Pentecost 7, Year C (2025)

Genesis 18: 20–32 / Psalm 138 / Colossians 2: 6–19 / Luke 11: 1-13

This is the written version of the homily given at Flohr’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) in McKnightstown, Pennsylvania on Sunday, July 27, 2025, by Fr. Gene Tucker, Interim Pastor.

 

“THIS IS A TEST OF OUR PRAYER LIFE AND PRACTICES”

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

“This is a test. This is really a test, a test of our relationship with God and our relating to Him in prayer.”

Today’s Old Testament reading, from Genesis, chapter eighteen, and our Gospel reading, from Luke, chapter eleven, each have to do with persistence in prayer. These texts challenge us to take a close look at our own relationship with the Lord, and the ways in which we come to Him in prayer.

Before we explore these ideas, let’s look briefly at Luke’s offering of the Lord’s Prayer.

Notice that it follows, generally, the same pattern as the version given in Matthew’s Gospel account. (This is the version we use in our liturgy.) But there are differences.

The question naturally arises: “Why is this version different from Matthew’s?”

Two possibilities present themselves: 1. It’s possible that Luke’s sources remembered what the Lord said differently than Matthew’s record indicates. Recall that, at the beginning of Luke’s Gospel account, he tells us that he had diligently checked his sources in order to compile his account of the Lord’s life, work, death and resurrection. (Remember that Luke was not an eyewitness of the Lord’s ministry. He was a Gentile and a later convert to the Christian faith.). 2.  It’s possible that the Lord was asked on more than one occasion how to pray, and the Lord offered different versions of the prayer. We often overlook this possibility; it seems to me. It’s natural to think that the Lord offered His prayer only once, but that may not have been the case. (The same thing could also be true of other events in the Lord’s ministry.)

Now, let’s turn our attention to the back-and-forth between Abraham and God, as we find it in Genesis. Then, let’s take away some lessons from our Lord’s parable of the man who asks for a loaf of bread at midnight.

In our Genesis reading, Abraham’s haggling with God is almost comical. Can’t we imagine the back-and-forth? “What if you find fifty righteous in Sodom, will you destroy it?”, Abraham asks. God responds, “No, not for fifty.” The Abraham works the number of righteous downward, and downward again, and again, until he gets to ten righteous persons in the city. Turns out there aren’t even ten righteous ones in Sodom…it’s a really wicked place, maybe one like the tent cities that followed the westward advance of the building of the transcontinental railroad in the 1860s. Those tent cities, which were freewheeling places, became known as “Hell on Wheels” towns. Sodom must’ve been something like that.

In the process of working the number of righteous souls downward and downward, it is Abraham who is changed, not God. God already knows all about the conditions and the wicked nature of Sodom. But as the back-and-forth unfolds, it is Abraham who realizes the reality of conditions in Sodom. As the story unfolds, that wickedness becomes a reality, as Abraham’s nephew Lot and a small number of his family are the only ones to escape. Turns out, there aren’t even ten righteous ones in Sodom: Only Lot, his wife and his two daughters are the only ones to escape.

Now, let’s turn to our Gospel reading.

There, the Lord spins out a tale about a man who goes to his neighbor at midnight, seeking some bread with which to feed a guest who’s just arrived.

The Lord’s story continues, as He says that the man who’s been asked to open up the door and provide the bread, at first refuses to do so. But when the persistence of the man doing the asking continues, the man gets up and fulfills the request.

Notice the language that Jesus uses: “How much more will the Lord give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?”

The Lord uses a rhetorical device known as “lesser-to-greater”, marked by the words “how much more” to describe God’s goodness. Jesus says, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more….”

Note also that the Lord is using hyperbole (exaggerated speech, meant to surprise or shock) in describing His listeners as being “evil”.

Now, both readings offer us some insights about our relating to God in prayer.

First of all, a fruitful prayer life rests on the foundation of relationship. Abraham is only able to haggle over the fate of Sodom because Abraham is in relationship with God. By the same vein, the man asking for bread is able to do so only because he is in relationship with his neighbor.

We cannot expect our prayer life to be effective if we do not do what we must do to maintain a relationship with the Lord. We cannot treat God like we do an ATM machine, inserting our special prayer card, entering our authorization code, expecting to receive exactly what we want when we want it, and then to go on with life. Prayer doesn’t work that way.

