21 Pentecost, Year B

“BRIDGES OF MERCY”
A sermon by The Very Rev. Gene Tucker, given at Trinity Church, Mt. Vernon, Illinois; Sunday, October 25, 2009
Proper 25 -- Isaiah 59: 1–4,9–19; Psalm 13; Hebrews 5:12–6:1,9–12; Mark 10:46–52

“Jesus of Nazareth, Son of David, have mercy on me.”

Mercy is at the heart of today’s gospel text:

Mercy requested

Mercy denied

Mercy given

Blind Bartimaeus (notice that Mark has to translate the meaning of his name, indicating that the Aramaic prefix “bar” means “son”), the son of Timaeus, asks for mercy from the Lord.

But the crowd who is traveling with Jesus denies him mercy, saying (in effect) “Shut up!”

And it is the Lord who bridges the gap, the gulf which has been created by Bartimaeus’ condition and the crowd’s reaction, as Jesus asks him, “What do you want me to do for you?”

Let’s explore the three aspects of mercy which are before us today:

Mercy requested: Bartimaeus’ life situation was probably pretty dire. Notice that Mark tells us that he was a beggar. That wass probably the only way he could support himself, because he was probably unable to work. Moreover, he may have been shunned by others in the community there in Jericho, for many may have felt that he was blind because of some gross sin in his life. Such was the reality of life 2,000 years ago. So, Bartimaeus may have suffered from both poverty and social isolation.

Mercy denied: Now, we see that Mark tells us that the crowd that was traveling with Jesus “rebuked him, telling him to be silent.” Why might they have reacted to Bartimaeus in this way? We can only speculate on the reasons. But as we do so, I think we can make some pretty safe guesses. First, we pick up a theme we’ve just mentioned in the paragraph above: They may have felt that Bartimaeus was blind because he was a sinner. We saw this sort of an assumption at work a couple of weeks ago, as we considered the case of the rich man who came to Jesus, asking what he had to do to “inherit eternal life.” (See Mark 10: 17 – 31). In that case, we remarked that the expectation in Jesus’ day was that the man was rich because he was a righteous man, a man who had received God’s favor. In the case of blind Bartimaeus, just the reverse might have been true: the crowd may have felt that some gross sin was the reason for his condition. Moreover, the crowd may have assessed the situation with one glance, and may have concluded that the business they were engaged in, that of going to the great feast of Passover in Jerusalem, took priority over dealing with a man who had no means whatsoever to join in such an important mission. These people were “on a mission” to Jerusalem, traveling some 15 miles west, and 4,000 feet up (for Jericho is situated about 1,200 feet below sea level, while Jerusalem sits at 2,800 feet above sea level) to the great feast. They may have asked themselves silently, “Why bother with this guy? He obviously has no way to go to the Passover, to be a part of the wonderful thing that we’re doing.”

Mercy given: In contrast to the crowd’s reaction, Jesus bridges the gap with Bartimaeus. In so doing, He asks him to name exactly the need that prompted Bartimaeus to cry out. In his response, we catch a glimpse of Bartimaeus’ life situation, for contained in his comment, “Master, let me regain my sight,” we are led to believe that Bartimaeus was able to see at some point in his life. Now, notice Jesus’ reply, “Go your way, your faith has made you well.”

We would miss some important points about this gospel text if we didn’t mention the following:

The “way”: Jesus says, as part of His response to Bartimaeus, “Go your way.” It turns out that Bartimaeus’ “way” is the way to Jerusalem, for Mark tells us that he joined Jesus and the others who were traveling to Jerusalem, for Mark says that he “followed Him (Jesus) on the way.” You see, the point here is that Jesus’ gift of mercy and healing allowed Bartimaeus to follow Jesus, to take part in life in its fullness, on the way to the Passover!

Shedding his mantle: There is urgency in Bartimaeus’ request. Mark tells us that, at Jesus’ invitation, Bartimaeus “sprang up and came to Jesus.” In the process, he threw off his mantle. Some biblical scholars see importance in what Bartimaeus did, noting that he was willing to give up an important part of all that he owned, his mantle, (remember that it could get cold at that time in Palestine) in order to come to the Lord. Contrast Bartimaeus’ behavior with that of the rich man we mentioned a little while ago: Bartimaeus was willing to drop whatever prevented him from following the Lord, while the rich man clutched his possessions ever tighter around him at Jesus’ words of invitation to come and be a disciple. Moreover, the rich man “went away sorrowful” at Jesus’ words, while Bartimaeus “sprang up” to come to the Lord.

