Pentecost 10, Year B (2018)

Proper 12 :: II Kings 4: 42–44; Psalm 14; Ephesians 3: 14–21; John 6: 1–21

This is the homily that was given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, July 29, 2018.

 “PREVENTING HYPOCRISY”

(Homily text: John 6: 1-21)

Hypocrisy.

This unsavory word is often leveled against Christians, unfortunately. The outside, unbelieving world seems to harbor this impression of Christians. Perhaps this is one way that those who are outside of the Church [1] avoid coming under the Lord’s leadership. It may be one way of avoiding the responsibilities of being a disciple of Christ. Or, it may reflect the sad reality that, many times in the Church’s history, Christians have been hypocritical, saying one thing but doing another.

How, then, do we Christians prevent hypocrisy?

Hold onto that thought for a moment while we take a look at the account that is placed before us in this morning’s appointed Gospel text: John’s account of the feeding of the 5,000.[2]

The feeding of this large group of people, who are following the Lord around the northern shores of the Sea of Galilee, must have figured prominently in the early Church’s life, for all four Gospel accounts record this incident. In fact, both Matthew and Mark record not only this incident, but another miraculous feeding of a crowd of 4,000, as well.

The basic facts are well known, and John is faithful in imparting them to us: 

1. A large crowd of people has gathered around the Lord. They come for healing, and to hear His words, which convey to them His genuine concern and compassion for their welfare. (Recall that in last week’s Gospel, taken from Mark, chapter six, Jesus looked upon this crowd of people, and had compassion for them, because they were like “sheep without a shepherd”.)
   
2. The need for food arises. But there is little with which to feed this large a group, only five loaves and two fish, found in the possession of a boy who had brought them along.
   
3. Jesus orders the crowd to sit down in the grass. Then He prays and gives thanks for the five loaves and the two fish.
   
4. He distributes the food to everyone in attendance [3], but, miraculously, the loaves and the fishes are multiplied to such an extent that not only is everyone able to eat as much as they want, but twelve baskets of leftovers are gathered up.

It is worth noting that the Lord’s concern for the people who were following Him took the form of a concrete act: He fed them all. He didn’t express His concern for them by what He said alone. His intent was confirmed by what He did.

In keeping with the theme we’ve been following for the past couple of weeks, we could say that Jesus’ actions are sacramental[4] in nature. That is, His words (which point to His intent and desire for the people) take the form of something that can be seen and experienced in tangible ways.

There is no hypocrisy in Jesus’ words or His actions, for both mirror one another.

(I can’t resist saying that the behavior of the leadership of God’s people during the Lord’s time on earth was another matter entirely: The chief priests, the scribes, the Pharisees and others cared little for the people they led. They cared about their own welfare, their own positions of power and their favored positions in society. Though the Law of Moses required them to care in tangible ways for others, they were capable of repeating those mandates, but they didn’t live by them.)

Whenever we hear the word hypocrisy, it might be good for us to remember its most basic definition: Hypocrisy is a condition of “low judgment”, for that is what the word means in Greek.

Low judgment involves an inability to see ourselves as God and others see us. It involves saying one thing and then doing another.

But our Lord’s example impels us to behave in another way: We are called to integrate our words and our actions to such an extent that there is no difference between the one and the other.

Why is this so important? Simply for the reason that our actions confirm our intentions and our thoughts.

When for example, we supply food, paper products and hygiene products for the Little Free Pantry that our church operates, we are integrating our concern for the hungry among us with concrete and observable acts that demonstrate to those who are not members of our parish that there is true integration of our faith with our acts. As one of my former bishops liked to say, “our insides are matched by our outsides”.

No hypocrisy there.

AMEN.  

---

[1]   The Church is made up of people. It is simply those who have gathered around the Lord Jesus Christ….it is, in its most basic understanding, nothing more than that. It is not, in its truest form, an institution or a building, even though we often think of the Church in those ways.

[2]   The crowd was probably a good deal larger than 5,000, for the Scriptures often count only the men who were present. Other Gospel accounts of this miracle add the phrase, “beside women and children”.

