Sunday, October 25, 2015

Pentecost 22, Year B (2015)

Proper 25 :: Jeremiah 31: 7–9; Psalm 126; Hebrews 7: 23–28; Mark 10: 46–52

This is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, given at St. John’s Church, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, October 25, 2015.

“NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF FAITH”
(Homily text: Mark 10: 46 – 52)

“Necessity is the mother of invention,” the familiar saying goes.

Its parallel in our walk with God might be:

“Necessity is the mother of faith.”

In today’s gospel passage, we read of the healing of blind Bartimaeus, the beggar who lived on the outskirts of the city of Jericho.

Bartimaeus’ situation was anything but good:  Apparently, he lost his sight at some point in his life, for he asks Jesus that he might regain his sight.  Even today, a person whose sight is impaired, or is completely gone, has a rough time just living day-to-day.  In Jesus’ day, it was even worse, for most occupations involved manual labor of some sort or another.  Because he could not see, Bartimaeus was reduced to begging.

But another aspect of the culture makes Bartimaeus’ situation worse…that would have to do with the attitudes of the Jews, who often regarded someone who had a serious illness or affliction as being under God’s judgment.  We can see evidence of this attitude in the questioning the Jews apply to the man who was born blind in John’s gospel account, chapter nine.  There, the Jews ask if the reason that the man was born blind is because of some sin he himself committed, or if it was due to some sin on the part of his parents.  So it’s very possible that the residents of Jericho thought that the reason Bartimaeus was blind was because of some very serious sin.  If we look closely at what Mark tells us, we notice that Bartimaeus is apparently living on the edge of town….maybe that was because he had been ostracized from the community for his condition.  Unfortunately, such treatment was common in Jesus’ day, for people who were infirm or who were diseased in some way were considered to be unclean, unable to worship in the Temple in Jerusalem, unable to be a full member of the community.

Bartimaeus is in deep, deep need.  Out of this deep need, he springs up and makes his way to Jesus, asking that his sight might be restored.  His wish is granted.  Jesus’ treatment of Bartimaeus stands in direct opposition to the treatment he most likely received from most everyone else:  Jesus deliberately seeks Bartimaeus out.  Instead of avoiding him, instead of treating him like a sinner, Jesus heals him.

Upon his healing, a new life begins for Bartimaeus:  He leaves Jericho and follows the Lord as the Lord makes His way to Jerusalem for the Passover festival.

Oftentimes, a person’s faith comes to life born out of a deep, deep need.  A crisis of some sort might be the impetus that causes a person to ask God for help.  God can use times of stress, sorrow or loss to be the avenue by which God establishes a relationship.

Sometimes, when I find myself praying for an individual specifically, and especially when I know that something is blocking their faith walk with God, I find myself asking God to use some crisis in the person’s life to be the way for faith to arise in a person.

We used to say back in my Army days “There are no atheists in foxholes.”  This trite saying affirms the truth that, in times of danger or loss, God is the one we most often turn to.

But even if there aren’t any crises in our lives, we should be aware of our necessity, our neediness, before God, a neediness that exists every day.  We acknowledge our dependence on God as we bring our prayer requests to Him.  Doing so constitutes one of the most important things we can do in our relationship to God….thanking God for His ongoing presence in our lives, and for blessings received, also stands as a central part of that relationship.

As we mature in our faith, perhaps we might cultivate an appreciation of our need for God in the good times in our lives, just as we have gained an appreciation of God’s goodness in the difficult times.

AMEN.



Sunday, October 18, 2015

Pentecost 21, Year B (2015)

Proper 24 :: Isaiah 53: 4-12; Psalm 91: 12-16; Hebrews 5: 1-10; Mark 10: 35-45

This is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, given at St. John’s Church, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, October 18, 2015.

