typing off a little note of greeting to people all through his life, continued to do this even from his sickbed. He would greet up, type a few notes or phone people, then go back to bed. In December his illness forced him into the Baker Centre where he was diagnosed with bowel cancer.

It was not easy. There was a log of pain and he was put on morphine. I as among the hundred to write Dr. Mercer a little note when he was ill. I wanted him to know how sorry I was he was suffering and how much he had meant to me over the years. To my great surprise I got a typed note back, signed in his own hand. He thanked me. I was amazed. He who had done so much, thanked me who had done so little. He said my words were a like a lamp to his feet and he said “I got a whole sermon out of that text once.” And he told me he was going to get a haircut that day, saying it was “something of an event.” His wife told me later that the haircut had required a taxi ride and had been done despite great pain. But he did not say that. His letter was only happy, grateful, with even a sense of humor.
On New Year’s eve a Catholic priest visited him in hospital and Dr. Mercer was so embarrassed that the priest was taking up his New Year’s eve in this way, but Joyce, Dr. Mercer’s daughter reassured him “Well, Dad, he didn’t have a date!” She must have inherited his sense of humor too. It was an amazing mix even at the end - laughter despite tears. At one point Dr. Mercer, heavily sedated, suddenly recited the full text of a Robert Frost poem with the lines “I’m leaving this world” to the amazement of listeners.

There seems to have been no resisting the leaving. He who had taught us all so much about life and death, himself facing death also remained a teacher. He told one visitor “Recovery is not always a miracle but friendship is.” To his wife, in the final hospital days he confided, not any thought of regret or bitterness or dread, but simply “I’m finding the waiting difficult.” The waiting - he was waiting for something, apparently with eagerness and anticipation. It was in dying as in living, an expression of his faith. He was going on to a new adventure and was anxious to get on with it.

When Dr. Mercer was asked what he’d do in retirement he replied to one reporter “I’ll just go with the flow.” He had attained what I have observed is a twofold mark of faith. The first was to do all he could with all his power to do God’s will - to fight and work and write and preach and visit the sick and lonely and bereaved tirelessly and despite opposition or detractors. But the second aspect of the faith was to leave himself open at all times to the impulse of God’s direction, to the opportunities to serve which would crop up suddenly and from unexpected sources - like being a guest preacher at so many churches. He was like that in his career. He was like that in his retirement. He was even like that in his dying.

There is something strong in a faith that does not require everything to go right. If we require only miracles to believe we can’t handle failures. If we require success to prove God is there we have no resources to help us when circumstances are overwhelmingly bad. Dr. Mercer’s faith was right down there in the depths with us. He even suffered too, on his own and with us. He showed a way through the suffering. As Jesus did. He was beautiful.

THE MAN

It is impossible to pin down a person’s personality in just a few paragraphs but talks and readings have revealed some aspects of Dr. Mercer’s personality which bear special note.

Several people have commented on Dr. Mercer’s humor. It was not stand-up comic raucous humor but a good-natured, off the cuff casual humor that was as Leacock required of humor, always kind. Even his heart surgeon remembers him as “delightful.” Mrs. A.B. Campbell said “I think he had a terrific sense of humor, or he couldn’t have survived.” Mr. Dean Haggins used to kid him about his roots in Piapot, which according to Haggins is so small you can breeze through it on the highway and never know you’ve passed it. Mr. Milton Bartusek who was only one year younger than Dr. Mercer used to kid him about his white hair. Dr. Mercer laughed when Bartusek said the white hair was because Mercer was carousing around. And then when Mercer would see Bartusek at the end of each sermon he’d kid him “Are you still here?” And when Dr. Mercer had a son, the name he chose was Harry George, both names after family friends. But after the birth when he phoned the one who was being thus honored he only said he’d had a son, and he’d named him George, and said the reason, and then added, “And named him Harry just for the Hell of it.”

It was a gentle humor, from a gentle man.

Several people commented that Dr. Mercer was given not just the gifts of a brilliant mind and a good speaking voice for radio, but also he happened to be very handsome. As Canon Flegler said, “Few preachers have it all but Nelson did”.

It is interesting reading minutes and reports and letters Dr. Mercer wrote. If someone raised a concern that needed a letter ha just swung his chair around to face his typewriter and whipped one off. I am looking at one such note right now, dated 1967. There is such tact. “We are getting good service from the janitors, however, through no fault of theirs, some areas have become terribly shabby. There are areas much in need of paint.” Put that way, he comes in on the side of those wanting a nice church. It would of course have been possible to condemn something - caretaking, budgets, poor planning or some such, but his technique was to approach a common problem quietly and with a mood of cooperation.

In Dr. Mercer I sense a great respect for simplicity of church decor and fraternity of church suppers but also a touch of class - a sense that people in the church are doing noble work and they would enjoy some events in a first-class style. In 1967 he suggested the next annual congregational meeting be held at a large hotel for supper, with business to follow. He commented “Let’s make it a bright dress-up affair. A good dinner there costs no more than a football ticket”. His motion was defeated but the intent is endearing. Church basement activities have a nice homey flavor but there is great value and dignity and not always has to be relegated to a basement. Many people have commented on Dr. Mercer’s incredible tolerance of the opinions of others. There was no pressure to agree with him. He did not claim to know everything. In one note in 1967 he notes that the organist had spoken to him “ at some length regarding the condition of the church organ.” He noted in the memo that the instrument is in need of renovations with leathers needing replacement and adds “Also John spoke of mechanical matters which are beyond my present understanding.” And then he no doubt with a wry grin adds “We may be running into a fair amount of correspondence with organ people.” His daughter Joyce notes for instance the Dr. Mercer, despite his wide reading and extensive education still stood in awe of medical doctors. When one of his grandsons became a butcher he said it was a worthy profession, having himself learned to make sausages from his dad’s general store. He alluded periodically to farm roots and former Saskatchewan farmers understood exactly what he meant when he spoke of things like how easy it was to break a pump handle when it froze in the winter. He was a man with great respect for the dignity of other people, for their jobs, and for their minds.

It was not a humility based on lack of personal sense of purpose. Mrs. Clare Mercer has said that he had a solid ego and belief in what he was doing. It was a humility based on valuing other people as much as himself, on respect for others. This policy of trusting other people’s own logic patterns and trains of thought, their own abilities to reason, their own consciences, was evident in his sermons where he only presented a point of view but did not hammer it into you. And it was also evident in his personal life. His daughter Joyce tells that when the 5 kids were teenagers the parents explained to them that they would be trusted and that instead of them being given strict rules with threats for disobedience, the kids would be trusted to tell the parents where they were going and then to come home according to their judgment of what would be right, Joyce reports “We were usually the first ones to be home because we didn’t want to break the trust.”. The attitude was that the person was wise and capable of good judgment and he or she could be trusted to be responsible. What is so unusual about this is not only that it is a policy many do not endorse, but it is a policy quite ahead of its time. It is particularly interesting to see in the life of church minister who an outsider might assume would be rather more than usually dogmatic, rigid in rules, judgmental and punitive. But to understand Dr. Mercer’s view on that is to have an insight into his whole philosophy. He gave a series of talks to children in Winnipeg, on radio (one of which is transcribed in this collection) and the amazing thing is that the talk is so very much like it is given to thinking adults with possibly a smaller vocabulary. Dr. Mercer did not talk down, even to kids. He amazingly deals with at least four main aspects of a theme, very sophisticated aspects - about being loved by God as unique, about loving other individuals as unique, and about treating others in society as God’s children - there is no feeling at all that kids are not capable of these thoughts, and Dr. Mercer’s brilliance is that he puts these themes into examples and stories, even from his personal life, which bring the points home to every child listening. What we are hearing is a teacher who does what a really gifted teacher does - brings out the best in his students. He assumed the listener was intelligent, and because he assumed that, we listened with rapt attention because as many have commented, he gave us something to think about.