Now, what conclusions might we draw from today’s text?

I offer these conclusions to you, for your own reflection: As human beings we may experience an attitude of “mercy requested” and “mercy denied” at various times in our lives. Sometimes, we will experience both attitudes within ourselves with respect to our own situations. Sometimes, we will attempt to deny mercy to another who requests it from the Lord, and in the process, we will forget that we ourselves have received mercy from the Lord.

Let’s explore the first situation: Within our own attitudes about ourselves, we may know that we need God’s mercy. But there may be the expectation – also within ourselves – that we are unworthy of God’s love and mercy. We are caught, just where Satan wants us to be, between our deep need and our equally deep assessment that we are unworthy of such mercy. So, like the rich man, we turn away, as we clutch our unworthiness around us. Our sense of unworthiness often becomes our most prized possession in such cases. Have you been in this situation? I have! And, as a priest, I’ve seen persons who have been in such cases. When we are caught in such a clash between our need our our inability to receive mercy, we simply cannot accept the idea that the Lord can bridge the gap to address our need.

Now, we turn to the second situation: How often do our own expectations and our quick assessments of others’ circumstances lead us to believe that there’s no point in allowing other’s needs to come into God’s presence. We may say to ourselves, “There’s no hope for that situation, nothing that can be done – even by God – to bring healing and wholeness.” But, the point of today’s gospel text is that the seemingly impossible is entirely possible for the Lord to do. “For with God, nothing will be impossible!” (The angel Gabriel’s words to Mary, Luke 1: 37).

Thanks be to the Lord, who bridges the gap, bringing mercy, healing and wholeness.

AMEN.

20 Pentecost, Year B

"SERVANT OF ALL"
A sermon by The Rev. Gene Tucker, given at Trinity Church, Mt. Vernon, Illinois; Sunday, October 18, 2009
Proper 24 -- Isaiah 53: 4 – 12; Psalm 91: 9 – 16; Hebrews 4: 12 – 16; Mark 10: 35 – 45

Sometimes, at wee hours in the morning, I will wake up, finding one of our Cocker Spaniels, Phoebe by name, standing on me with her front paws. Now, this means that she wants something…it could be to go outside, it could be that she wants to check out some of the wildlife outside, or it simply could be that she wants a belly rub.

This is quite a sight, this Cocker Spaniel standing on my chest, her long ears drooping down around her face. Her eyes are hard to see when she does this, because the skin on her face is a little loose, and her eyes disappear. It’s an unforgettable sight.

Whenever this happens – and I’m glad to say it isn’t often – I don’t know whether to be amused or to be slightly annoyed. (After all, this dog can sleep the entire day away if she wants to, a luxury I can’t afford.)

But, once I’ve sorted through those two options for responding to her bold behavior, I usually ask her, “OK, so are you the king of the hill?” (The “hill” being me, of course!)

Today’s gospel text has a lot to do with being “king of the hill”, or – more properly – it has to do with being close to the top of the hill, right next to the king.

We hear James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, ask the Lord to grant them spots #2 and # 3 in the glorious time to come.

Hmmmm…..neither of these two guys have any ego problems at all, do they?

Obviously, their request shows that they know something wonderful is going to happen, for they use the term, “in your glory”.

We could speculate about their request, and the meaning of that word, “glory”. We might be safe in thinking that James and John expected Jesus to be the earthly ruler who would bring the ancient glory of King David to reality again. If so, then God’s chosen people would be liberated from the oppressive rule of the occupying Romans. The early prestige of the nation under David would be restored to the prominence of earlier times.

It’s probably safe to say that many in Jesus’ day expected just that sort of a Messiah. Maybe James and John did, too.

So, perhaps James and John wanted positions like “foreign minister” or “treasurer” in the time when Jesus would be in charge.

But notice the reaction of the other ten disciples…Mark tells us that they were “indignant” at this request.