“WHAT KIND OF GLORY
AND WHAT KIND OF A KINGDOM?”
(Homily texts:  Isaiah 53: 4 – 12 & Mark 10: 35 - 45)

What kind of glory did James and John have in mind when they asked the Lord this question, “Lord, grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, at your glory”?
Their question seems egotistical in the extreme.  Talk about tireless self-promotion!
Moreover, they ask this question immediately after Jesus has told His disciples, for the third time,[1] about His coming suffering and death once they reach Jerusalem.
What could have prompted this audacious question?
Was it a desire to ignore completely what the Lord had just said?  Was it impossible for James and John to deal with the harsh reality Jesus had just outlined.  Was it a misplaced recognition that Jesus was doing something really great, and that, because of His successes in healing, in raising the dead, and in teaching, that He was destined to be the great new king, the new and just ruler who would usher in a golden age for God’s people of the sort they had known a thousand years earlier under King David?
What did they think was going to happen once they all got to Jerusalem?
The impression the gospels give us is that they thought that Jesus was going to be the one to conquer the hated Roman occupiers.  He would be the one to get rid of the corrupt Jewish leadership.  He would be the one to establish a new and glorious kingdom.
And James and John wanted to have a prominent place in this new scheme of things.  They ask the Lord (if we may put it in contemporary terms) to be appointed the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this new venture.
That, apparently, was the definition of “glory” that they had in mind.
So James and John begin their quest for power and greatness by asking the Lord for a “blank check”.  They begin by asking, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.”  Instead of turning them away, Jesus plays along and responds by saying, “What is it you want me to do for you?”
So Jesus lays out His definition of “glory”.  He asks these two if they are able to drink the cup that He will drink, and to be baptized with the baptism He will undergo.
They confidently answer, “We are able”.
We might pause for a moment here to unpack the meaning of “cup”, and of “baptism”.
Later on, as Jesus and His disciples have entered Jerusalem, and as He is praying in the Garden of Gethsemane on the night that Judas and the band of soldiers come to arrest Him, Jesus prays to the Father that, if it is the Father’s will, that the “cup” He is to drink might pass from Him.  (See Mark 14: 36.)  It is clear that the word “cup” refers to suffering.
And of the meaning of the word “baptism”, we might look at St. Paul’s explanation of the meaning of baptism as we find it in Romans 6: 3 – 9.  There, Paul likens baptism to being buried with Christ in a death like His.
So the Lord is pointing to a coming time of suffering, and of death, the sort of suffering that our reading from Isaiah describes.  But this awful time will be followed by resurrection and the glory of the Lord’s resurrected body, over which time, place and pain have no more control.
This new kingdom will be ushered in not by a glorious entry into Jerusalem as its leader rides into the city on a white horse.  No, this kingdom will come into being as its leader rides in on a donkey.
This new kingdom will be ushered in by what looks like defeat, suffering and death.  Its power lies in its apparent weakness.
In time, each of the disciples, who had become apostles as the Lord sent them out to carry the good news of Jesus Christ, would drink the “cup” of which Jesus spoke,  They would undergo the baptism that indicates a death to self, for – tradition tells us – every one of the original twelve, except for one, would suffer martyrdom for their allegiance to Christ.  Jesus’ prediction to James and John came true.
 Each of us follows the Lord’s example, and the examples of those original disciples, and that is the glory of this new way of relating to God….each one of us takes up our citizenship in this new kingdom by surrendering our will to that of the leader, Jesus, who surrendered His will to that of the Father.
And the glory of this new way of life is that each one who passes through the waters of baptism becomes an inheritor of a glory that will last into eternity itself.  As we move toward that glorious reality, we die to self and become alive to God.  That, too, is part of this kingdom’s glory.  We live out this new reality day in and day out, giving up ourselves in submission to the God who loves us, and in serving others in His name.
In an odd sort of way, at least from the world’s perspective, the glory of this new kingdom is revealed.  For this is a kingdom whose power shall never pass away.
So, Lord, give us this sort of glory always.
AMEN.