How he related to children in another of the great surprises to me. I have never met a man who could speak on a more sophisticated level with a congregation quoting Karl Barth and Bonhoeffer and Luther, speaking on the meaning of love and the difficult issues of abortion and interracial marriage, and yet this same man had a very special way with children. To say that, one might think that he must have been the type to sit on the floor and tell nursery rhymes, or that he talked baby talk to them or that he changed his voice and suddenly became phoney the way overacting clowns try to be. He was none of that. He liked children it seems, as if they were fascinating little beings in their own right, brilliant minds in embryo. And he loved their companionship. His daughter Joyce recalls that he took her when she was only 2 or 3 on train rides to other towns for him to preach at. When she was only 3 she distinctly recalls being asked to recite “The Night Before Christmas” on stage and she did the whole thing, and what amazes her about this is not that she did it, but that someone had taken the painstaking time to teach it to her - and that someone must have been her dad. When she was very little he rode her around in the basket of his bicycle, during the war when gas was rationed. And she remembers vividly when she was about 15, he used to drive her to a radio studio each Sunday morning while he did live broadcast from 9am till 11am and then, as she puts it “drove like a maniac” back to the church to do the 11am service. He took her with him likely to show her what a studio was like, but also no doubt for companionship. Those of us who are parents can hear the parent in him when he talks of his heart stopping when one of his toddlers had gone missing and he sent out a search party, and it doesn’t take much explaining to know why a person faced with the pressure of a radio broadcast to hundreds or thousands of people from a tiny studio might just want along someone from home that he loved.

Family was very important to him and it was nothing for him to drive several hundred miles just to see relatives. When his wife Roberta was sick he would drive across town just to help give her medicine in hospital. One time he was called in, as chaplain of the Children’s Hospital, to be with a young couple from out of town whose baby was seriously ill. The suffering of this small child really bothered him and he told his family later that evening of how difficult an experience it had been. The baby was on life support and the doctors agreed that it was best to turn the machines off. Dr. Mercer discussed this with the parents and then was asked to be in the room when the machines were actually shut off. Dr. Mercer found that although it was a very sad experience it was somehow strangely beautiful. The couple remained calm and the child passed away peacefully and quietly, and as Dr. Mercer said, it was like a leaf on a stream moving from one point to another.

When a close relative was about 11 years old, the doctors believed that his problem might be that he was retarded. The possible diagnosis upset the child’s mother but Dr. Mercer comforted her saying “He’s a beautiful gifted child. God has given him a gift and we are going to have to work to see what it is”. For life’s problems he was a shock absorber.

People much later spoke of Dr. Mercer’s own death in similar gentle terms. Dean Haggins notes that Dr. Mercer used to in retirement occasionally come back into Central United and sit in the congregation and people would feel like it was old home week. People recalled to me the last time they saw him, one man recalling shaking hands with him at a reunion of all couples ever married at Central. And then, as one man said “he slipped quietly away”.

His hobbies, when he did find time were varied. In the war years he had biked a lot and in retirement he took it up again. He loved stereos and with an Anglican priest, Canon Flagler, in his youth had built a ham radio. He loved building things, woodworking and cabinet making and he spent one whole winter building a ship in a bottle. Finally the threads were ready to pull the sails up. His wife had a women’s society meeting and accidentally one of the visiting children smashed the bottle, boat and all.

Though he was the son of a minister, none of his five children went into clerical service and few of his relatives did. As a result when he finally did get a chance in 1989 to meet some long-lost cousins he was something of a rarity. Someone had sent a tape of his last sermon to Red Deer Lake United down to the relatives some years before and when the actual man on the tape arrived he was so royally treated that his daughter said “It was like God himself had come home”. This type of adoration was foreign to him and he actually seemed to prefer the simplicity of Newfoundland’s little old churches, straight back pews and tiny buildings and focusing on the message not the trappings.

I feel compelled to add on a sort of bizarre note, that people speak of ministries in a way in which is so fond and adoring you would think they were family. Often I heard sentences like “He married me” and it takes my mind a second or two to click in that we are not talking about bigamy here. Another comment that took me aback was one that one lady said of her minister “I loved him. He buried my daughter.”

HIS SENSE OF MISSION

There is a policy of United church, stated in 1935, to be “not merely a united, but a uniting church”. It was not enough to keep together the three groups joined already, but the purpose was also to seek peace between and possibly join into the fold other people - from other faiths, and from no particular faith. Dr. Mercer’s life is exemplary in this regard. For those outside any religious denomination he was welcoming and kind. His daughter Joyce tells that he often found transients coming to his house asking for a $5 or $10 handout and for a while his policy was to give it. And then it occurred to him that that was not best for them. For them to still have dignity he should allow them to feel they earned the money and so he required them to mow the lawn or wash his car and then gave them money. As Joyce said “We had the cleanest car in town”. And the people left with a smile on their face. When they appeared on the doorstep of his church in Lethbridge, he found that although the person may say he needed the money for food, often he would go and spend it on liquor. So he established an arrangement with a restaurant across the street that would give a free meal to people sent over from the church, and the restaurant at the end of the month would bill the church.

He believed in welcoming people - and he lived it.

He did not put conditions on someone’s suitability for church. There was no dress code. Several people had told him they were too busy to go to church or they had young children, or they didn’t have the right clothes and he said “I don’t care what you look like. Just come”. He was not embarrassed or thrown by children and he liked to have them involved in the first part of the church service, then have them go off to Sunday school. He welcomed people and in terms of requiring you to believe as he did, there was none of that. Mrs. Ellison has said “He met people at the level they were”.

Dean Haggins tells that once someone was talking with Dr. Mercer and was telling him they just couldn’t believe some of the things he was reading in the Bible. Mr. Haggins admits that his very first reaction was a kind of anger surging up to defend the faith but Dr. Mercer’s reaction was different - he simply said “That’s all right. Just believe what you can”. The man became visibly less upset.

For people of another faith, Dr. Mercer was also amazingly welcoming. In 1943 he preached a sermon “What do we believe - our common condition”. In 1951 he preached a series of sermons trying to understand, accept and not condemn Doukhobors, Hutterites, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter-Day Saints. In 1952 he preached a sermon “World Brotherhood - is it Possible?” In 1954 he preached sermons praising values from Methodism and Presbyterianism. In 1956 he preached on “The Community of the Holy Spirit”. In 1957 he preached “Fellowship of the Concerned”.

