Pentecost 22, Year B (2021)

Proper 25 ::  Jeremiah 31:7 – 9 / Psalm 34:1 – 8, 19 – 22 / Hebrews 7:23 – 28 /Mark 10:46 – 51

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, October 24, 2021.

“HAVING LITTLE TO OFFER, BUT JUST ENOUGH”

(Homily text: Mark 10:46 – 51)

Let’s ask ourselves this question, as we hear the familiar account of the healing of the blind beggar, Bartimaeus: “What does Bartimaeus have to offer the Lord?”

By the conventional wisdom of many people in that day and time, the answer would most likely be: “Not much!”, or perhaps “Nothing at all”.

After all, Bartimaeus was blind, and because he was in that condition, and in particular, because he’d (apparently) lost his sight at some point in his life, many people in Jericho probably regarded him as a notorious sinner, someone who’d managed to offend God in such a way that he’d been abandoned by God. It’s possible that the residents of Jericho regarded Bartimaeus as a nuisance, a “throw-away” person they’d just as soon ignore, hoping that, if he was out of their sight, he might also be out of their thinking and noticing. I think their attitude is reflected in their repeated statements telling Bartimaeus to be quiet.

We can’t be entirely sure about these observations, but they seem to be in agreement with the attitudes of many in that age. We can be sure that blindness and the status of being a sinner were connected. Consider, as an example, the comment that Jesus’ disciples make upon discovering a man born blind: They ask if it was the fault of the man himself, or of his parents, that he was born in that condition. [1]

What then, does Bartimaeus have to offer to the Lord? Just two things:  Himself and faith.

Bartimaeus has nothing else to offer but himself, and his faith in the Lord’s ability to help him out of his condition. Bartimaeus comes to Jesus empty-handed, except for these two things that he possesses: Himself and his faith in the Lord

In truth, what Bartimaeus offered Jesus is the very same thing you and I have to offer: Ourselves and our faith. All else that we may think we have to offer is beside the point, if we consider how our relationship to the Lord begins. It has to begin in the same way that Bartimaeus’ relationship began: By offering ourselves, in our broken down and spiritually poverty-stricken condition.

For if we’re honest with ourselves, we are unable, as Bartimaeus was, to help ourselves. Surely St. Augustine of Hippo[2] would agree: He maintained that we are so spiritually hampered by our inheritance of the stain of sin to even be able to see ourselves for who we truly and really are. So, Augustine says, we must depend on God’s grace (being defined as “God’s goodness and favor toward us, unearned and unmerited”), a grace which must come before we are even aware of it, [3] a grace that softens up the soil of our hearts and which permits God’s work to begin in us.

This is a self-emptying process, a “zero-sum” proposition, the only beginning place for us in establishing a relationship with God. We come to offer a possession each of us has, ourselves. We come, offering to God the conviction that He can help us out of our condition, just as Bartimaeus did.

Such a self-emptying act is one that must be repeated time and again as we make our way through life. Our baptismal rite affirms this, as we are asked, as the rite unfolds, the question, “Will you, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?” We answer, “We will, with God’s help.” Notice the presence of the word “whenever”. Not “if”, but “whenever”. We in the Church are quite realistic when it comes to acknowledging our own waywardness.

It simply won’t do to try to stand on some spiritual platform we may have created for ourselves, in an attempt to attain to God’s holiness. For, in truth, we have nothing to stand on, nothing that is stable, nothing that will support us. All we have to offer is a hand up to God, asking Him to redeem us and to clean us up. In offering that, we are offering little, but we are offering enough for God to act to deliver us from our deplorable and helpless condition.

AMEN.

 

---

[1]   See John’s Gospel account, chapter nine. In the case of the man born blind, the disciples’ question reflects the fact that the man was born in that condition, pointing to a possible failing on the part of his parents. In Bartimaeus’ case, however, since he’d apparently lost his sight at some point in his life, the assumption might well have been that it was his own failings that brought about his condition.

[2]   Augustine lived from 354 – 430 AD, and is regarded as being the foremost theologian of the western Church. He had to deal with the heresy known as Pelagianism, which maintained that we human beings have all the ability we need to be able to bring about our own salvation.

[3]   The technical name for this sort of grace is Prevenient Grace, a grace that literally “comes before” we are aware and able to receive it.