Secondly, when we bring our needs and our requests to God, we should expect that our perspectives will change. God already knows the needs, and the situation, far better than we do. That was certainly the case with Abraham.

Finally, being persistent is OK. Holy Scripture seems to endorse the idea that we should be persistent in our prayer life, bringing before God’s throne of grace our own needs, shortcomings and failures, and bringing to God the needs and the challenges of others. God seems to appreciate such a focus.

One final thought might be worth adding: Prayer works. It always works. How it works is, at times, a mystery. Sometimes, God’s answer is “Yes”. Sometimes, it is “No”, and sometimes, it’s “Not now”.

One more possible answer needs acknowledgement: God can say to us, “Your request is outside of my will”. In such cases, my own life is testament to the reality that what God had in mind was far better than what I had in mind.

AMEN.

 

 

  

Pentecost 6, Year C (2025)

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

This is the written version of the homily given at Flohr’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) in McKnightstown, Pennsylvania on Sunday, July 20, 2025 by Fr. Gene Tucker, Interim Pastor.

 

“LIFE IS SHORT…”

(Homily text: Colossians 1: 15–28)

 

“Life is short, it pays to go first-class.” This saying might be a common one, though I heard it when I was in the Army.

In that vein, then, let’s consider some of the ways we put the wisdom of this saying into practice:

We are, for example, using an adjustable wrench to tighten a bolt. We discover, however, that the main thing the wrench we’re using is capable of doing is to loosen and then to round off the corners of the bolt. Turns out that adjustable wrench isn’t anywhere close to being a first-class tool. It’s quite something else.

Or, we are in the store, looking to buy a garment. We look closely at the quality of the fabric, and also at the seams. We want to be sure that what we’re planning to buy and wear will give good service. We don’t want something whose fabric will develop holes or tears, and we don’t want something whose seams will fall apart. We want to go first-class with our purchase.

Or, we find ourselves in a car dealership. We’ve done our homework to see what the frequency-of-repairs are for the vehicle we’re considering buying. We might pop the hood and look at the machinery inside. We might look at the ground or the floor to see if there are puddles of some sort gathering there. Given the expensive nature of vehicles today, we want to be sure we’ve purchased a well-designed, well-maintained product. In short, what we’re doing is to try to go first-class.

Whether or not we’re aware of it, we do this with just about everything we do or consider in daily life. We don’t want to be cheated. We don’t want to put up with shoddy work or with poorly-designed “stuff”. We don’t want to buy something that will constantly break down or require continual attention and repairs to keep it going.

“Life is short, it pays to go first class!”

In essence, that’s what St. Paul is telling the early Christians in the church at Colossae. He is reminding them of the true nature of the Lord that they have come to know through the ministry of Epaphras. (Some biblical scholars think that the church in Colossae was founded by Epaphras during the time that Paul spent in nearby Ephesus. This theory suggests that Epaphras heard the Good News (Gospel) from Paul during that time, and then went to Colossae and assisted in the founding the church there.)

Paul’s message to the Colossians is essentially this: You have come to know the Lord Jesus Christ through the witness and the work of those who, themselves, have come to faith in Christ. The Colossian Christians had never seen the Lord themselves. Furthermore, they probably didn’t know much about the Old Testament foundations of the faith that had resulted in the sending of Jesus Christ to take up our humanity. What they did know they had come to understand through the work of faithful witnesses to Christ.

What a daunting task! To introduce these future believers to the Lord, even though they had been living a pagan life (with all its empty values and wayward ways) in the Greco-Roman world of the first-century.

Paul reminds these early believers about Christ Jesus’ true nature. “He is the image of the invisible God”, Paul says. “...by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible…”…in him all things hold together.”[1]

Paul’s point is that this Christ Jesus is no mere human being, no superhuman, charismatic figure whose luster and memory will fade as the years go by.

On the other hand, Paul says, you have come into an intimate relationship with Christ Jesus, who is one with God Himself. Yours, you Colossian Christians, is a first-class relationship and the first-class gift of God to all who come to faith.

Paul contrasts this new, first-class way of being and living with the former, pagan life of these early believers. Theirs was a second-class existence prior to coming to know the Lord.