Maybe they expected to be given those places of prominence – the places that James and John asked for - when Jesus entered into the glorious time that was to come, a time that these original disciples might have expected would come sometime very soon.

Such displays that smack of jockeying for position, prominence and power must have been commonplace as the disciples were being molded for their future role as apostles by the Lord. Time and again, and particularly recently in our gospel texts, we’ve been reading about this problem of leadership vs. servanthood, prominence vs. lowliness, servanthood vs. mastery of all, a problem that Jesus had to deal with on more than one occasion.

For example, recall with me the discussion that took place among the disciples about who was the greatest (see Mark 9: 33 – 37), a text we heard recently. In response to this ludicrous discussion about who was the greatest, Jesus takes a little child in His arms, and says to the twelve very nearly the same words we hear today, “If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” You see, in the ancient world, a child was a “nobody”. That’s Jesus’ point: to be a part of the kingdom, one must enter as a “nobody”.

But let’s return to the text…..notice that Jesus responds with a statement, which leads to a question: “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Notice that the two men chime in with their answer, “We are able.”)

In response to their ready affirmation that they are able to drink the cup that Jesus drinks, and to be baptized with the baptism He has been baptized with, Jesus then indicates that they will, indeed, do both: they will drink from the same cup, the cup of suffering (see Mark 14: 36, where Jesus uses the word “cup” to denote His coming passion), and, they will be baptized with the same baptism, the baptism of death.

By sharing the cup of the Lord, and by sharing His baptism, two things happen between the Lord and His disciples, between the master and the servant. They are:

An ongoing relationship is indicated: The future course of the relationship between the Lord and His disciples is indicated here by the future tense of the verbs. This relationship will stretch into the future beyond the time that Jesus is present in His earthly ministry. It corresponds to the time that Mark was writing, a time in which many Christians did drink the cup of suffering, and a time when many Christians were baptized into the death of the Lord by their own deaths. The ongoing relationship established by the shared cup and the shared baptism stretches forward into our own day and time.

Love is demonstrated and love is shared: The Lord’s passion and death is the supreme expression of love for the world. Our Lord demonstrates His love for us, and this love is shared. But by sharing in the cup and in the baptism, this love is returned by Jesus’ disciples, as well, and a love relationship is established between God and His people.

Dear friends, this is the way of the kingdom, the kingdom of God: The master becomes the slave, the king becomes the servant, the greatest sets aside greatness in order to be the least.

Jesus affirms the reality of the way of the kingdom by acts of love. You and I are the objects of that love. Our welfare is the goal of that love.

The Lord reaches out to us by acts of love accomplished 2,000 years ago. That same love is active and living today, and the arena in which God’s love is given and received is your life and mine.

Thanks be to God, the God who loved us in Jesus Christ, the one crucified and risen, and the same God who loves us in Jesus Christ day in and day out, today.

AMEN.

19 Pentecost, Year B

"THIS IS A TEST"
A sermon by The Rev. Gene Tucker, given at Trinity Church, Mt. Vernon, Illinois; Sunday, October 11, 2009
Proper 23 -- Amos 5:6–7,10–15; Psalm 90:1–8,12; Hebrews 3:1–6; Mark 10:17–31

“This is a test….this is only a test. This is a test of the Emergency Broadcasting Service…” Of course, this message, which is always preceded by three very annoying beeps (which are designed to get our attention), is frequently heard on our radios and TVs, especially when there’s threatening weather. We’re all familiar with this announcement.

In today’s gospel, Jesus says, essentially, to the man , “This is a test.”

But, instead of Jesus’ challenge to the man being only a test, it is an actual test, a test of the man’s loyalties.

In essence, Jesus is asking the him, “What’s most important in your life?”

The obvious answer is, as he walks away, that his possessions are the most important thing in his life, so important, in fact, that the man is unwilling to give them all up in order to be a disciple of the Lord.

Now, you and I face this sort of a test regularly. We face it not only once, but time and again. Perhaps we even face it daily as we are forced to make choices that are indications of our priorities and our values. These are choices that often indicate the place of God in our lives.

But, I am getting ahead of myself.

