Pentecost 8, Year C (2022)

Proper 13 :: Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12 – 14; 2:18 – 23 / Psalm 49:1 – 11 / Colossians 3:1 – 11 / Luke 12:13 – 21

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, July 31, 2022.

 

“PRAYER: CHANGING GOD OR CHANGING US?”

(Homily texts:  Ecclesiastes 1:2, 12 – 14; 2:18 - 23 & Luke 12:13 - 21)

 

More than once, I’ve made the remark that, in times gone by, there was really no such thing as the self-storage business. Nowadays, however, places to keep “stuff” are everywhere. And, what’s more, if existing self-storage facilities have the room, they’ll oftentimes expand, building more space for their customers.

In truth, though the self-storage business seems to be a feature of recent times, the concept itself is, perhaps, as old as human society itself. Though today’s culture makes use of commercial storage facilities, garages in days gone by and also today are, oftentimes, chock full of “stuff”, stuff that people might not use all that often, but stuff they can’t bear to think of getting rid of one way or another, either.

Having enough to survive, or even to thrive, is as old a desire and goal as human experience itself. After all, it’s a good thing to be prepared for things like droughts, crop failures, and the like. Having a surplus of food represents security. We could apply that same observation to other things we possess. They, too, represent security.

Security is at the heart of our Lord’s Parable of the Rich Fool, heard in today’s Gospel text. The rich man says to himself, “I’m quite well fixed. I’ll tear down my existing storage facilities and build larger ones. Then, I’ll sit back and enjoy all that I have, knowing that I am secure for the future.” (Of course, that’s my summary of the parable.)

But another facet of the society in which the Lord came among us is also present in this parable, for the commonly-held belief was, back then, that if a person was wealthy and healthy, it was because they were leading an exemplary and righteous life. That belief connected their manner of living with God’s blessings, seen in health and in material goods.

The Lord’s teaching brings the man up short. Instead of enjoying a long and prosperous, blessed life, Jesus tells us that, that very night, his life will end. Then, the Lord asks, “Whose will those things he’s accumulated be?”

“Vanity of vanities” the writer of Ecclesiastes says, “All is vanity”. (At this point, it might be good to remind ourselves about the writer of Ecclesiastes…traditionally, this is King Solomon, in his old age, reflecting back on his own life and also on the human condition in general.) The writer says that all our work is “vanity”. Then, the writer goes on to say that, once this life is over, all that a person has worked for will be enjoyed by someone else.

The point seems to be that what we possess, no matter if it’s things we have to prolong and enhance our lives, or if it’s our possessions, aren’t the source of any sort of security, not in the long term.

The only thing we will possess once this life is through is our relationship with God. SIf we think about it, we have this relationship already in our walk with God in this life. Once this life’s journey is complete, we’ll have that relationship in all its fullness. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to cultivate that relationship, to do those things that will strengthen it and which will draw us closer to the Lord while we have the time and the ability.

There are, truly, no U Hauls in heaven. What will carry into the next life won’t require a U Haul to transport into God’s presence.

AMEN.

         

Pentecost 7, Year C (2022)

Proper 12 :: Genesis 18:20 – 32 / Psalm 85 / Colossians 2:6 – 15 / Luke 11:1 – 13

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, July 24, 2022.

 

“PRAYER: CHANGING GOD OR CHANGING US?”

(Homily texts:  Genesis 18:20 - 32 & Luke 11:1 – 13)

We have two well-chosen readings before us this morning, both of which have to do with prayer. Our Genesis reading relates Abraham’s intercession on behalf of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. In our Gospel reading, we read of Jesus’ teaching about God’s generosity, the assurance that God answers prayer, and the need we have to do our part in seeking God’s will in prayer.

As we look at these two readings, we might ask ourselves: Does prayer change God’s mind, or does prayer change us?

For an answer, let’s look, first, at our account in Genesis.

We find Abraham interceding on behalf of the two wicked cities, Sodom and Gomorrah. He begins by asking God if he will destroy the city, sweeping away the righteous within it along with the wicked. He then begins by asking if God will destroy the city if fifty righteous are found there. God agrees, if fifty can be found, He won’t destroy the city. Abraham then begins to work the numbers of righteous down until he asks God if only ten righteous are found, would the cities be destroyed. God gives the assurance that if ten are found, the cities will be spared.

We know the rest of the story and how things turn out….the cities are enormously wicked, so wicked, in fact, that not even ten righteous are found there. They are both destroyed.

Now, if we put ourselves in Abraham’s situation, it’s possible that we can see that he might have come to the conclusion that the cities were so wicked that not even ten righteous were found there. Abraham, in the process, of offering lower and lower numbers of potential righteous persons, may have engaged in a reflection on the reality of the situation in Sodom and in Gomorrah.

If so, then it is Abraham whose perspective is changed.