He even dared to step outside the faith and look at it critically to see where we could improve. In 1950 he preached a sermon “What is wrong with Protetantism?”

In 1959 he preached on “A World Fellowship”.

He preached sermons about church union with Anglicans. In 1960 he preached on “Canterbury and the Pope”.

In 1967 he preached a sermon “We Can Learn from the Pentecostal’s - discussions on church unity are incomplete without hearing from these people”.

In 1967 he preached on “Protestants and the RC Church today - tensions and collaborations and hopes”.

In 1972 he preached “The Name of the Game - Union”.

Dr. Mercer was a unifying force welcoming those with no church, seeing good in those from other countries, and also making peace between people within his own church. He had a vision of his mission and even told us about the role of a Christian in this light. In 1965 to 1970 he preached sermons on Peacemakers and in 1971 one called “The Mediator”. What kind of union was he proposing? Was it that everyone had to agree to a certain strict set of beliefs? Or alternatively was it so liberal that everyone could do their own thing and the church itself was kind of meaningless?

His vision of union was definitely a Christian based one. His beliefs in Christ and God were not at all wishy washy - so the union was not one without deep commitment. But the commitment was not to strict little rules. The commitment, the basis of union, seems to for him have been only of exactly what Christ was teaching - love, faith in God, freedom to pursue your faith as you feel you must. It was a union that permitted people to be diverse. It was like a huge tree firmly rooted in God, then free to branch out as each felt called. And Dr. Mercer seems in fact to have been most strongly against people who were out on one branch and who therefore expected everyone else to be out there with them. It was as in the Bible where Jesus saves his greatest anger not for out and out unchurchy people, but for people whose faith contorts their view of life and makes them judge and condemn others and lead them astray while pretending to be the most religious of all. The only thing he may have been intolerant of was intolerance.

Pat Blair, a member of his church, has commented that there is a distinction between inter-faith activities and inter-church activities. Inter-church activities involve doing things like holding conferences with sessions in various churches, but inter-faith activities involve a deeper union, based on a common faith. In this respect she feels that inter-church activities where main-line churches sometimes try to take on communication techniques of the fundamentalist churches may not be at the real heart of sharing a common faith and that Dr. Mercer’s approach was the true type of inter-faith activity. Mrs. Blair was with hundreds of others, present on the evening of Dr. Mercer’s retirement dinner and as she puts it “It was a most wonderful experience”. Rabbi Ginsburg, Bishop Paul O’Byrne were doing humorous tributes to Dr. Mercer and :he was supposedly on the hot seat. His kibitzing back in such a gentle respectful way” showed for her a tremendous example of true mutual respect and love in action. As she said, “He was not preaching about inter-faith, he was living it”.

Another way Dr. Mercer seems to have interpreted his mission, which many have commented on, is his role to make us think, to give a Biblical perspective to our everyday concerns. And in this respect he did not hesitate to get involved balancing points of view, presenting many sides of arguments. What he did not do was dictate what we should therefore think. He only challenged us to apply our faith activity. So he preached on issues some Christians are afraid to touch with a ten-foot pole in public. In 1950 he preached on “The Christian answer to Communism”. In 1951 he preached about gambling. In 1951 he asked us “Is Pride of Country Christian?” In 1954 he preached on the abolition of capital punishment, in 1956 on whether there might be peace in the Near East. In 1958 he preached about living under an atomic cloud and in 1950 and 1955 he preached about Sunday being a day of rest and whether promoters should make it otherwise. In 1960 he spoke about the church and beverage alcohol, in 1961 on private schools and public aid, in 1962 on racial prejudice, in 1962 on blue laws, in 1962 on the controversy about having prayers in schools, in 1974 on therapeutic abortion, and in 1989 on homosexuality. He dared to speak on these issues. That takes tremendous courage. If you avoid anything controversial you can be guaranteed at least a basic type of endorsement. If you just preach love and homilies you are harmless, predicable and also not wrong. And yet Dr. Mercer wanted us to go further, to make commitments, to question our beliefs, to think. And in so doing he raised inevitable ire of a few, and in so doing he also drew in huge crowds because not only did people enjoy being challenged to think, but they valued hearing the thoughts of such an educated man with no pressure to agree with him. As Dr. Mullen said, he related Bible texts to today and pointed out implications for society. Well rooted in the whole Bible, he saw himself as an interpreter of the word to the present day issues. He didn’t just tell his opinion, but, being an expert of historical theology, also led us to the opinions of others - Karl Barth, Bruner, the great theologians of America and Europe, Niebuhr, John Bennett, Bonhoffer, Luther. No wonder we went to the sermons. We went to hear.

Apparently he was just like that also in meetings of clergy, at presbytery. Dr. Mullen recalls how Dr. Mercer would listen to long debates on various issues and then would quietly stand up and ask a couple of most awkward questions. That brought everyone to sobriety. He was not a confrontational person at all - just making us stop and think. As Mullen said he helped people to live out their own mandate and not his own. As Dr. Mullen said, “He would ask a question that would ruin your night’s sleep”. And for Mullen, that was the ultimate in great teaching. “He helped you reflect and grow”.

To give you an idea of how far this encouragement of thought went, Dr. Mercer tolerated hecklers in the audience. There was one lady who could not follow his logical analysis and who periodically would stand up and yell out “there is a God”. One lady so disrupted the service that the choir director later urged Dr. Mercer to do something to keep her out, but Dr. Mercer said not to and added, “She’s very good for me”.

And did his sermons make us think? The comment I heard most often from people I interviewed was, “You came away with something to think about”, and “He certainly had a very good mind.” “He was a scholar not a literalist/” “I really admired him. He was very interesting to listen to.” “He was a very fine man and really knew what he was talking about. He was a real theologian.” And as T.S. Donaldson said, “It came to me more than anybody else. He seemed to put it over easy like...He just put it out and you could just take it or leave it. The congregation took it.”

Dr. Mercer seems to have seen his mission to raise us up rather than shoot us down. He was a source of encouragement and reassurance rather than judgment and condemnation. This showed through in his sermons and also in his counseling. Mr. and Mrs. Gregory remember that one time there was an illness in the family and Dr. Mercer “knew I wasn’t too well and decided to drop by”. He had a knack of coming when needed. Mrs. Anderson told me of a time when her son had gone astray and rebelled, was up for trial and sentenced. She was sitting at her dining room table writing her son a letter, crying, blaming herself. She was asking herself where she had gone wrong that her son had gotten in such trouble with the law. “I was facing the living room and I saw this tall man striding across the street and it was Dr. Mercer.” She answered his knock at the door and when he came in he talked to her about her situation. “When he finished talking to me I had a completely different outlook.” He explained to her she was taking too much blame on her shoulders. Good families do everything they can but sometimes kids still go astray. And she added, “I was more glad to see a minister that day than I ever had been in my life”.

His daughter Joyce told me of a time in 1985 when her husband had just had back surgery and was in hospital, one of her sons was injured in a bike accident and also was in hospital and she herself was awaiting surgery the next week. As she struggled in the morning to face all these crises, she realized she also had no groceries for dinner and no money around to get them with. She said a little prayer for help. Two hours later her doorbell rang and there on the steps were her dad and Clare. Her dad said they had been shopping for groceries and “Joycie, you came to my head. Something told me to pick up this ham for you” and he handed her a ham for dinner.