Returning to the text, we see that the man’s face “fell” (that’s what the Greek says, and the Revised Standard Version translates the Greek well in this case), as he heard Jesus’ instruction, “Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

What is the essence of Jesus’ test? Simply this: in the ancient world, a rich person was believed to be especially blessed by God. Their riches and their possessions were proof positive to the society of that day that they enjoyed a special relationship with God. (That is why the disciples were amazed at Jesus’ words as they say, “Then who can be saved?” At its root, the disciples’ comment affirms this common belief.)

Moreover, a rich person was highly regarded in the ancient society of the first century. They were benefactors to others who were less fortunate, giving of their resources to aid those who were less well-off, being well regarded for doing so.

So, at its root, Jesus’ instruction indicates two things:

Become a “nobody”: Jesus’ requirement that the rich man give up everything in order to become a disciple. Giving up, in this case, meant laying aside wealth, possessions, and status. Here, in this last point, we see an echo of Jesus’ earlier comments about becoming a child in order to enter the kingdom (see Mark 9: 35 – 37). Recall with me that children in the ancient world were “nobodies”, legally and socially. Here, Jesus again reiterates this important requirement, that everyone who would become a disciple must become a “nobody” in order to enter the kingdom.

Recognize the realities that ministry imposes: At this point in Jesus’ ministry, we can best describe that ministry as being itinerant and mendicant. Let’s parse these two words out in order to understand the circumstances under which Jesus ministered:

Itinerant: This is the more familiar of the two words, and Webster’s defines it as “moving from place-to-place.” That’s exactly what Jesus did as He moved from Galilee to the region of Tyre and Sidon (to the north), to the region of the Decapolis (south and east) and then on to Jerusalem (to the south). Moveover, He lays out instructions that affirm that His disciples (soon to become Apostles) will also do the same. We read these instructions in Matthew 10: 1 – 15. So, Jesus is essentially saying to the young man that, in order to become a disciple and enter the kingdom, he must divest himself of all of those things that would tie him down, and which would make it impossible to move about the countryside, spreading the Good News.

Mendicant: Here, we encounter a seldom-used word, which comes to us from the Latin (where its root means “to beg”). Jesus’ ministry depended on the support of others. We know that there was support, for Judas carried the collective purse (see John 13: 29). So, Jesus is asking this young man to throw his future welfare, spiritually and physically, upon God. No longer would the man’s status as a wealthy person be the guarantor of physical well-being.

Jesus’ demand seems to hit at the very heart of the issue that was blocking full participation in the kingdom. Often, this is exactly the case. Jesus has a way of cutting right to the heart of a matter, doesn’t He?

Here, we see it plainly.

This man was secure in his social position, his favored status with God (at least in the eyes of those among whom he lived) and his many possessions and great wealth. Perhaps he also sought security in his rigorous observance of the requirements of the Law of Moses, the Torah. “All these (the requirements of the Law) I have observed from my youth,” he says. If material possessions, wealth, and social status all conferred security, then observance of the Law might make his case all the more secure. Perhaps, for this man, rigorous adherence to the Mosaic code simply reinforced God’s favor that was thought to be manifest in the wealth this man enjoyed.

But, the man’s quest for security leads him to see if there’s anything he’s been missing. And here, we can give the man credit for asking, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” In essence, the man is asking, “Is there anything I’m missing?”

But, the old adage, “Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it,” applies here. Jesus tells the man exactly what he’s still lacking….”Go, sell what you have….”

But Jesus’ requirement in this case – that all wealth and our place of residence be given up - wasn’t universal among the earliest disciples. Nor was it universal in the early Church, for there were wealthy persons who were in both groups. Why did they not receive the same mandate from the Lord?

It’s worth looking at both situations, and at the response that wealthy persons who were among the first disciples and those who were members of the early Church made with regard to their wealth. We look at the instance of Joseph of Arimathea and persons of the noble class who were members of some of the early Churches that were founded by St. Paul:

Joseph of Arimathea: We read in Matthew 27: 57 that Joseph was a “rich man”. Apparently, he was also a highly respected member of Jewish society, for he was also a member of the ruling council, the Sanhedrin (see Mark 15: 43). But, Joseph was apparently willing to “step out of his comfort zone” to go to seek the body of Jesus. Mark tells us that Joseph “took courage” (Mark 15: 43) and went to Pilate to ask for the body of Jesus. Moreover, Joseph readily shares his wealth (in the form of a brand new tomb) to allow the burial of Jesus. Underscoring this last point, John seems to indicate that Joseph shared with Nicodemus the task of anointing Jesus for burial (see John 19: 39 – 40).