Now, turning to our Gospel text, the Lord encourages us to be persistent in our prayer requests. “Ask, search, knock,” He says.

These three words suggest that we have work to do in our prayer life with God. It won’t do, quite likely, to blithely mouth our petitions to the Lord, then walk away expecting that everything we’ve asked for will automatically be given to us.

In the process of asking, of searching, and of knocking, we ourselves might be changed. Our perspective, like that of Abraham’s, might undergo refinement and change.

In the final analysis, we would do well to keep in mind that God already knows our needs and our requests. But in offering those things to God, we, ourselves, fulfill our part of the transaction by remembering to present those needs to God, and we must prepare ourselves for the strong possibility that our own perspectives will be changed as a result of the struggle to seek God’s will.

A collect in our Prayer Book addresses our spiritual condition quite well. It reads like this:

“Almighty God, the fountain of all wisdom, who knowest our necessities before we ask and our ignorance in asking: Have compassion, we beseech thee, upon our infirmities, and those things which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness we cannot ask, mercifully give us for the worthiness of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.”  (The Collect for Proper 11, Book of Common Prayer, 1979, page 179)

Pentecost 6, Year C (2022)

Proper 11 :: Genesis 18:1 – 10a / Psalm 15 / Colossians 1:15 – 28 / Luke 10:38 – 42

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, July 17, 2022.

 

“EVERYDAY THINGS
AND SPIRITUAL THINGS”

(Homily text: Luke 10:38 - 42)

This morning, we catch a glimpse of the home life of Mary and Martha, two sisters who shared their home with their brother, Lazarus, living in the suburb of Jerusalem called Bethany.[1]

It is dinner time, and Martha is busy getting things ready for the meal. Mary, however, sits at Jesus’ feet, listening to Him talk. Perhaps because there was a lot to do, or perhaps because Martha thought that Mary shouldn’t be interested in hearing what the Lord had to say, she complains, telling the Lord to instruct Mary to assist her with the preparation of the meal.

We would do well to stop at this point and remind ourselves of a few things.

For one thing, in the culture of the day, women weren’t expected to learn – or to be able to learn - the basics of the faith. In fact, some men thought that women didn’t even have souls. Religious truths were reserved for men, mostly.  If a woman had an interest in the faith, they were expected to ask their husbands for information and guidance.

The other thing we might notice is that it is Luke, alone, who recounts to us this incident in the lives of Mary and Martha. Luke is fond of telling us about the prominent place of women in Jesus’ ministry, for accounts of those sorts of things are to be found throughout his writing.

Mary, then, defying the conventions of the time, wants to hear what Jesus has to say, and to learn them. Mary is keen to know about the things of God, the things that will assist her in this life, and the things that will last into eternity. The Lord confirms this, saying, “Mary has chosen the better portion.”

In this incident, we have two contrasting concerns: Martha is concerned with the everyday demands of life, while Mary is concentrating on the things of God.

To be truthful, we live in a “Martha” world, a world whose demands must be met on a daily basis for life to proceed. There are tasks to be done, obligations to be met, and so forth.

Very few of us are blessed enough to be able to spend the bulk of our time and attention on the things of God, not even, I would guess, those who are in monasteries. For even there, the demands of keeping the place going are often met by the residents of the place themselves. So, for example, a monk or a nun might spend part of their day scrubbing floors or doing some other sorts of “Martha” tasks.

Not too many years ago, a wonderful book came out which was based on this incident in the Lord’s life. It’s entitled “Having a Mary Heart in a Martha World”, and it’s still available. (I commend it to you.)

The book’s goal is to assist us to be able to live in an everyday, Martha-type world, where the demands of life, day in and day out, can easily crowd out the things of God. The blunt truth is that those everyday demands are tangible, which is to say that they are seen, they are objects, or they are concrete actions we must take in order to live life. The things of the spirit, the things of God, aren’t so easily seen or noticed.

Perhaps it’s important then, to take time, as Mary did, to deliberately focus in on the things of God. We can do this by engaging in regular Bible reading, in engaging in an active prayer life, and in learning. In fact, one aspect of our Sunday morning worship encourages us to think about and to focus in on the things of God, and to learn them and to appropriate them into everyday life.

That kind of focus is going to take effort and a commitment to deliberately setting time apart to spend on the things of eternity.

Perhaps that’s the lesson Mary has for us today.

AMEN.

---

[1]   This family is featured in Luke’s Gospel account, and also in John’s account, specifically in chapter eleven with the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The other two Gospels, Matthew and Mark, do not mention any of these three at all.

Pentecost 5, Year C (2022)

Proper 10 :: Amos 7:7 – 17 / Psalm 82 / Colossians 1:1 – 14 / Luke 10:25 – 37

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, July 10, 2022.