Mrs. Baxter tells of being very upset after her father’s death and Dr. Mercer came over. “He was really very good. I hadn’t expected him. I hadn’t even asked him to come, but I really appreciated him. He was a very good listener.”

In his sermons Dr. Mercer also had a comforting presence. As Pat Blair said when Dr. Mercer walked up to the pulpit “there was such a peace that even if you were a distance away you felt it. A peace emanated from him.”

How did he do that? It may have been partly the voice itself, for many have commented on his voice for clarity and warmth. But obviously it was also in what he said. In one sermon on fear, he speaks of his own waking at 2am sometimes, quite afraid, and then realizing God is in charge, being able to go back to sleep. This admission of personal weaknesses was, I think part of his strength. People were reassured to hear him because here was a man who also had known fear and suffering, but who found in his faith great comfort, and so also did the listener. Dr. Mercer spoke periodically on conquering fear. In 1956 “The Conquest of Fear”, 1965 “Steps out of Anxiety”, 1982 “Fear”, and a later sermon “Afraid of Life”. The ability to comfort and encourage is no small skill. For one thing it takes no flying off the handle when you see things going wrong. It takes not panicking when you see people doing something bad. It takes having a faith in God so firm you can be calm because you know God is going to lead this person home. And this great faith in God and in the people of God made was very evident in Dr. Mercer’s calm treatment of crises. Dr. Mullen has summarized Dr. Mercer’s handling of people’s problems as one of not giving advice at all. He “didn’t decide things but clarified them so you could decide actions on your own and change what you thought should be changed”. Dr. Mercer spoke to the deep core of good in each of us and watered it so it could blossom.

And one observer said, “if Jesus was the image of God for man, then Dr. Mercer was the image of Jesus for us”...

Dr. Mercer also seems to have seen his mission as one of clarifying what true faith was and in discussing the thorny issues within a church that sometimes get it bogged down. He spoke frequently about prayer. 1943 “How to Pray in Time of War”, 1954 “Prayer: Our Greatest Resource”, 1957 “Sermon on the Lord’s Prayer”, 1960 “Learning to Pray”. He was not afraid to grapple with the problem of why God allows evil and suffering. 1950 “Why does God Allow Floods?”, 1963 “Evil and the Christian Faith”, 1953 “Suffering and the Christian”, 1958 “The Uses of Adversity”, 1965 “Suffering and the Christian Faith.”

And he did not hesitate to present sermons about fate and free will, 1954 “Is Fate in Control?”, 1956 “Is Life an Accident?”, about evolution (1955 “Creation story versus Science”).

He even went into controversial issues inside the church, 1952 “Faith healing”, 1952 “Does confession help?”, 1953 “Communion as a means of grace”.

To know how controversial these issues are you would have to know that some prominent theologians had argued that confession was mere bravado, while others argued it purged the sinner of sin. Some thought faith healing a complete hoax and others thought it a true judgment of whether a person is good enough in God’s eyes. When beliefs disagree, it is hard for a minister to make a statement without alienating someone, and yet Dr. Mercer, always the thoughtful teacher, led us to re-examine some of our thoughts.

Although it may not have been a conscious mission on his part, it is easy to see that Dr. Mercer’s convictions about the value of women were in many ways ahead of his time. This recognition may have been in large part due to his dynamic wife Roberta who despite the traditional mold of a preacher’s wife being only active in church work, herself chose to continue her career as a school teacher. He respected her choice. He preached with much praise of the ordination of women, and his career is studded with sermons valuing women’s roles in the Bible. 1943 “On Behalf of Mothers”, 1950 “What Christ did for Womanhood”, 1953 “Rebecca: a Daring Woman”, 1963 “The Story of Ruth: sermon on one of the great stories of the Bible”, 1965 “Jephthah’s Daughter - the story of a woman’s courage”, 1971 “The Widow and the Judge: the power of persistent prayer”.

And finally we can sense other aspects of Dr. Mercer’s sense of mission in the recurring themes of some of his sermons. He preached a lot on forgiveness. 1953 “Power to Forgive”, 1957 “The Importance of Forgiving”, 1963 “Forgiveness”. He spoke frequently on the presence of the Holy Spirit which obviously was very real to him, 1960 “The Holy Spirit and Community”, 1960 “Who is the Holy Spirit?”

Certain Bible stories seem to have made profound impressions on him - the vineyard labourer stories, the story of the Magi, and he preached frequently on the theme of gratitude.

His sermons inspired others to spread the word. Missionaries sprang up in his congregation. And he preached sermons letting the congregation know of the church’s wider mission. 1943 “The Church on the Frontier”, 1950 “Southminster goes to China”, 1951 “Southminster goes to Africa”, 1957 “Christ goes to Japan”, 1971 “Pakistani Relief”, 1973 “The Missionary”.

SERMON PREPARATION

There are many ways to prepare sermon messages. One, used by ministers of many faiths and some in the United Church, is to take a Bible text and preach its moral lesson. It is a formula type of preaching, and there are even sheets available on various texts to help ministers know of research in the field. These sermon suggestions are sometimes even printed out months or a year in advance and dated for delivery later. Dr. Mercer did not use this technique.

Another way to present a sermon is to preach on issues of timeless concern - justice, peace, love. These sermons may give examples from many parts of the Bible but for a person who has sat in the pews for a few years, these sermons have an amazing predictability about them. It’s like the joke about the woman going off to church and her husband on her return asking what the sermon was about. She said it was about sin. He asked what the minister had said about sin and she replied, “ He was against it”. Dr. Mercer’s sermons also were not that approach. What was unique about the sermons of Dr. Mercer was that his sermons were contemporary - based often on news reports of the day, local and international and international crises not predictable by formula preaching. But what distinguished them from being peptalks at a political rally was they were rooted in a viewpoint from the Bible. Dr. Littlejohns has said of Dr. Mercer’s sermon preparation that it involved diverse input. “One of the meetings I always enjoyed was the regular staff meeting on Tuesday mornings from 10 - 11:30. Kaz Iwaasa, Minister of Church in Society, I as minister of Pastoral Care and Counseling, Bea Irving, church secretary, met with Nelson in his office to keep informed of our congregation’s programs and activities. However, there was usually time for discussion of current events and trends. Kaz focussed on societal consequences, I was concerned with our congregation’s pastoral care of people, Nelson contributed the theological perspective with relevant comments drawn from his voluminous reading and memories out of his own experience in the life of church - local, national and ecumenical. Nelson had an encyclopedic memory from which he could draw comments and quotes which amazed me”.