[3]   Here John’s account differs from Mark’s, for John tells us that Jesus distributed the food to the people.

[4]   Here it would be good for us to remember the definition of a Sacrament:  An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.

Pentecost 9, Year B (2018)

Proper 11 :: Jeremiah 23: 1–6; Psalm 23; Ephesians 2: 11–22; Mark 6: 30–34, 53-56

This is the homily that was given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, July 22, 2018.

 “CREATING, RE-CREATING AND SUSTAINING”

(Homily text: Mark 6: 30–34, 53–56)

God’s ability to create, to re-create and to sustain what He has created is, perhaps, the most common attribute of God that we can be aware of.

God’s work in creating things, in re-creating them, and then in sustaining them, gives us insight into God’s nature. From the world around us, we can see that God created all that is…..the more we discover about this wonderful, created world, the more marvelous it seems. Then, He provided ways for the created order to renew and re-create itself, and finally, we see that God also provided the means whereby the creation is sustained.

God’s nature – seen in the created things around us – tells us that God created all that we can see and experience in the world because He is generous and good.

So, if we put this reality another way, we could say that the outward things we can see point to an unseen, innward truth about God.

When we use words like “outward” and “inward”, we are using the language that is used to explain what a Sacrament is. By way of review, a Sacrament is defined as:

An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.[1]

This morning, our Gospel text recounts Jesus’ care for the people He was encountering as He made His way around the northern side of the Sea of Galilee. Mark tells us that He had compassion for those growing crowds of people who pressed in on Him and on His disciples, for they were “sheep without a shepherd”.

Jesus’ compassion is the inward disposition of His heart toward these very hard-pressed and needy people.

But His inward disposition finds an outward expression in the feeding of the 5,000 (which is narrated in some of the missing verses from this morning’s text), and then in the healing of those who came to Him.

To create, to re-create and to sustain….these three things are present in the Lord’s ministry as He feeds and then heals those who’d come to Him. He creates hope where there was no hope, He provides food which re-creates and sustains, and then He creates new life where the ravages of disease threatening to destroy.

The message we are urged to see in this account is that the power that God alone possesses, the power to create, to re-create and to sustain, are also at work in the ministry of Jesus.

If we look at God’s power, seen in the world around us and seen in the works that Jesus did and does, then we have to conclude that God creates, builds up and connects. That’s another way to see God’s power at work. God does this building and connecting by making us dependent upon the creation, even as the creation is dependent upon us for its continued wellbeing.

God’s ability to make things, to build them up, and to link them all together is also seen in human relationships. We can see this most clearly in the account of the Fall in the Garden of Eden, chapter three. There, evil, personified in the form of a serpent, suggests to Eve that the forbidden fruit might be good to eat. (You know the story.) She eats of the fruit, then gives some to Adam. At that point, their eyes are opened, and they see that their close, enduring, face-to-face relationship with God has been marred by their actions. From that point on, separation from God and from one another will mark the history of the human race.

We may conclude, therefore, that evil is intent on destruction and separation. Evil’s intent is to deprive us of the things we need to survive and to thrive as God’s creation.

So it was in Jesus’ day…..let’s return to Jesus’ observation that the people who were pressing in on Him were like “sheep without a shepherd.”[2] Who, realistically speaking, should have been the shepherd of God’s people? The Chief Priests, the Pharisees and the Scribes should have been filling that role. But each of these three groups were intent on making sure their interests, their places of honor and their privileges were taken care of. They apparently cared little for the people in their charge.

Then, of course, we could talk about the Romans, whose brutal occupation of the people, showed that they cared not at all for those they governed.

Evil seeks to destroy, to separate, and to threaten the welfare of God’s creation and God’s people.

What might today’s Gospel text tell us about our own conduct as people of God?