Early members of the Church from the noble class: St. Paul, writing to the Corinthian church, indicates that some members of that church were of the noble class. He does so by way of reflecting on its membership in general, saying, “For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.” (I Corinthians 1: 26). But, though “not many” were these things, some were wise, powerful and of noble birth. But these persons were called to set aside their position and status to share in the community of faith, the Church. In so doing, in other Churches, noble persons sat right next to slaves, calling these slaves “brother” and “sister”. (It’s worth noting that the early Church’s destruction of class distinction would eventually prove to be a source of trouble for the early Church, as Roman ideas about class distinction were threatened by such an overt egalitarianism.) Moreover, like Joseph of Arimathea, some of these more wealthy persons aided the Church in its ministry, and used their positions, status, and wealth for the furtherance of the spread of the Gospel. A case in point would be Phoebe, who was a deacon in the Church at Cenchreae, (see Romans 16: 1 – 2), who probably took St. Paul’s letter to the Roman churches to Rome, but also seems to have aided Paul in his work financially, as well.

So, what’s the difference between the man we read about in today’s gospel text, and the wealthy and powerful who were among the earliest disciples of Jesus Christ?

The difference is: their relationship to their wealth, possessions and status.

The man Jesus meets in Mark, chapter ten, is unwilling to give up what he has for the sake of following the Lord. Joseph of Arimathea, Phoebe, and the other early followers of Jesus made available what they had in order to further the gospel’s advance. Along the way, they affirmed that they are willing to suffer loss of status in the world’s eyes in order, as well, as part of their walk with the Lord.

Essentially, what they possess doesn’t make them unable to move to meet the demands of God. They are willing to move into a new place physically, financially, and socially in order to make available to God everything that they possess. That’s the difference.

Now, we began with the notion of a “test”. And we said at the beginning of this sermon that we are faced with a test of just the sort that the man we read about today faced.

In my view, such tests don’t come once in our lifetimes, but again and again. These tests might even come daily, as we are asked, “What’s most important in your life?”

Put another way, the test asks us, “What are you willing to make available to God, in order to advance the cause of the Gospel in your life, and in the life of others?”

I would be remiss in my duty as a priest if I didn’t suggest some concrete ways that such tests confront us daily. Allow then, this brief list, which is designed to get your own process of reflection going. Here are some ways we might be tested, to see what our relationship to God is, versus our relationship to the things (wealth, possessions and status) that we possess:

- Allocation of time: Do we make it a high priority to be in church every Sunday, to attend some regular regimen of study (Sunday School, Bible Study, Informal Discussion Group, Third Tuesday Study Group), and to engage in regular Bible reading and devotions (Forward, Day-by-Day is an excellent devotional aid, e.g.)?

- Financial: Are we committed to the biblical tithe as the standard of giving for the advancement of the kingdom of God in this place? Or, is our allocation of money an afterthought? Do we figure out what we need in order to survive and thrive, then give God what’s left over? (If you are thinking that today’s gospel text would form the basis for an excellent stewardship sermon, you are right!)

- Social position and status: This one might be a little more difficult to figure out. One way we might understand the importance of our willingness to set this part of our place within the Church and society is by our willingness to become a servant of all (as we read a few Sundays ago in Mark 9:35, which says, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”) The test would come – especially for clergy in a church like ours - by the willingness that bishops, priests and deacons exhibit in their willingness to recognize that they are servants, in addition to being leaders. This test could come for any one of us in our willingness to sign clients up for the annual Christmas for the Needy food baskets in November, as many persons of the poorer and lower classes of our society enter our Parish Hall to interact with us.

“This is a test, this is really a test.” May God, by His gracious help, assist us to recognize the ways that God is asking us to give all that we have: wealth, possessions, time and status, to Him for the advancement of the Gospel in this and every age.