His daughter Joyce recalls that the actual sermon writing often occurred Saturday night. The kids were not allowed to have friends in because dad was busy and needed quiet. Calgary Herald reporter Brian Brennan noted that “exceptional sermons take time. Mercer did his reading and thinking in the early part of the week, drawing ideas from the headlines in the paper, from the scriptures and from his extensive library of theology and philosophy books”. He would ride his bike or do carpentry in his workshop and on Thursday would get down his pen and yellow legal paper and start to put his thoughts down on the paper. Then on Saturday he would prepare a more final set of notes and at 6am Sunday he started typing. Though many of us, amateurs, would think this might be running things just a tad close to the wire, it was in fact not that at all. What was happening was the jelling of ideas from a whole week, being put into final form, but already deep in the mind. What was actually written on the sheet was often just a few key words and paragraph starters. To an outside observer these notes give few clues about what the actual final sermon would be and many of those notes were discarded after the sermon by Dr. Mercer himself. The jottings had meaning only to him - but to him they had tremendous meaning, which he then presented.

It is possible to preach a sermon with say one idea and then examples. Dr. Mercer’s sermons were never that way. He spoke in layers of interpretation. On a sermon about life after death, for instance, he spoke about immortality and then about life after an emotional death and then about new life for the world. In a sermon in 1966 on suffering, he touched on whether God is morally intolerable, whether God causes suffering, whether God allows suffering and whether, if you think that, it is wise to be an atheist, and then what a Christian’s answer is.

In a sermon in 1968 on Christian citizenship he touched on the role of protest, draft dodging, revolution and raised pros and cons of the definition of law and order and whether Christians are called to obey the law at all times. In other words his sermons did not just handle one issue, but several , and he proposed the treatment of the issues just as questions thrown out to ponder, viewpoints of the Bible and people he respected, along with his own viewpoint.

It was not a presentation based on repetition of a Bible “truth”. It was not a preparation of an idea based on emotional fighting of evil or calling people to rally out of guilt. Some have called it an intellectual approach. Mrs. W. Boyle has said, “He obviously had a lot of theological knowledge. Rather than homilies you get a feeling of knowledge behind what he’s saying”. Miss Peggy Glendenning said, “I think he was one of the most wonderful ministers that I have heard. He was just so down to earth. I always came away thinking ‘I know how to live a better life this weel’”.

Dr. Mullen has said that Dr. Mercer’s preparation of a sermon was to give the background of issues and not just push texts.

Well how is it that a person can think of that many layers for an issue? How is it that a person can on his own think of not only a logical flow of a discussion but anticipate educated objections and also answer them? One of the great secrets of Dr. Mercer’s approach seems to have been that he also had a sounding board for his sermons in embryo. He would prepare them and would then practice them in front
of his wife Roberta, and sometimes in front of his kids. And Mrs. Mercer was a severe critic. It was, as Joyce Manchulenko says, not so much an argument as a vociferous discussion of minds and by the time the sermon was actually presented on Sunday, the kids had already heard it two or three times. But the congregation hadn’t. And what they heard was brilliance.

The sermon notes were not written word for word for several reasons it seems. One was that because they were just notes, Dr. Mercer then looked up a lot and told stories rather than reading them. He presented ideas in a very natural way and listening to his sermons you can tell that he also, on the spur of the moment, frequently inserted jokes. This all made for a very natural presentation. Public speakers know that a joke written out and having to be read usually bombs, and that the art of humor and of telling poignant stories, is to be natural.

Dr. Mullen has in fact concluded Dr. Mercer was “the top notch preacher of my life”.

It is an interesting observation that the public stereotype of a successful salesman is often of a huckster, loud-mouthed, slimily friendly, phony and selfish, when in fact the very successful salespeople who have made a 40 year living at it are in fact quite, good listeners, out to help the customer get what he wants, and as willing to turn down a sale as to get one. An outstanding minister is similar. Where the public may think that the most outstanding preacher must be someone who yells at the top of his voice, pounds the pulpit and has a personal vendetta against sin, the truly great preachers are in fact not like that at all. Dr. Mercer spoke calmly, humbly, presented ideas and just left them out there for us to think about. He did not get upset, vindictive or insulted. He did not put us on guilt trips to give more money or despair about the world. He was like a rock, an anchor, a calm voice like a conscience, and if this reminds you of Jesus, it may be because it reminded a lot of people of Jesus.

A brief word should also be said about Dr. Mercer’s sermon titles. In this respect it is not a skill of advertising in the sense of trying to trick someone into buying an idea, but it is an important skill to be able to write a sermon title that entices people to come to find out what is being said. A sermon title that gives it all away obviously would draw few - for instance “The Perils of Sin” or “Why I Dislike Abortion”. Dr. Mercer’s sermons for one thing would not be one-sided and opinionated so his sermons were impossible to put so simply into title, but in addition, his sermon titles piqued the curiosity of the newspaper read. “The Tearing of the Curtain”, “Is there an unpardonable sin?” “How to Start a Revolution”, “Running Away”, “The Ship under the Cross”, “Can God Be Packaged?”, “The Double Drum Beat”, “The Haunted House”, “Sex and the Sermon”, “Upsetting the Applecart” - such titles pique curiosity. But even when his titles are less mysterious, there is not clue as to what his point of view will be. “Where is Love?”, “Should You Give to Panhandlers?”, “Is Being a Christian hard or easy?”

Dr. Mercer had a knack of just posing the question. In fact some of the questions he posed were ones which were more like devil’s advocate, making us curious. “Why Celebrate Christmas?”, “Why go on Living?”, “Who Cares?”, “Why should we have sacraments?”, “Must home be sweet always?”, “Is Protestantism in Decline?”

But another very unique thing about Dr. Mercer’s sermon titles is that they often have a sentence after them of explanation. eg. “To Grow in Faith - Ours is described as an age of doubt. How can you grow in faith in Jesus Christ?” or “Who Killed Jesus? According to an opinion poll most Protestants say the Jews are responsible. What are the facts?”

Dr. Mercer wrote sermon titles that were for the most part intriguing. Even humorous - as in “Missing Heirs”, “Make up and Live”, “Of Pigs and Kings”, “Can we Learn from the insects?”

SERMON STYLE

Central United Church has a radio broadcast over CFCN that had started in about 1927. When Dr. Mercer arrived in 1962 this broadcast extended not only to Calgary, but to most of Southern Alberta and some of B.C., Saskatchewan and into the northern United States. When a person’s only exposure to a message is through the ear, when he cannot see or feel what is going on in a church, the auditory part of a sermon presentation becomes very important. A radio minister has to be of very specific qualities. His voice must be pleasant to listen to, clearly enunciated. He must be able to put his ideas into succinct expression in a very closely regulated amount of time. He must be able to speak down to the minute. Many ministers just do not have these skills. They may be brilliant but “you had to be there” for the emotional impact. They may say the most beautiful ideas but their voice just is not an on-air quality. Some of these skills can be trained but most of us who have ever listened to any public lectures know that it is very possible for an intelligent professor still to mumble, drone on, to speak too quickly, to slur words. A radio minister has to be meticulous in his speech.

And yet a person speaking live must have all of the above and yet also have a presence. He has to be natural, calm and extremely polite if there are interruptions. For a person to at the same time be on a tight deadline for timing by radio and also to be speaking before hundreds of people live, and required to not be rushed is a huge undertaking.