[1]   Verses 32 through 35.  There are two earlier predictions of Jesus’ coming suffering, death and resurrection.  They may be found at Mark 8: 31 – 33 and at Mark 9: 30 – 32.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Pentecost 20, Year B (2015)

Proper 23 :: Amos 5: 6–7, 10-15; Psalm 90: 12-17; Hebrews 4: 12–16; Mark 10: 17-31

This is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker that was given at St. John’s Church, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, October 11, 2015.

“GETTING US OUT OF OUR COMFORT ZONES”
(Homily text: Mark 10: 17-31)

Oftentimes, preachers will say that they actually only have about four basic sermons. That is, their sermons tend to fall into four major categories, dealing with four subjects. In this way, each sermon then becomes merely a variation on a basic theme.

In my preaching career, I’ve often wondered if I, too, have four basic sermons, and – if so – then are my sermons basically variations on some basic themes. I’m beginning to think that, in fact, I do have only four basic sermons.

So if that’s true for me, then this sermon would fall into the “getting out of our comfort zones” category.

Let’s look at Jesus’ encounter with the rich man[1] who approaches Him, asking, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

We might be safe in coming to some conclusions about this individual. Specifically, we might say that he:
  • Was a devoted follower of God, living by the law of Moses. When Jesus summarizes many of the commandments in the Mosaic law, the man says that he has kept “all these since my youth.”
  • Was held in favor by the people, for he was wealthy. This aspect of the man’s regard within society might need some explanation: In Jesus’ day, if a person was wealthy, the thought was that they were living an upright and holy life, earning God’s blessings.
So, it seems, this individual had everything going for him….he was doing all the right things, and he was rewarded by God for doing those things (at least in the estimation of the people he lived among). He was in control. Every aspect of his life seemed to be perfectly in place.

But we should give this man some credit, for he comes to Jesus asking (in essence): “Is there anything I’m missing in my life? Is there something I ought to be doing that I haven’t been doing?”

Too often people who seem to “have it all”, who seem to be quite content with themselves, their achievements and their position within society don’t bother to ask such questions.

Perhaps this individual has a searching and inquiring heart. At least that seems to be the motivation for his question.

But whatever the motivation for asking was, it’s clear that the man wasn’t ready for Jesus’ answer: “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

Mark tells us that, upon hearing these words, the man was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

Jesus tells the man to “get out of his comfort zone”, to give up those things that represent control over his life. Jesus tells the man that he has to “risk it all” in order to gain entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

The discourse which follows Jesus’ encounter with the man explains the mystery of how one can enter the kingdom: A person has to be willing to set aside wealth (or anything else, for that matter) in order to gain entrance into the kingdom. Why is this so? Perhaps the answer is that a person who has wealth will often rely on that wealth as a guarantee of a comfortable life in the future. But wealth can disappear, and along with that disappearance, the guarantees that may have seem assured evaporate with the wealth’s departure. As has been said, “There are no U Hauls in heaven.” The only assurance one can have for the future is the assurance that comes from being accepted into the kingdom. Sometimes, the things we possess wind up possessing us, and that improper relationship with the things we own has the power to block a proper and healthy relationship with God.

Before we look at the implications of Jesus’ instructions to the man for our lives, we ought to notice that Jesus tells His disciples about the guarantees that await them as they go out into the world after the Lord’s resurrection to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, giving up everything worldly in order to do so. What Jesus has to say to them has a forward-looking aspect to it. The Lord says this: “Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age – houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecution – and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

Now, what are the implications for us as we attempt to live a faithful Christian life?

Each of us will be asked to get out of our comfort zones, and to be willing to give up anything and everything that we might cling to that would take God’s central place in our lives. The exact answer to what we will be asked to surrender to God will vary, depending on our circumstances.

Getting out of our comfort zones is an indispensible part of our walk with God. Each one of us must encounter this stop on that pathway. It is a living-out of the process of baptism, by which we enter the waters of baptism in which we die to our old selves, in order to rise out of those waters to a new way of life. Baptism involves getting out of our comfort zones.