One way to address that question might be to examine our conversation with others and our conduct with others. By way of suggestion, here are some ideas which might prompt our own reflection:

• Do the things we say and the things we do create, or re-create, or sustain our relationships with others, or do these things separate and destroy them?
• Does our relationship toward God’s creation assist God in creating, re-creating and sustaining the world that He created, a world that God said was “very good”?[3]
• To live sacramentally with God and with others means that we will care not only about others’ spiritual welfare, but also their physical welfare. To that end, that is why this parish church maintains the Little Free Pantry ministry, why we take part in offering a hot meal at the Community Soup Kitchen, and why we receive a designated offering which is devoted to outreach every Sunday.
• Are we living “sacramental lives”, lives that show by the things we do that we have an abiding, deep and intense relationship with God dwelling within. Living sacramentally involves a whole lot more than simply doing “good stuff”. It involves connecting the inward reality of our relationship with God to the outward reality of the things we do. As St. James puts it in his general letter, “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2: 17)

AMEN.

---

[1]   Grace is defined as “God’s favor and goodness towards us, unearned and unmerited”. See the Catechism at the back of the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, page, 857.

[2]   The lectionary texts for today could easily lead us to think that this Sunday is Good Shepherd Sunday. The text from Jeremiah 23 addresses the bad shepherds of the sixth century, BC. And, we have as our appointed Psalm, Psalm 23, “The Lord is my shepherd.” But, in reality, Good Shepherd Sunday is the Fourth Sunday of Easter.

[3]   Genesis 1: 31

Pentecost 7, Year B (2018)

PROPER 9 :: Ezekiel 2: 1–5; Psalm 48; II Corinthians 12: 2–10; Mark 6: 1–13

This is the homily that was given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, July 8, 2018.

 “GOD’S GAME”

(Homily texts:  Ezekiel 2: 1–5 & Mark 6: 1–13)

Last Monday morning, I had occasion to watch a little bit of some of the tennis matches that take place each year at Wimbledon in England. It is fascinating to watch world-class players in action, players who are possessed of immense amounts of talent for playing the game, players who’ve spent years practicing and perfecting their mastery of it.

(Watching the matches reminded me of my own experience in playing tennis. It would be wrong to characterize my involvement with the game as any sort of a career. In fact, it would be equally wrong to say that I was a tennis player in any meaningful way at all. It would, however, be fair to say that I “played at” the game of tennis, for the truth is that I wasn’t all that suited for the game, nor did I devote any meaningful amounts of time and effort to improving my ability to play.)

I got to thinking, as I was watching the players on the court, about playing a game, any game. My thoughts eventually made their way to today’s lectionary readings, our reading from the Old Testament prophet Ezekiel and our Gospel account from Mark, chapter six, which places before us the sad rejection that Jesus experienced from people who refused to believe in His work and message. My mind compared people’s rejections of Ezekiel and Jesus to people who, when they are invited to play a game, refuse to play by the established norms of the game.

Playing a game, be it tennis or some other game, and playing “God’s Game”, usually prompts these responses:

• Learning to play the game correctly and well, including learning the rules of the game. Learning to play the game would also involve learning about the game’s origin, and perhaps some of the great players of the past.
• “Playing at” playing the game, a haphazard involvement that doesn’t result in any mastery of it.
• Refusing to play the game the way it’s supposed to be played.

I think there’s one more possible response, which would be:

• Refusing to play the game at all.

Before we look at the Ezekiel passage and our Gospel text, it would be good to understand how we are using the word “game”. Today, the word is often associated with something that human beings do to amuse themselves, something we do to have fun. But when we apply this word to “God’s Game”, we are using it in to explain the most important thing we human beings can be about: The business of learning about God’s designs for human life, and our place in God’s design to live that life in communion with Him and with others.

Now, let’s turn to our lectionary texts.   

Ezekiel is addressing God’s people in the sixth century B.C., people who found themselves in exile in Babylon, a people who refused to play “God’s Game” as it was supposed to be played. We could compare their situation and attitude to a person who’s standing on a tennis court, but who refuses to return the ball when it comes over the net.

God tells Ezekiel that God’s people that, whether they listen or whether they don’t, they will know that God has sent a prophet among them. Ezekiel is like a tennis coach, or a line judge, or perhaps another player, who admonishes the uncooperative player for their refusal to play the game of tennis correctly.

It is the word “prophet” which links the Ezekiel reading to our Gospel passage: Jesus repeats what was (quite likely) a saying which circulated during the time of His earthly ministry about prophets who cannot find honor in their own hometown and among their own people.