Pentecost 19, Year B (2021)

Proper 22 ::  Genesis 2:18 – 24 / Psalm 22 / Mark 10:2 – 16 

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, October 3, 2021.

 

“IT’S GONNA TAKE WORK”

(Homily texts:  Genesis 2:18 – 24 & Mark 10:2 – 16)

One of the illusions that seem to beckon to us human beings is the idea that things are “maintenance-free”, and that if we don’t find items in our lives to be useful any longer, we can simply throw them away. Truth is, we live in a “maintenance-free” society. We also live in a “throw away” society.

But, of course, there’s no such thing as a “maintenance-free” anything. Consider, for example, the changes that have taken place with our automobiles: Time was, an oil change was required every 2,000 – 3,000 miles or so. Nowadays, oil changes take place at far greater timespans. But oil changes are still required. Cars, for all the advances that have taken place with them over time, are still anything but “maintenance-free”.

Everywhere we look, the things that occupy our time and attention all require maintenance and work. That list would include our cars, our households and all that is them, and our relationships.

Moreover, simply throwing things away when they no longer work, or when they need some sort of attention that we’re unwilling to offer to fix them, is wasteful. If we throw away our personal relationships, we run the risk of creating enormous problems for ourselves, and for others.

All of this discussion leads us to a consideration of our Lord’s teaching about the nature of marriage, and of the reality of divorce.

Taken on its face, our Lord’s prohibition against divorce, and against remarriage, seems harsh and uncaring toward those who find themselves in the unenviable situation of being in a destructive relationship. But if we look beneath the surface of the Lord’s teaching, we can see that He was addressing abuses of the ability to divorce that were taking place during the time of His earthly ministry.

The Pharisees’ approach to Jesus, asking Him about the ability to divorce, is rooted in the debates about the subject that were ongoing at that time. There were three main rabbinical schools of thought about the reasons a man might divorce his wife:

·         Rabbi Shammai held the most restricted view, limiting divorce to situations of unfaithfulness to the marriage relationship on the part of the wife. [1]

·         Rabbi Hillel maintained that man could divorce his wife for many reasons, even including occasions when she “ruined his dinner”.

·         Rabbi Akiba allowed for many reasons, even to include divorce from a wife if the husband had found another woman who was “more attractive” than his current wife.

It’s important to notice that in all of these discussions, it’s the man’s prerogative to divorce. Under the Law of Moses, a woman had no legal rights, so she couldn’t initiate a divorce. This was a “man’s world” (which isn’t always a good thing!). [2]

Instead of taking the Pharisees’ bait, Jesus reconfigures the question, citing God’s original purpose for marriage, a relationship whose goal is a lifelong one. He cites Genesis, chapter two, in His response.

It strikes me that the attitudes of many men during the time of our Lord’s visitation show that they were looking for loopholes, as ways to get out of a marriage.

But what was the outcome, the fallout, from their capricious ways? In the process of abandoning their wives (and children) in the “man’s world” that existed then, many women were thrown into poverty, and their children along with them. It seems, therefore, that the Lord was speaking out of a deep concern for the welfare of women and children, who were among the weakest and least powerful members of society at that time.

The Church, down through time, has struggled with the issue and the reality of divorce. For example, consider St. Paul’s writing in I Corinthians, chapter seven. Over time, the Church has (for the most part) considerably relaxed its position about the possibility of remarriage after divorce. Perhaps this is a good thing, if, indeed, the circumstances of the marriage are such that extreme damage could result from preserving the marriage. (If some sort of abuse exists, for example, it seems prudent to end the marriage for the sake of the welfare of the spouse….that would be one example of the advisability of ending the marriage, as regrettable as such a decision would be.)

Alas, there is, yet today, no shortage of the hardness of heart that the Lord speaks about in His response to the Pharisees. We live in a fallen and imperfect world, one in which people do not take their promises seriously, one in which far too many think they can throw away a marriage and a spouse (and possibly, children, as well).

Yet the Lord would ask us to do the hard work of preserving and building up our marriages. For it’s gonna take hard work in order to strengthen our marriages. There’s no such thing as a “maintenance-free” marriage, or any other relationship, for that matter. They will all require work, lots of it.

AMEN.

 

 

---

[1]   This view is reflected in two texts that are found in Matthew’s Gospel account, at 5:32 and at 19:9. This view is based on Deuteronomy 24:1 – 4.

[2]   Under Roman law, a woman had more legal rights, and could initiate a divorce.