AMEN.

18 Pentecost, Year B

"MOUNTAINTOPS AND VALLEYS"
A sermon by The Rev. Gene Tucker, given at Trintiy Church, Mt. Vernon, Illinois on Sunday, October 4, 2009
Proper 22 -- Genesis 2: 18 – 24; Psalm 128; Hebrews 2: 1 – 18; Mark 10: 2 – 9

“We live in the valley of the reality of human life. But God lives on the mountaintop. He invites us to the mountaintop, in order to lift us out of the depths of the valleys of our lives, onto a higher plane with Him.”

These words – which I can only paraphrase – hit me like a brick when they were spoken the other day.

For, you see, I’d been wrestling with what to say about the very difficult gospel passage we have before us this morning. I’d been wrestling all week with what to say. I believe these words came from the Holy Spirit. They were an immense help to me in formulating this reflection on Jesus’ words about marriage and divorce, which still strike us today with all the force that they did for Jesus’ first hearers .

For, at the heart of Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce is the matter of the mountaintop of God’s intent, versus the reality of the depths of the valleys in which we human beings often live.

The more I think about it, Jesus is talking about the heights of God’s intentions for humankind. For, I believe, we human beings are quite capable of digging into the depths of the valleys we often create for ourselves. We are often content to live there. In the process, we forget the mountaintop experience (and its wider vision) that God offers us.

So, as we usually do, we must begin by taking a look at the original context of Jesus’ teaching.

As we do, we see that there was a debate going on at the time in Judaism about the matter of marriage and divorce. As we look into the history of the question that was posed to Jesus on that day by the Pharisees, we learn that there among the rabbis, there were three major positions taken with respect to the grounds for a divorce:

Only for the most serious causes: This was the position of the School of Shammai, and it was the most conservative of the positions. It maintained that only sexual impropriety on the part of the woman provided grounds for a divorce.

For most any cause: The School of Hillel maintained that a man could divorce his wife for most any reason, including something as trivial as ruining his dinner.

For any cause: Then, there was the position of the Rabbi Aqiba, who said that a man could divorce his wife “Even if he found another more beautiful than she is.”

Thus, divorce seemed to be a “taken for granted” reality in Jesus’ day. There were those who seemed ready to exploit any and every possible loophole in the provisions of Deuteronomy 24: 1 – 4, which provided that a bill of divorce could be written by the husband when the wife no longer found favor in his eyes “because he has found some indecency in her.”

The question centered around the meaning of the words “some indecency in her”. We can see in the three major positions taken above, that there were widely varying interpretations of the phrase, “some indecency”.

Against this backdrop, Jesus – instead of falling prey to the Pharisees’ trap (by adopting one of the three major positions) – lifts the eyes of the Pharisees and His hearers to see the mountaintop of God’s intent.

He does so by quoting from Genesis, chapter two, citing God’s original intent for a man and a woman, saying, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Furthermore, Jesus prefixs to this statement a comment about Moses’ intention in allowing divorce, saying that it was “For your hardness of heart he (Moses) wrote you this commandment.”

Jesus acknowledges the reality of the valleys – the depths – of the human condition. There was, in Moses’ day, no shortage of “hardness of heart” (a term the Bible often uses to describe the attitudes of God’s Chosen People). There was no shortage of “hardness of heart” in Jesus’ day, either, as we can see from the three positions the various rabbis had taken. There is no shortage of “hardness of heart” in our day, either, as we can see from the divorce statistics, which show that about half of all marriages end in divorce.

“Hardness of heart” is a reality of the valleys of the human condition.

We struggle with that reality. So did the early Church, as we can see from St. Paul’s writing in chapter seven of his first letter to the Corinthians.

Here, St. Paul confronts the reality that there’s often a disconnection between the mountaintop of God’s intentions for human beings that Jesus describes and the valleys in which people often live. Paul struggles to bring the two together somehow. In so doing, Paul seems to allow the possibility of divorce and remarriage (see I Corinthians 7: 27).