The people of His hometown, Nazareth, question His credentials for teaching, saying, “Where did this man get all this....Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” It is as if an opposing tennis player questions the behavior of the other player who refuses to play the game correctly. In response, the uncooperative player might say, “Well, who are you to tell me I’m not playing correctly?”

A game usually involves two things:  Two players or teams, such as in tennis, football, baseball, and so forth; or a player and a challenge:  Crossword puzzles would be an example.

When it comes to “God’s Game”, the two teams are God and people.

God is the designer of “God’s Game”. He created the game and set out its rules and its limits. We read about all of that in Holy Scripture. The Bible also contains the history of some of the better-known players of the past, people like Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Jeremiah. The Bible records the times in which God’s people played the game faithfully and well, and it also records the times when God’s people failed and lost. The time of exile in Babylon in which Ezekiel found himself playing the role of prophet is a time of failure and loss.

God is the creator and designer of the game. We could liken Jesus’ ministry to that of a tennis pro who is sent to correct and improve the playing skills of players on a court. We might say that the Holy Spirit is like a coach whose ongoing work is to build upon the instruction of the tennis pro. (I use these examples to illustrate the ways in which God interacts with us, His players on the world stage today. I hope there’s no intent seen in using them to suggest any sort of a casual understanding of God’s nature and work among us.)

Let’s return to an aspect of a game that we mentioned a moment ago:  There are two sides or two entities in a game.

For whatever reason, God chooses to work with us human beings. Is there any doubt that God could choose to work without our involvement? No, God could easily do that.

But God wants us to play the game the way He designed and intended the game to be played. For the betterment of the world which God created, it is important that we learn the rules of the game and learn to apply those rules to the way we live.

That’s what we’re about here this morning at St. John’s….we are learning about the way God wants us to live, and we are improving our skills on the tennis court of life.

The world will be better for it, as we master the ways of playing the game that God designed and gave to us.

AMEN.

Pentecost 6, Year B (2018)

Wisdom of Solomon 1: 13–15; 2: 23–34; Psalm 130; II Corinthians 8: 7–15; Mark 5: 21–43

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, July 1, 2018.

“THE QUEST FOR INDEPENDENCE AND ITS AFFECT ON ANGLICANS”

Oftentimes, the events of the past are regarded by successive generations with admiration for the good things that flow from those events. We human beings tend to remember the good things about the past, often forgetting (or neglecting) the struggles that were a part of those events.

This week, the nation will celebrate its independence from England as we remember the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

But for many of those who were involved in the process of separating ourselves from the mother country, there were significant dangers to be reckoned with, and a good deal of personal exposure to the loss of property and welfare.

The dangers that many in our new country faced were uniquely faced by members of the Church of England, which is the mother church of our Episcopal Church today.

It would be good for us to remind ourselves of the unique situation that those who were adherents of this branch of the Christian faith encountered as independence was declared, and then won as the Revolutionary War unfolded. We’ll look first at the circumstances that the Church itself faced, and then we’ll look at the impact of the struggle for independence on three individuals who were part of the Church:  George Washington, commander of the Army and, later, our first President under the Constitution; Jacob Duché, who was Rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, and Samuel Seabury, first Bishop of the new Episcopal Church.

We begin with the circumstances of the Church.

When the British landed in Jamestown, in the Colony of Virginia, the first Anglican celebration of the Holy Communion took place at Jamestown in 1607. (A church still stands on that site today, commemorating this important event.) The British took their Church with them wherever they went. (A consequence of this policy is the Anglican Communion as we know it today, 38 autonomous churches comprising about 80 million members, the third-largest family of Christian churches.)

The Church in the colonies was an arm of the British government. In some places, the Church was established (one such example is in Virginia), where it was supported by taxes. (This was also true of the church where I served as a seminarian for two years:  Christ Church, Port Tobacco Parish. The church, which was founded in 1692, was supported by an annual tax, payable in tobacco, an arrangement that continued for some years after the founding of our new nation.)