Dr. Mercer was familiar with live radio broadcasts from his Winnipeg days where he would do a morning show and then rush across the city to then preach the 11am sermon at church. But in Calgary he had to combine the two skills simultaneously. He actually was able to do it beautifully. Few in the live audience were aware of the pressure he was under on radio and the only notice we paid to it was when he periodically would greet the radio audience at the start of the sermon. But behind the scenes - ah, there are the stories. People have commented to me how he often would have to readjust his sermon length right up there at the pulpit, chopping out words, shortening, just because some announcer or minute person who had gone before him had run on for 10 minutes instead of 3. And he did it without complaining - only those in the family who had heard the rehearsal sermon were really aware of what he was having to do to such a well-prepared talk. How did he feel about this? Challenged it seems - and ready to take on the challenge so we in the congregation never heard a half-sermon, and all the main ideas still were said, but we lost out periodically on the examples. And from his philosophy of life which he expressed and lived, he went with the flow. In retirement he said, “I am one of those people who just seems to trudge along...” and when life threw him a quick change of plans he did not fight it but worked within it.

Mr. Bittorf has commented, “His voice was always clear - you could understand every word”. Mrs. A.B. Campbell said, “He had a beautiful radio voice”.

One of the things that meant a lot to his listeners was that he did not read the sermon but spoke it. Mrs. Audrey Coats has said, “He didn’t need many notes. He seemed to have researched it very well”.

Listening to a sermon requires of the listener the ability to follow a train of logic and to then, in his own mind, try to piece together the basic gist of the ideas if there is anything he wants to take home. To aid in this, many ministers adopt a style which basically states the theme, gives examples then summarizes with the theme. Another technique, and this was used by Dr. Lawson and Dr. Switzer, was to speak in an organization style which is more or less 3 or 4 basic points and to actually number them for the listener and then at the end to repeat those four points. Since excellent ministers can use any of these techniques there is no desire here to claim a superiority of any, but just to show that the one thing a good speaker does not do is just to ramble on, where the listener is not really conscious of any theme and where the speaker if he does not like his ideas actually seems to be as one teenage boy said, “like a gunfighter shooting off randomly in all directions”.

Dr. Mercer’s technique bears careful scrutiny because it was none of the above and yet it was powerful. He usually told the sermon topic somewhere in the first few sentences. He then led us on an excursion into thoughts on this topic like a stroll through a park. He touched on one aspect of the theme and explained it, then touched on another and later another. Then he led us gently to a temporary end of the walk, with his own conclusion gently presented, then prayer. His organizing device was not to number points, but to make us aware of the fact, very casually that we were now moving to another one. He would say for instance things like “and so as we follow the story”, “and I’ve said here before and I’m sure you’ve learned before”, “if there’s another one, it’s just this simple point”, “I suppose we could ask the contemporary question...” “At any rate there’s that thing of...” “Now there’s just one thing more and I’m done”.

“That’s an important thing” “You’ll be familiar with that I’m sure”. “That’s an important thing”, “and then the third thing and this a rather interesting thing..”, “How good if it had ended there”, “and I suppose each of us has to ask..” “And an interesting thing about it is..” “and so we have the story of”, “I hope out of this perhaps you’ll get a better feeling for what the Hebrew talks about”.

The sermon style bears considerable analysis because it is so effective. I would note in his style three outstanding features: humility, respect for the listener and an awareness of a second perspective.

Notice how the talk was more like a conversation, a chat. Dr. Mercer had researched these ideas for days just to compile the thinking of years of reading on this topic, and yet he at no point pretends to have the final word. Notice how he only presents ideas for us to think about, and even those he does not label for us as essential, only “interesting” “important” for our consideration. Notice how he uses down to earth terms, calling an argument or thought a “thing”, using expressions like “something like that”, explaining Bible passages by telling background “Here he’s talking about...” And notice how he is not at all embarrassed to admit his own imperfections. “That may not be a good word to use”.

He really respected the minds of his listeners. He is quite aware of the fact that some in the audience know nothing about the principles of Christianity while others are very well read in the Bible. It must be very hard to preach to such a diverse audience but notice how he did it. He quotes the Bible but gives a background to it to explain not only the situation at the time, but sometimes even origins of words used in the text if they are helpful to its understanding. For a new listener there is the story and for a listener who knows the text well there is also something new - more information, possibly a new angle. Notice how he says “You will remember that..” in the kindest way to not offend those who have heard something before but also to still say it for those for whom it is new. And notice how the sermon is so full of ideas that it is guaranteed there is something new to think about for each person listening. And notice how Dr. Mercer does not tell us what to think, but only presents ideas for us to ponder. He respects not only that we can handle philosophical ideas, thorny issues but he also respects the way in which we may or may not choose to agree. Notice for instance that some of his sentences are in fact quite long. Often a speaker is told to speak in only short sentences to be easily understood, but Dr. Mercer knew we could handle long ones sometimes. Notice how he repeats periodically a key word or phrase, for emphasis, so we will listen again to the choice of words “then he began his ministry, a ministry of...”

But another thing we must certainly notice is that he has that beautiful ability to also be an outsider to the discourse and identify with a listeners point of view. He knew listeners also have lives outside the church and he would in an humorous aside often comment as if he were an impatient listener - “one more point and then I’m done”. (“I don’t mean to belabor this”..)

Sometimes his asides were to handle those who were listening without full endorsement, and this in the absolutely most good-hearted and happy way. When he quoted twice in two sermons from the same book he said, “Maybe I should reassure you that I have read other books”. Sometimes, and this stands out particularly, he is quite aware of what a person following his thoughts might say to counter them, and he also enters that into the discussion. For instance “hope” and by that I don’t mean...

Notice how he introduces ideas “I would like to suggest to you one or two things that come out of this little parable”. Notice how he links ideas “Let me move on beyond that”. Notice how he asks the question that is in the mind of the listener. “What does it mean to be lost? - and how he answers “maybe it would be easier to look at what it would be like to be found”. He is leading us on an excursion into thought and in this respect no thoughts are disallowed. There is something of a curious scientist in the approach - of an investigator after understanding. And that in many ways is what was so incredibly memorable about Dr. Mercer’s sermon style was that here we had a man wide-open to the search for meaning and truth.

Notice how he was aware of the mood a sermon set “We’ve got to get on to a happier note here”. Notice how he shows us his own weakness “When I first heard that I thought it was close to blasphemy but now...”

Another aspect of his sermon style was the incredible mix of deep conviction about his own beliefs, without ever becoming angry or pounding the pulpit. He said, “I’m not one to be ranting about communism, but I think we need to be concerned about it, because of the worth it sets upon the individual life” and notice how he anticipates objections, “I’m not making some plea here for...”

Notice the linking, “Well, that’s one element. Another area was..” Notice how he introduces, “In this that I mean to do this morning”. In one sermon he said, “You can be sure I don’t intend to make any ethical decisions for you. The most I can do is give you my own perspective and that I think is a Christian perspective and make it something you can discuss among yourselves”.

Humility “I want to give you a bit of a sketch...” “I think it’s important that we have this in perspective”. “Here are some simple things - not telling you but reminding you”.