So, as God asks us to leave our comfortable and assured notions of what the future holds for us behind, the things He will ask us to be willing to give up will vary according to our circumstances. For the wealthy man who came before the Lord that day, the exact thing he was asked to be willing to give away was exactly the thing that was hindering his walk with God.

When the time comes, and the Lord asks us to enter into a closer and more enduring relationship with Him, may we set aside any and every thing that would get in the way of that closer and more enduring relationship.

AMEN.


[1]
   Matthew describes this man as being “young” (Matthew 19:20), while Luke tells us that he was a “ruler” (see Luke 18: 18).  For this reason, the individual is sometimes known as the “rich young ruler”.

Sunday, October 04, 2015

Pentecost 19, Year B (2015)

Proper 22 :: Genesis 2: 18-24; Psalm 26; Hebrews 1: 1 – 4, 2: 5-12; Mark 10: 2-16

This is a homily by Fr. Gene Tucker which was given at St. John’s Church, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on Sunday, October 4, 2015. 

“ONE OF JESUS’ ‘HARD SAYINGS’”
(Homily texts:  Genesis 2: 18–24 & Mark 10: 2–16)

Our gospel reading for this morning puts before our eyes and our minds one of what biblical scholars call Jesus’ “hard sayings”. This term arises from the harshness of the reality of something Jesus said, something that smacks us, head-on, just as it must have done when He said it for the first time.

(I can’t resist saying - before we take a look at today’s appointed readings - that one of the blessings of having a cycle of such readings is that the lectionary cycle puts before our eyes and minds subjects that we might be tempted, otherwise, to bypass or ignore. Though no system of reading Holy Scripture is perfect, at least the system we use doesn’t allow a preacher to bypass unpopular or difficult subjects in favor of a list of favorite topics or passages that the preacher happens to likes.)

Now to the topic at hand…..Today’s “hard saying” has to do with marriage and the matter of divorce. On this subject, we hear Jesus say that, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery.” And just to be sure that both husbands and wives hear the message clearly, He applies that same teaching to not just husbands, but to wives, also.[1]

Because the permanence of marriage is so important, and because so many marriages today end in divorce,[2] it would be good for us to take a good, in-depth look at this subject. As we begin our consideration of this important topic, it would be well for this preacher to say that trying to be faithful to the mind of God in this matter is a daunting task. I pray that what is said and written here will be – in some small way – faithful to that mind. Most assuredly, what is offered here is not the final and authoritative word on the subject. What is heard and read this morning is the essence of my own struggle with the topic.

We begin our quest by considering the contemporary debates that were going on among the prominent rabbis of Jesus’ day, for the Pharisees, who come to test Jesus (as Mark tells us), have come to ask what position He would take on the debates which raged between three prominent rabbis in the first century.

The debates which circulated among the rabbis centered around a provision which is found in Deuteronomy 24: 1, which reads: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her (italics mine), and her writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house….” (the provision goes on to address a subsequent marriage). The debates had to do with the meaning of the words “some indecency”.

Just what was “some indecency”?

The three positions taken were:
  •         Rabbi Shammai said that those words, “some indecency” referred to only the most serious sort of violation, such as unfaithfulness to the marriage vow.
  •         Rabbi Hillel said that a man could divorce his wife for many reasons, including something so trivial as spoiling the husband’s meal.
  •         Rabbi Aqiba said a man could divorce his wife simply because he had found someone else who was more attractive.

Instead of falling into the Pharisees’ trap, Jesus refocuses the entire debate, reminding them of God’s original intent for marriage, and quoting from Genesis 2: 24. Instead of looking for ways to get out of a marriage, instead of looking for loopholes to justify ending a marriage in order to begin another one, Jesus states the ideal for marriage, that it is a permanent relationship, established by God.