The Church today continues to struggle with the gap that often exists between God’s intent for us and the reality of the imperfect human condition. For, if we are honest about it, we humans can sometimes meet with God on the mountaintop, gaining a new perspective about God’s plans for us, God’s high standards for the way we are to live. But, we remain human beings who are redeemed only in part. The old nature (as St. Paul describes it in Romans 7: 15 – 19, where we read, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.”) hasn’t completely been transformed into the holiness that is God’s goal in being involved in our lives in the first place.

There’s no shortage of “hardness of heart”, is there?

We still live in a world where spouses find “some indecency” in their partners, and walk away from the marriage covenant.

And, like the world of Jesus’ day, some of them simply file for divorce because they’ve found someone “more attractive”.

As we look down through the years, we can see that the terrible toll that divorce takes on people who have gone through it hasn’t changed all that much:

In Jesus’ day, women who were divorced suffered terribly with a near-total loss of financial support, for it was a “man’s world” in which women were merely property to be possessed. (Thank God that aspect of the human condition has changed!) And, some scholars agree, it may be that Jesus was speaking out against the cruelty that the capriciousness of the men involved was inflicting on women in general.

In our day, spouses who divorce also face daunting financial problems as incomes are reduced, but expenses aren’t. Then, there is the emotional toll on spouses and on children. That, too, probably hasn’t changed all that much as the years have rolled along…people suffered in Jesus’ day, just as they do today, emotionally.

Our society seems to have lost its vision of the desirable aspects of upholding marriage as a durable, life-long commitment. For Christians, that is God’s view of the institution of marriage: that it is to be a life-long relationship between a man and a woman (here we come again to Genesis chapter two). That’s the mountaintop vision that God provides for the Sacrament of Marriage. But our society makes it entirely too easy to simply “walk away”.

And so, people do walk way, just as they did in Jesus’ day. We’ve even gotten to the point where they can walk away without providing grounds for doing so.

So, what should the Church’s role be in all of this? The following are offered in order to prompt your own reflection on the serious business of marriage and divorce:

The Church should uphold the mountaintop vision of God: As in all things, the Church is charged with upholding the best intention that God has articulated for humankind. Unless we keep in view at all times the principles we have received that come from God, we will utterly fail in our mission to bring God to the world, and the world to God. And so, with regard to marriage, we must uphold the sanctity of the marriage covenant, which is between a man and a woman, who enter into this covenant relationship in the sight of God with the intent that it shall be a life-long commitment.

The Church must recognize the reality of the human condition: People make mistakes. Yes, even Christians make mistakes (I hope this news doesn’t surprise you!) . Sometimes, divorce occurs despite the best intentions of those involved. Sometimes, it occurs because of sexual infidelity on the part of one of the partners. Sometimes, it happens because a spouse has simply walked away from the marriage. At other times, it becomes a tragic necessity when one spouse abuses another in some way (physically, emotionally, or financially). We are all imperfect people, people who often live in the valleys of life, where the mountaintop can’t be seen at all. With St. Paul, we all must admit that “We do the things we know we shouldn’t, and we don’t understand our own actions.” (I am paraphrasing what St. Paul said in Romans, chapter seven.)

The Church’s “balancing act”: I’m sorry, I don’t have a better word for it than “balancing act”. The Church is called to maintain the vision that God provides from the mountaintop. At the same time, the entire thrust of Jesus Christ’s coming among us is to redeem us from the miry clay which can be found in the valleys in which we often live, to bring the mountaintop of God’s intent into our lives, so that we can live on a higher plane with God. We – as the Church – are therefore called to reach out in love to those whose lives are marked with divorce, in order to heal the wounds that divorce causes. And, wherever it is possible, to bring such persons into a higher plane of life with God, a place where encounters with God’s intent on the mountaintop begins to change the lens through which we see our lives and the world.

Jesus’ words, heard today, are intended to shock us – I believe – just as His words (heard last week) about cutting off the eye, the hand, or the foot that causes a stumbling block were intended to shock His listeners into a new way of seeing what God’s intent is for those who are called into a new life with Him. Jesus seeks to shock us back into God’s view of things. For if we lose sight of the way God sees things, then we will sink into the depths of the valley, losing sight of the mountaintop entirely.

May God’s Holy Spirit enable us to see the mountaintop, that we might be lifted into God’s intentions for us. AMEN.