Paul’s language captures the truth of Christ’s nature, one that the Church will, in time, affirm in the decree of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)…there, the Church affirms that Jesus Christ has two natures, a divine one and a human one. The Council’s decree affirms that neither nature can be separated from the other, but that the two are present in Christ Jesus. The two natures come together to form one person.[2]

These early Christians are blessed, Paul says, to be living in a time following the revelation of God’s nature in the person and work of Christ Jesus. God’s gift makes possible first-class living.

The gift given to the Colossians is the same gift given to us: We are blessed to live in the wake of Christ Jesus’ coming. We are blessed to be the beneficiaries of centuries of the Church’s reflection on God’s work, made known in Christ.

God be praised!

AMEN.

---

[1]   Theologians use the term “High Christology” to describe the focus on Christ’s divine nature. Such a focus is seen in Paul’s description of Christ, read this morning. By contrast, the focus on Jesus’ human nature is known as “Low Christology”.

[2]   This is a simplified summary of the Council’s decree. 

Pentecost 5, Year C (2025)

Deuteronomy 30: 9–14 / Psalm 25: 1–10 / Colossians 1: 1–14 / Luke 10: 25–37

This is the homily written for Flohr’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) in McKnightstown, Pennsylvania for Sunday, July 13, 2025 by Fr. Gene Tucker, Interim Pastor.

 

“WHAT AM I MISSING?”

(Homily text: Luke 10: 25–37)

This morning, we are treated to the Lord’s wonderful parable about the Good Samaritan. (This is one of many parables that Luke, alone among the Gospel writers, transmits to us...Luke’s Gospel account is a treasure trove of things that the Lord said and did during the time of His earthly ministry.)

As was often the case, the interchange between the Lord and an onlooker sets the stage for the Lord’s teaching. In this case, it is an attorney[1] who asks the Lord, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?”

This man’s question asks, essentially, “What am I missing?” (But note that Luke tells us that the man stood up so as to “put Jesus to the test”, meaning that he was looking for some pretext with which to accuse Jesus of wrongful belief and practice.)

Jesus puts the burden back on his accuser, saying, “What is written in the Law[2]? How do you read it?”

The reply is given, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself”. The Lord affirms this answer. But then the lawyer asks, “And who is my neighbor?”

With this answer, we are ready to look at some of the various aspects of the parable which will help us understand the cultural context of the Lord’s story, aspects that will deepen and enrich our understanding.

We might begin by remembering who the Samaritans were, and how they were regarded by Jews during the time of the Lord’s ministry.

Samaritans were the descendants of Jewish people who had intermingled and intermarried with various peoples who were resettled in the area of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel after the Assyrians overran it in the eighth-century B. C. As such, they were regarded as being racially impure by Jewish standards. Furthermore, they did not regard Jerusalem as being the proper place to worship God (Samaritans worshipped on Mount Gerazim). Finally, they possessed a version of the five books of the Law of Moses, but the Samaritan version differed from the Jewish version, and so was regarded as being corrupt.

The hatred of the Samaritans by the Jews was so intense that an upright Jew would avoid going through Samaria if they had occasion to go from the region of Galilee (in the north) to Jerusalem. They would choose to go around the region of Samaria, either along the Mediterranean seacoast, or along the Jordan River valley. (Isn’t it interesting, then, to note that Jesus often went straight through Samaria on his way to/from Jerusalem.)

Jesus’ choice of the Samaritan to be the hero of His parable would have been shocking to His Jewish audience. (Remember, though, that Luke is fond of telling us about things that the Lord did that overturn our normal expectations.)

Next, we ought to look at the reaction of the priest and of the Levite[3] as they encounter the wounded man, lying alongside the road. The Lord tells us that both of them, upon seeing the man, walk to the other side of the road and pass by without helping.

Normally, these two might qualify to be the heroes of the story. But they are not. The reason is, most likely, that to come into contact with the man’s blood would have rendered them ritually unclean, and unable to do their priestly functions. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Torah. Jesus’ audience would have been aware of this stipulation.

Now, the heart of the story unfolds, and it is one of vulnerability, a vulnerability that encompasses all three of the remaining characters in the story: The beaten man, the Samaritan and the innkeeper.

To this aspect of the parable we now turn.

The vulnerability of the wounded man is obvious…the Lord tells us that he was left half dead.

But the Samaritan is also vulnerable, for he is traveling in Jewish territory. That means that he is in a foreign country, one in which many – if not all – people would, quite likely, refuse to help him.