Timing - “very quickly” - linking “that sort of is a prelude to everything else that follows”. Linking “and so on down”. “May I just add one other?” Question of listener “What was the response to that?” Well, briefly observer “I find this interesting and I hope you do too”. “We could have fun here”. “Quite a lengthy thing but he goes on here”. Linking “what after that?” “This morning I wasn’t going to speak about”. “Just one or 2 sentences by way of beginning”. Listener question ,“Are there any guides?” What is he talking about? How can that joy be there? This is going sound pedantic. Summary organization “This is a basic thing”. “Here I have to extrapolate a bit”. Now prayer. Humble “There’s a story I like very much. It had to do with”. “I don’t pretend to know what to make of that”. “It’s not going to bother me if you want to hold with that view”.

For Dr. Mercer the walk over a path of ideas was essential. In one of his later sermons he alludes to the fact people often asked him whether he was for or against abortion and his answer was, “I will not give a general answer about abortion. I’m that way more and more. I’m tired of these generalizations. They’re too easy”.

Clare Mercer has said that her husband’s voice had a calming effect. Several people have noted that his voice was appreciated because though audible and easily understood it was not irritatingly loud.

Dr. Mercer’s goal was to speak for a 20 minute period. Very rarely did he go ver the twenty minutes and even when his sermons were not being broadcast, he put his ideas into this tight format. He had been in congregations when the minister had gone on for 45 minutes and he had also been there in retirement, John Burrill had prepared an excellent talk and the announcement lady went on for 20 minutes. As Mrs. Mercer said, “it was dreadful”.

Dr. Mercer frequently spoke using analogy and the examples he gave were down to earth. Some were farm images about pumps and cows, some were about shopping or raising children. And even when he presented them he was humble. “That may be a poor analogy but the point is”.
It has been noted that Dr. Mercer researched his sermons widely and that he quoted from sources both historical and contemporary, from within and from outside the church, and from other’s faiths as well as from his own denomination. But it must also be noted that he did so with great joy. There was such a respect for ideas of value, from whatever the source and one of his final sermons has him saying, “Now I’ll quote from Luther, who I love so much”.

There is always a basic mood to a sermon. Those outside religious faith assume the mood is one of imposing guilt on you and leading you with fervor to take dramatic action and particularly to give money. Those outside the church assume that the sermon is basically a con job or the thoughts of a very naive observer of human life, indoctrinated from birth. They assume that a sermon works itself up to fever intensity, tearful repentance scenes and glad-handing handshakes. They assume that a sermon paints the world as evil and that particular faith as the one route to truth and light, condemning all outside it. How surprised such an observer would have been to hear Dr. Mercer. The mood was not one of guilt or ranting or begging for money or tricking you. The mood was not one of despair about the world or humanity or of angry condemnation of people or ideas. Far from it. The mood was one of quiet weighing of ideas, respect for all listeners and all stages of life they were at, hope for the world, optimism about how man could play a role in it, a reassurance, a wonderful feeling in fact that the world is not all bad, and an incentive to go out the next week a little better prepared to be grateful for what you’ve got and kind to all you meet.

And in terms of sermon presentation what does a speaker do if the unthinkable happens? What if you forgot your notes? What if you are heckled? What if the whole congregation is distracted by a major emergency? Dr. Mercer had to handle all of these. One day he noticed just before sermon time that his notes were not with him. He mentioned this to a person beside him who quietly left to go get them and meantime he carried on, brilliantly, as if he had them. The ideas were obviously all just as neatly still there in his head.

Another time someone in the congregation had a heart attack and he noted the problem and stopped everything. Emergency medical aid was given immediately and Dr. Mercer offered from the whole congregation a prayer. And he dealt with hecklers patiently, not arguing back as if his ego was threatened, but simply calmly saying his beliefs.

When Dr. Mercer retired he often still preached frequently. It was said at his funeral in fact that preaching sermons had become such a skill with him and so much a part of his life, that he felt restless without it. How ironic. I hope he is not still restless because we need his wisdom as much as ever. I hope knowing we are collecting not just his words of the past, but the inspiration of his approach to life, helps him realize he is still leading us - and always will be.

HIS WORKS

Dr. Mercer, according to his wife Clare, considered his sermons of ultimate importance, but obviously a minister’s work does not stop there. We have already mentioned how his life also exemplified his philosophy about ministering to his flock, about ecumenism and interfaith, and we should also note how his beliefs functioned in terms of counseling meetings, letters, phone calls, and publications he wrote.

In the 1960s the local Calgary Herald had prominent church ministers take turns writing columns in the Saturday paper under a heading “Our Churches Speak”. It was one approach the local paper took to covering religion and over the years they had tried several. In the 1940s they had, besides the ad for the churches individually, short columns for the larger churches where the content of the upcoming sermons would be highlighted, as well as notice of upcoming events during the week. In Dr. Mercer’s era the regular articles about each church had disappeared but the columns were allowed. One January Dr. Mercer wrote about lotteries, claiming they could make a lot of money but that they would not help social services and would not significantly provide tax relief.

Dr. Mercer preached a sermon in his later years, in retirement, which provided a rare insight into his overview of his role. He contrasted the attitudes to life of John Bunyan and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, both good men, both Christian and both outstanding for their faith. But Bunyan believed the Christian life is contaminated by evil and the solution is to live apart from the world, to avoid temptations and to hope for the celestial kingdom. Bonhoeffer however, felt that as a Christian he was called to wade right into life’s suffering, to not flee the world. He went to where people were suffering and tried to help. So one stood for pietism and the other for involvement. One’s goal was to be holy and religious and the other was not aiming at being religious but at being active for God. And Dr. Mercer said he definitely wanted to be like Bonhoeffer. Even in retirement he dared to rock a few boats and he summed it up in one sentence “I hope I can be something of an extinct volcano still erupting occasionally”.

He was not concerned with the outward appearance of virtue, but with doing what he knew what was right despite what the world might think. As he put it “I hope we’ll all meet in heaven but in the meantime I have other things to do”.

And in view of this role as a volcano, one might assume he then meant to pour lava over us, to judge, condemn, burn us. But no. As Mrs. Mercer said, “He preferred to be with the person and let the person sort it out in his own mind as to what the solution would be. That didn’t mean he withdrew and was silent. He would just have this calming effect on the whole thing”. Ironic isn’t it? He was a person with passionate beliefs, but tolerant, a man with fire in the soul, yet calming. A man who, though a born leader, had an art of leading others to also themselves lead, to find their own roles and pursue them with gusto.

It is one thing to preach how faith should affect your business dealings, but quite another to arrange ways for this to happen. In 1962 Dr. Mercer took part in Industrial Thanksgiving Day where Carl Nickle, the president of the Chamber of Commerce, was a guest speaker. In November 1961 he hosted an Industrial Thanksgiving service where the minister of labor, the deputy minister of labor and a federal government spokesperson met with Father Pat O’Byrne and Rev. David Reese and Dr. Mercer. In 1961 the Industrial Thanksgiving Day had an attendance of 15,000 and featured the chief justice of Alberta and the secretary of the Alberta Federation of Labor.

Dr. Mercer also had an interesting way of dealing with the press. A person can refuse press coverage but Dr. Mercer did not. He encouraged church members to get involved in community, have opinions and if the press wanted to cover that, fine. But he did draw the line at press coverings of meetings of presbytery. He seemed to feel, particularly as the issue of homosexual clergy got emotional, that press coverage was not appropriate. He said this was a problem within the family and the group of church ministers did not need press reporting of every phase and speech uttered.