 

“NETWORKING”

(Homily text: Luke 10:25 - 37)

 

This morning, we are treated to Jesus’ wonderful parable about the Good Samaritan.

Since this parable is, most likely, very familiar to us, perhaps we might approach it by looking at a specific aspect of the Lord’s story that it might be easy to miss: The interactions between the Good Samaritan and the innkeeper. If we’re going to cast our gaze on this aspect of the story, we might be deliberately setting aside what might be some of the more noticeable aspects of the tale, like the stand-offish behavior of the priest and the Levite, for example.

Instead, let’s look into the interchange between the Samaritan and the innkeeper.

To look more deeply into the business that the Good Samaritan engaged in with the keeper of the inn to which the Samaritan had brought the badly wounded man, I think we may need to make some assumptions about the situation, which might help our examination of the initiatives of the Samaritan and the reaction of the innkeeper. I think the following assumptions aren’t out-of-line with the reality which existed at the time of Jesus’ telling of this tale.

The assumptions are these:

·         The inn is in Jewish territory. The road from Jerusalem down to Jericho (the setting for the parable) leads directly eastward from Jerusalem.

·         The Samaritan is an outsider in a foreign (Jewish) area.

·         The innkeeper is Jewish, meaning that he wouldn’t normally do business with or interact with a non-Jew, and especially not a Samaritan.

·         To have a wounded, bleeding man in the inn might mean that the inn and all those who’d been there would be rendered ritually unclean.[1]

          Now, let’s take a look at the scene that unfolds at the inn.

Jesus says that the Samaritan places the wounded man on his own donkey, and brings him to the inn. The Samaritan then takes care of the man. The next day, the Samaritan has to leave, but tells the innkeeper that he will make an advance payment on the care of the man (who, most likely, isn’t in any condition to travel) until he returns. The Samaritan then says that whatever else is spent on the man’s care while he is gone, he will pay for.

Perhaps we can deduce from the fact that the Lord doesn’t include some details in the story, that the innkeeper doesn’t order the Samaritan man and his wounded companion out of the inn the moment they set foot in the door. After all, if our assumption that the innkeeper is Jewish is correct, that might be the expected response as the Samaritan sets foot inside. (Reminds one of the exclusive policies of businesses in our own country not too many years ago, policies that can be summarized by the saying, “We don’t serve your kind here”.) But it’s clear from the story that the Samaritan and the wounded man are allowed to stay. They are allowed to stay more than just overnight.

We might come to the conclusion that the example of the care that the Samaritan man was giving to the man was such an example that the innkeeper was persuaded to allow the wounded man to stay when circumstances compelled the Samaritan to go away. That seems logical, even though the Lord doesn’t say so. Suffice it to say that the Samaritan is, in every way, demonstrating an exemplary example of the care that each human being ought to show to another. That might be the reason for the innkeeper’s willingness to accept a down payment on the man’s care, and to be assured that the Samaritan would, indeed, return, to tidy up whatever loose ends there were in the man’s care.

What’s happening here?

Two things, I think: 1. Breaking down barriers that separate people from one another, and 2. Creating networks of people working together for the betterment of others.

The world into which our Lord came 2,000 years ago was a deeply divided, deeply stratified world. Jews didn’t associate with Gentiles. Nor did they associate with Samaritans. Jewish leaders maintained their exclusive status, casting aside the care of the people they were supposed to be shepherding (no wonder Jesus calls Himself the “Good Shepherd”). The Gentile world was much the same way, deeply separated by class and by economics.

Notice then that the Lord tells us a tale that sets the normal expectations of his Jewish audience on their heads: He tells them a tale in which the hated Samaritan is the hero.

Now, let’s return to the matter of the cooperation that is set in motion by the Samaritan’s initiative in enlisting the innkeeper to assist in the wounded man’s care. The Samaritan has already broken down the barrier of being willing to come in contact with the wounded man. Now, the Samaritans isn’t afraid to approach the innkeeper to say, “We need your help”.

It’s troubling to have to admit that the world we live in is much like the world of 2,000 years ago. It is a deeply divided, deeply stratified world. It is a world in which many would rather walk to the other side of the road to avoid a difficult situation, rather than take the initiative to make things better.

Our Lord’s call in Baptism is to action, and to create cooperative networks with other Christian believers to make the Good News of God in Christ known by observable, tangible acts, acts which are outward and visible signs of God’s grace, dwelling within. I’d call such a standard of living “Sacramental Living”. After all, we have to admit that, at one time, we were outsiders with God. But God, in His mercy, reached out to us, in order to create a cooperative network for the glory of His name and the betterment of all humanity. We call that reaching out Baptism.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan gives us an excellent pattern to follow.

AMEN.

---

[1]   The priest and the Levite avoid the wounded man by going to the far side of the road in order to avoid contact with the man’s blood, which would render them ritually unclean according to the requirements of the Law of Moses.