Next, the innkeeper is also vulnerable, for as the Samaritan enters with the wounded man, the innkeeper could have either refused to let them stay, or he could have been victimized if the Samaritan offered to pay for whatever the cost of the man’s treatment was, if he didn’t return. The compassion shown by the Samaritan now enfolds the innkeeper as well in the plan to restore the beaten man’s health.

We began by characterizing the attorney’s question in terms of asking, “What am I missing?”

It turns out that this expert in the Law got part of the point of Jesus’ parable right, but he still missed a part of it. As Jesus finishes the parable, He asks, “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” The attorney correctly replies, “The one who showed him mercy.” But notice that the attorney can’t bring himself to identify the hero of the story as being a Samaritan: His response is the “one”, not the “Samaritan” who showed him mercy. Perhaps the Lord’s point, in making the Samaritan the hero, was to show this person that the Samaritans aren’t who you think they are.

Whenever we hear or read a passage of Holy Scripture, we would do well to ask ourselves, “What is it that this text is telling us about God, and about God’s nature?” Another question that we might also ask is, “What is it that the Lord wants us to know about how to live our lives?”

Questions that the Lord’s parable pose to us today might include the following:

Sometimes life is messy. The priest and the Levite are faced with a choice: Do I help this wounded man and risk putting myself in a ritually unclean condition, so much so that I won’t be able to work? Or, do I help this man who is obviously in need? The choice they make in the parable is to follow the legal requirement of the Law of Moses, thereby preserving their ritual purity. It was a choice often made by God’s chosen people during the time of our Lord’s visitation, and one that Jesus often spoke out against. For, it seems, such a choice fails to ask, “What are we missing?” It fails to take into account the Law’s requirement to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Sometimes, the rules we live by come into tension with the real-life circumstances of people we encounter.  But, as we ponder this question, we ought to remember that Jesus began His parable by asking the attorney what the requirements of the Law are. So, the Law is important. Living into this tension, we often have to make choices that are less-than-ideal as life’s twists and turns confront us.

Encountering those who are vulnerable (in some way or another) also exposes us to vulnerability. We mentioned earlier that not only was the beaten man vulnerable, but the Samaritan was also vulnerable. Then, the innkeeper was also exposed to vulnerability.

Compassion is contagious: The Samaritan’s compassion for the wounded man must’ve been evident to the innkeeper from the moment they entered the inn. The innkeeper is folded into the Samaritan’s compassion (so, we might say that the innkeeper – who was probably Jewish – set aside any scruples he might have had about dealing with a Samaritan), trusting the Samaritan to actually return and to fully pay any remaining amount that the wounded man’s treatment required.

The Lord’s parables are filled with richness and a depth that invites us to look at and to ponder their truths over and again. (The Lord is a master story-teller!) In this sermon, we’ve looked at some of the aspects of this wonderful parable. What might the Holy Spirit enable us to see and understand in its import and meaning?

AMEN.

---

[1]   The individual who is identified as an attorney was, most likely, one who was trained in the precepts and the application of the Law of Moses (Torah). Such a person was a religious authority, not a practitioner of a secular, legal profession.

[2]   The Law of Moses (Torah)

[3]   There were three orders of priests: The Aaronic priests, the Zadokites and the Levites, in descending order. 

Pentecost 4, Year C (2025)

Isaiah 66: 10–14 / Psalm 66: 1–9 / Galatians 6: 1–16 / Luke 10: 1–11, 16–20

This is the homily given at Flohr’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) in McKnightstown, Pennsylvania on Sunday, July 6, 2025 by Fr. Gene Tucker, Interim Pastor.

 

“WHAT IF’S?”

(Homily text: Galatians 6: 1–16)

This morning, we finish our sojourn with St. Paul’s letter to the early churches in the region of Galatia. Paul’s appeal, throughout this letter, is for those early believers not to abandon the faith that was delivered to them by Paul and others, not to fall prey to the demands of unknown persons who were telling these church members that they must adhere to all the requirements of the Law of Moses in order to be true followers of Jesus, and to be united in their commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and to each other.

So, with this as an introduction, let’s ask ourselves a series of questions, entitled “What If’s?”.

What if the Church lost its way, and began to act like the surrounding, unbelieving world. Wouldn’t that be like the Lord’s warning, that if salt had lost its flavor, it was no longer any good, but should be thrown out and trampled underfoot? (See Matthew 5:13.)