In the process, Jesus tells the Pharisees that Moses’ provision for divorce (as found in Deuteronomy) was a concession given to God’s people, because of the hardness of heart within.

The debates which took place between the rabbis and between Jesus and the Pharisees are just as important in our own time as they were 2,000 years ago, for the sad reality is that many marriages end in divorce today. For Christians, who are disciples of Jesus, the challenge is to uphold the Lord’s teaching about the permanence of marriage. At the same time, we have to grapple with the reality that, these days, there is no shortage of the “hardness of heart” that Jesus describes as being the reason for the Mosaic concession which allowed divorce to take place.

Even though, in Jesus’ time, a mature understanding of marriage as a Sacrament (or a sacramental act) had not emerged, marriage practices in Jesus’ day, and within the Church in subsequent times, share some common elements that can shed some light on the validity of a marriage. In summary, marriage, along with all of the Sacraments, must contain three basic elements in order to be valid:
  •          The right form
  •          The right minister(s)
  •          The right intent

In marriage, in biblical times and within the Church, each of these elements must be present. Let’s look at the practices then and now:

  •        Form:  Marriage is essentially a contract between the two parties.  In biblical times, the marriage was arranged, usually between the woman’s father and the prospective groom (and perhaps the groom’s father).  Then, a ceremony takes place which is witnessed by family and friends, in which the two persons covenant with one another to enter into the marriage.  In contemporary practice, the same thing takes place, with the wife and husband covenanting with one another to take the other as spouse.
  •        Minister(s):  The ministers in marriage, in biblical times, were the two persons who were marrying one another.  Even though the marriage was an arranged one, yet the reality remains that the persons who effect the marriage were the husband and wife.  This remains true today, and it is one of the more prominent misconceptions that the priest or pastor is the one who effects the marriage.  No, the reality is that the two persons who enter into the marriage are the ones who bring the marital relationship into being.[3]  The priest officiates at the wedding, essentially as an agent of the state, and pronounces God’s blessing on the marriage, nothing more. So, in the case of matrimony, the ministers who bring the Sacrament of their own marriage into being are the two persons themselves.
  •        Intent:  Each of the parties must have entered into the marriage without impediment.  In biblical times, where the bride was concerned, this was of lesser importance, because – in that society – it was a deeply patriarchal society in which the father of the bride and the groom and his family had much more control in bringing the marriage about.  However, it seems reasonable to say that – in those times - a father of a prospective bride would have consulted with his daughter about her wishes concerning the possibility of being married to the prospective groom.  Today, however, the two persons must be able to enter into the marriage of their own free will, and there must not be anything that would hinder or block their ability to freely do so.[4]

Now, let’s return to Jesus’ ideal, which is that marriage becomes a permanent bond between the husband and the wife, a bond which cannot be severed by human agency, a bond which can be severed only by the death of one of the partners.

In a perfect world, every marriage would last for a lifetime.

But we all know we don’t live in a perfect world. If we return to the sacramental understanding of marriage, just described, we can see some of the reasons for the failures of marriages:
  •        The ministers who bring the marriage into being:  If it takes two to make a marriage, it only takes one to destroy a marriage:  One of the parties decides that they cannot/will not live up to their part of the contract.  They decide not to honor the vows they made.  Sometimes, being unable to live up to those vows stems from very valid reasons. We’ll say more about that in a moment.
  •        Improper intent Can undermine the validity of the marriage:  Perhaps one party was marrying for the wrong reasons.  Perhaps one party (or both) was/were marrying without the capacity to understand in a mature way just what it was they were doing in marrying the other person.  Perhaps one of the parties married in order for personal gain of some sort.

The Church, from earliest times, has struggled with the need to maintain the ideal that Jesus lays out for marriage, and yet to be pastorally sensitive to the need to recognize that, in some cases, it is permissible for a marriage to end. In such cases, the Church understands that a person who has encountered the traumatic nature of divorce should be free to remarry. Certainly, it is true that in biblical times, the right of a divorced person to remarry was understood.