And this tells something about Dr. Mercer’s sense of loyalty. Never in his sermons did he speak against people. Mention of the irritations of his own life, and mention of any problems within his own family just did not happen, so despite being a very public figure, he maintained a personal privacy. He was open to discussion on any issue, within his family and outside it, but not about the family with outsiders.

It is one thing to preach about how all the faiths should try to get along. But to live it is harder. Dr. Mercer tried to live it. In 1963 he was preacher at the Cathedral Church of the Redeemer (Anglican).

At Inter-Faith Communities Action Committee, Father Patrick O’Byrne has noted that Dr. Mercer came to every meeting and when asked why said, “Where is there a better show in town?” Father Patrick O’Byrne appreciated Dr. Mercer’s “attitude of caring, astuteness, observations and profound decision making. His fine sense of humor and general demeanor added class and dignity to the InterFaith.” And Father O’Byrne has added in an aside, “when two Catholics discussed Nelson they often commented that if he was a Catholic he would be a Bishop”.

When I first started this tribute project, one of the first calls I got was from Rev. Canon John Flagler, Anglican, who rushed over to me with tapes he’d made from Dr. Mercer’s sermons. They had met in Brandon in the 1940s and had been friends nearly 50 years. There was something so touching in the friendship he spoke of between the two that I sensed a deep love and admiration.

Dr. Mercer said, “As a church we need to be concerned about every member of the community” and again referring to whether or not he was specially chosen by God “I’m no favorite son of His. God has called me to serve the children”.

When Mr. and Mrs. Hankins were sent by the United Church to be missionaries to Nepal, they had the option of having their commissioning done at First Baptist Church since id was, as Hankins said, “our own church”. Dr. Mercer didn’t mind. Dr. Hankins has recalled working with Dr. Mercer at Interfaith: “I appreciated his ability to see various sides to issues. In Nepal we would be with the United mission to Nepal, eclectic group from 20 countries and personnel from Pentecostal to High Anglican backgrounds. Nelson’s large heart seemed to understand this and he was one of the reasons our commissioning was so special”.

Rev. Littlejohns has said, “few of our church leaders enjoyed the respect and close friendship he had with the leaders of other major denominations - Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. He felt equally at home with the Council of Churches as in our own conference in Presbytery”.

Another way Dr. Mercer reached out to other faiths was by inviting people in for their celebrations, regardless of their faith. Central was the scene of graduation exercises for nurses, of reunions for boy scouts and cubs, of ceremonies of celebration of local bands, local choirs - anyone and everyone.

It is one thing to pay token homage to women but quite another to give them an active role. In 1967 women were permitted to serve communion for the first time at Central.

In 1936 the United Church permitted the ordination of women. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in U.S. didn’t allow such ordination until 1955, the Methodists not till 1956, the Lutherans not till 1960 and women were only counted as members of a Hebrew church quorum in 1973. Anglicans did not allow women priests till 1975 and ordination of women rabbis only started in 1985. Dr. Mercer was way ahead of his time.

WHAT HE LEFT US

Jesus became prominent in history without leaving one word in print. The only record we have of his writing anything was when he traced one word in the sand and even that we don’t know what it was. He spread his message a very unique way - by giving it. Others wrote down parts of it and records of experiences of being with him, with the sometimes varying accuracy in detail of any eyewitnesses. And yet God chose to entrust His message to us this way, in what might seem very risky and unreliable. We have a drive in modern society to get things in print to save them.

In that respect Dr. Mercer was definitely of the old school that did not put things into print. For those of us who preserve written documents and enjoy books, his habit of throwing out his words is quite irritating and frustrating. To collect his sermons is difficult.

He sensed his mission was to go from one mind to another, from one heart to another and he did this through spoken word. One person has told me that Dr. Mercer was often asked to preach a great sermon another time and he always refused saying, “It’s a done deal”. The mission was to plant the seed in the mind and once planted, it was done.

The point is some ministers are incredibly humble. Dr. Wilk, a retired UC minister has told me that he did not save his early sermons because they strike him now as so immature and obvious. It is quite likely Dr. Mercer felt the same about some of his sermons, and as many great minds, always felt someone else could have done it better and he himself if given the chance to add new perspective to it, could also do it better. And yet these ministers do not realize what it means to be a lay member of a congregation hearing the thoughts of a great thinker. Everything is new to us. Every insight, even if made 50 years ago, is still new to someone our here. And what they seem to forget is that the themes of Bible teachings are timeless. There is no such thing as an old-fashioned sermon. Dr. Mercer was preaching it. The weighing of ideas, the considering of a wide range of opinions is never old fashioned.

But I want to add something else. Twice now people have told me of a time when Dr. Mercer walked into their lives at a time of crisis and offered a patient listening ear and then some words of encouragement, a wise perspective that changed their lives - and the people remember vividly the day and the visit but they cannot remember word for word what Dr. Mercer said. It is as if these words went from the soul to the soul and barely passed through the medium of words except to give them form for the passage. It is as if Dr. Mercer himself did not create the words, but that they came through him. Since he was so humble it is unlikely he felt his words gave wisdom but that he was only a vehicle.

And so when I hear of a few choice sentences that changed a life, I’m dying to know what they were. I’m very curious to know what those words were, and so would anyone be. That thirst is in fact a thirst, if you realize it, to hear the word of God. We are all very curious to know what God leads people to say. So who is to say that in the 1990s people have no interest in God or God’s message? We have great interest in it, when we are sure the message is from God, which is in fact our only hesitation. We are as a culture enthralled with stories about the occult, about travel through time, about after-life experiences and we watch movies like Dead Again and Always, and Defending Your Life and All of Me and Chances Are, and Hello Again, questioning life and death and whether there are spirits that talk to us. We are fascinated by this and we yearn after knowing what God might be saying to us.

A lot of people feel that the decline in Church attendance at the United Church is a sign of the world going to pot and a lack of belief in God. Not necessarily so. A recent survey by Life magazine found that most people in the U.S. do believe in God, but not too many believe in going to church.

I have a feeling Dr. Mercer would understand that. I heard one minister say that the goal of a church is to fill the pews. Wrong. That would make it sound like a commodity we were trying to sell. A 1986 survey found that world-wide Protestantism is under 7% of the population. Is that a reason to despair? No. Because Dr. Mercer left me with a keen sense that we are here to serve, to read widely including the Bible, to figure out what God would have us do each in our own small corner, and to do it. We are not called to fill pews or sell pews - we are called to serve others.

Dr. Mercer left me with a role model of logical thought, unafraid of questioning things, of tolerance of others way beyond my natural tolerance, and of infinite patience. He was an enigma but I keep coming back to studying his because he was so many contrasts, all of which I admire. When I am troubled I think of what he might say, but since he rarely offered solutions, I think more of his attitude of how I should be approaching this problem. And his life and his sermons taught me to read about it, to listen to people, to pray, and to act on my convictions, and to trust the result to God. I also feel free to fail and pick myself up and try again because he also allowed failure.

And that is what I call a preacher.

(p) September 27th, 2001