        Come to think of it, such a development has happened before…in the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther and other reformers were determined to prompt the Church to abandon its quest for worldly power and influence.

        That same thing could happen to the Church today, whenever it seeks to adopt the ways of the outside world.

What if the Church got wrapped up in politics?

        That has happened before, as well: The reformers we mentioned a moment ago also saw that the Church was wrapped up in political intrigues, in wars, and so forth.

        So, too, can the Church today become an extension of a political agenda, or of a political movement or party. My second Bishop once wisely said, “The Church must never become political, it must never become an extension of any political party, whether that party is right, left, or in between”.

What if the Church began to behave as though it is a closed society, whose membership is open only to the chosen few (also sometimes known as the “Frozen Chosen”).

        Alas, that has happened as well in times past. And in some places, it still happens today. And, of course, part of what Paul has to say in our reading this morning is a rebuttal of the idea that the Church is a closed society, whose membership is open only to those who are able to follow all the rules.

What if the Church became so accepting of any sort of behavior that it abandoned its moral underpinnings, those things that the faith once delivered has passed on to its members, and to us?

        That, too, has happened before: The sixteenth-century reformers were appalled at the private behaviors of many of those who were leaders in the Church in their time.

        So, too, can we lapse into an acceptance of an outward appearance of holiness, but a holiness that isn’t reflected in our inward dispositions, attitudes and beliefs. My first Bishop once wisely said, “If you are going to come to serve here, your insides must match your outsides”. What the Bishop is referring to is something called “integrity”.

What if the Church forgot that its primary reason for being is to worship God? And, second to that, to be the agent by which God is introduced to people, and people are introduced to God, while the Church nurtures that relationship.

        History tells us that that has been the case in the past, as well.

        Our own time can reflect such a different set of values, as the Church pursues any number of causes, many of them worthwhile, turning the Church into a group of “religious busybodies” (my third Bishop’s description).

What if – on the other hand – the Church reflected the concerns that St. Paul articulates in his letter to the Galatians?

What if the Church worked to foster unity within its membership? After all, Paul says that we are to “bear one another’s burdens” in today’s reading.

        In the early Church, one of the most significant challenges it faced was to determine on what basis Gentiles (non-Jews) could come into relationship with God through Christ. In the Book of Acts, chapter fifteen, we read about the proceedings and the decisions that were made during the Council of Jerusalem (held in the year 49 AD). There, Gentiles were to be welcomed as full members of the Church. But the welcome wasn’t open-ended, there were limitations on what constituted acceptable behavior.

        The Church in our own day still faces the challenge to hold in tension the requirements of Holy Scripture with a realization that people are imperfect creatures, prone to make mistakes, prone to misjudgments, and so forth. To chart such a middle course is – it seems to me – to reject the rigid fundamentalism that the Galatians were experiencing with the demands of those unknown persons who were telling them that they had to follow all the requirements of the Law of Moses. But notice that Paul realizes the reality that some will fall away from faithful living. To such, he says, we are to restore such a person in gentleness, keeping watch that we, ourselves, don’t fall into the same situation.

What if the Church were to be known, not as a place of judgment and exclusion, but just the opposite: A welcoming place, a place where we declare that we have experienced God’s love, and – driven by that great gift – we offer that same love to all who come our way. And, St. Paul would remind us, that new call also meant that certain behaviors that once marked a secular, godless way of living, were no longer acceptable.

        The early Church grew mightily in numbers and in spiritual strength as it offered to the Greco-Roman world of the first century a radical welcome to all persons: slave or free, rich or poor, noble or slave[1], all of whom were sinners in need of God’s love and God’s forgiveness.

        In the process, people whose lives often had little or no meaning suddenly found – in the Church – meaning, welcome, love and purpose to life.

No wonder that early Church grew!

Their experience and their encounter with God, offered to people in those early times, can serve as a basis for the Church’s growth today: The secular world outside the Church resembles the Greco-Roman world of the first century: Many people feel like there is no meaning to their lives, no purpose, no brightness in their futures at all. The Church has a wonderful message to proclaim to all who feel that way today, offering them the message that they are God’s beloved children, God’s intentional creation, and a person with whom God seeks to be in relationship.

What if the Church, today, were to act like that first century Church? What might happen if it did?

AMEN.

---

[1]   See Galatians 3:28.