But the Church on this side of the Atlantic was hampered by the fact that there were no bishops in the colonies. Consequently, someone seeking ordination would have to make the trip to England to be ordained. Sometimes, the trip was made twice, once for ordination as a Deacon, and then again for ordination as a Priest.

It’s not hard to see that the supply of clergy was a constant problem for the Church in the colonies. Vacancies were frequent and widespread. Since a clergy presence was often missing, the Vestries of the local churches often took over a governing role. Lay involvement in the running of the affairs of the Church was quite high. (This legacy remains in the Episcopal Church today, where our governing entities are made up of bishops, clergy and lay members.)

When the Revolution came about, Anglicans were faced with a difficult choice:  For one thing, their Church was closely bound to the British government, and – more particularly – to the king. Understandably, some Anglicans were opposed to the creation of a new nation and separation from England. But others – including many of the leaders of the Revolution – were members of the Anglican Church. Some Anglicans who were opposed to the Revolution fled to England. Others went to Canada.

Many churches who had clergy prior to the Revolution lost their clergy once independence had been declared. Churches sometimes stood empty, were in poor repair, or were used as stables for horses.

That was the situation that existed at the close of the Revolutionary War. It was the task of the founders of the Episcopal Church to pick up the pieces, and to craft a new identity which was separate from, but connected to, the mother Church.

Now, let’s turn our attention to the personal impact of the quest for independence as we see it in the lives of three prominent members of the Church.

George Washington:  Washington was the commander of the Continental Army, and then – upon independence, of the American Army. After the adoption of the Constitution, he was our first President. But he was an active member of the Church, as well. He served on the Vestries of some of the colonial parishes that are still found today in Northern Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C.: Christ Church in Alexandria, Pohick Church a little further south, and the Falls Church, which gave its name to the city in which it is located. Washington’s estate, Mount Vernon, is located on the western side of the Potomac River, a few miles south of the nation’s capital. During the war, many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence faced the loss of their estates, and some actually lost them. Washington faced the same possibility as well. In addition, Washington, along with the signers of the Declaration risked facing the death penalty if they fell into the hands of the British.

Jacob Duché:  Duché was Rector of Christ Church in Philadelphia. Since Philadelphia was the site of the meetings at which the Declaration was formulated and signed, Duché had the opportunity to play a central role in the workings of the Continental Congress (and later, the Congress of the new nation). He was appointed Chaplain of the Continental Congress, a role he continued to play once the new nation had been formed. When the Declaration was signed, Duché met with his Vestry, and it was decided that prayers for King George III would be struck out of the Prayer Book, and substitutions would be made to insert in its place prayers for the Congress. (I’ve provided you with an example of these changes.) 

Duché’s act in striking through the name of the king was a treasonous act, for – upon ordination in England – he had taken an oath of allegiance to the king. So when the British occupied Philadelphia in September, 1777, Duché was arrested and detained. Upon his release, he wrote a letter to George Washington, who was then encamped with the army at Valley Forge. Duché urged Washington to give up the struggle for independence and to seek terms of peace with the British. His letter was meant to remain confidential, but soon, it became widely known. Overnight, Duché went from being a champion of the cause for independence to being a traitor. He was tried and convicted of high treason by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.. His estate was confiscated. Duché left for England not long afterward, where he served as Chaplain in an asylum in London. Duché was able to return to America some years later, in 1792. He died in 1798.

Samuel Seabury:  Seabury became the first Bishop of the new Episcopal Church when he was consecrated in 1784. But some aspects of Seabury’s past stood at odds with some other Anglicans who had been leaders in the cause for independence, for Seabury served as a chaplain in the British Army during the Revolutionary War. In fact, he continued to receive a pension for his service following the conclusion of the war.

Seabury’s past highlights the differences that had to be patched up once the war was concluded and independence had been won. Some in the Church favored independence, others opposed it, while still others fled to England or to Canada. It was a formidable task to overcome these differences in order to craft a new Church, operating under new circumstances.

We would do well to remember these struggles, and in particular, the personal dramas of the people whose lives were caught up in the events of 1776. We are the beneficiaries of their struggles today, and we are blessed by them.

AMEN.