The thrust of Jesus’ “hard saying” seems to be to refocus the debates of His day (and ours) away from trying to find ways to get out of a marriage, toward a focus and an intention to make marriages work.
So what about the matter of divorce? What about a divorced person’s ability to marry again?

Biblical teaching seems to reflect a struggle with the reality that divorce might remain a necessity in some cases. Jesus’ own teaching on the matter of marriage and divorce seems to reflect variations: For example, in Matthew 5: 32, Jesus allows divorce to take place on the grounds of “unchastity” in the marital partner.[5] Writing to the early Christians in Corinth, St. Paul seems to allow for divorce and remarriage in the case of a Christian believer who is married to a non-Christian.[6] In such cases, Paul seems to summarize his comments by saying, “It is to peace that God has called you.”[7]

As we said a moment ago, the Church has recognized that, in some cases, divorce is a tragic necessity. Grounds for ending a marriage can vary. Sometimes, a person’s own safety and wellbeing demand the ending of a marriage. Such a case exists when there is some sort of abuse present in the relationship. No one can deny that a battered spouse has the right to get out of an abusive relationship where their individual safety is threatened.

Perhaps Jesus’ point is that we ought to do all that we can to strengthen marriages and to uphold those within marriage. That seems to be the point of the question which is asked at a wedding of all those who are present to witness the ceremony. The Officiant asks those present this question: “Will all of you witnessing these promises do all in your power to uphold these two persons in their marriage?”[8]

None of us should take the matter of divorce lightly. Whenever a divorce takes place, there is often a heavy emotional toll on those involved, including not only the two spouses, but also children and family members, and friends of the spouses. Certainly, none of us ought to cheer when a divorce takes place, and Jesus’ teaching about the intention of married persons to enter into a lifelong relationship should be taken seriously. I think we can be very clear about one aspect of the Lord’s teaching that is before us this day: No one should seek to get rid of a spouse in order to find a new one.

Perhaps no teaching our Lord gave us causes as much concern as the one before us today. The Lord’s “hard saying” about marriage and divorce should strengthen our commitment to marriage, and it should make us resolve to establish lifelong marriage relationships, insomuch as we sinful human beings are able to do so. Should divorce become an inevitability, people of faith should surround and uphold both parties to the divorce. Persons who have suffered through a divorce can begin their lives anew, appreciating with greater depth the importance of working to establish and maintain healthy marital relationships.

AMEN.


[1]   Under Jewish law, only a man could initiate a divorce.  However, Greco-Roman law provided that a woman could initiate divorce proceedings.  Jesus’ statement encompasses both Jewish and Greco-Roman practices.
[2]   About half of all marriages end in divorce in our society.  The rates of divorce are about the same between Christians and others.
[3]   This reality is borne out by the words of the marriage liturgy:  The officiating minister says, “Now that _____ and _____ have given themselves to each other by solemn vows (italics mine), with the joining of hands and the giving and receiving of a ring, I pronounce that they are husband and wife, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
[4]   Hindrances might take the form of many things:  Being unable to understand and make a rational decision to marry;  being under duress in some way to enter into the marriage, currently being in another marriage, etc.  It is for these reasons that the Officiant is bound, within the marriage rite, to ask: “I require and charge you both, here in the presence of God, that if either of you know any reason who you may not be united in marriage lawfully, and in accordance with God’s Word, you do now confess it.” Similarly, the Officiant is also bound to ask if anyone who is witnessing the ceremony knows of any reason why the two persons cannot be married, that they make those reasons known.
[5]   In this teaching, Jesus seems to take the position taken by Rabbi Shammai.  This teaching is repeated in Matthew 19: 9.
[6]   See I Corinthians 7: 10 – 11.
[7]   I Corinthians 7: 15b
[8]   Book of Common Prayer, 1979, page 425