Sun - October 26, 2003

On healing


The healing of blind Bartimaeus
Mark 10:46-52

Sermon points from this morning's message

It was an important, hight-pressure time even for Jesus' important, high-pressure ministry. He was on his way to Jerusalem to confront the authorities who, he had already told his disciples, would reject him and ultimately have him killed. There was much to teach the small band of loyal followers who traveled with him. Somehow, he would still have the victory. After all, his mission was no less than saving the world. His disciples, in some measure, knew this. After all, just a short while before (vv. 35-45) there had been disputes among them about who would get the most important jobs in the upcoming Jesus administration.

In the face of such an important mission, on the part of the most important person the world had ever seen, the needs of one of society's least productive members hardly seems to warrant much attention. But here was this blind man, dependent on the generosity of others for his daily bread, sitting by the side of the road begging. Panhandling, we would call it.

There were lots of blind men, lots of beggars in the ancient world. Their only means of support depended on an ethic of generosity, such as that fostered by the instructions of Moses: "Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, "Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land." Jesus' paraphrase of this, that "the poor you will always have with you." is sometimes misapplied as a way of saying that the problem of poverty is so intractable that it need not be addressed; and surely there were some n that day also who thought that God was perhaps a bit unreasonable in giving his people responsibility to be generous to the needy. What would feeding one blind man do, after all, but put (as we might say) a temporary Band-Aid on the problem? Wouldn't he be back, and many others like him, next day with his begging bowl? Since his problem is chronic, isn't it somehow less deserving of attention than the important matters the master must deal with?

But he called out all the more, and Jesus for his part responded. First point: Never think that your need is too insignificant for Jesus. The NT elsewhere encourages us to "come boldly to the throne of grace, so that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16).

Second point: Jesus asked him, "What do you want me to do for you?" The encounter is personal, and it goes beyond the expectations of the crowd. Rather than assume that he wants money, Jesus looks to see if there is a deeper need. And indeed there is, because this blind man has already seen clearly enough to identify Jesus as the Son of David, that is, the Anointed, God's messiah and he addresses him as Rabboni, My Teacher. This spiritual vision gives him the courage to ask also for his physical vision. Jesus confirms that the greater miracle has already taken place: "Go; your faith has made you well."

Thirdly: Jesus imposed no condition on him for his healing, but released him to do whatever he wanted to do. Sight restored, he need no longer sit at the roadside panhandling, but could work with dignity. Wisely, he uses his freedom to choose the path which keeps him close to Jesus: he "followed him on the way." Would that we who have been set free would choose such a path, though it lead to Jerusalem, to confrontation, to the cross.

Posted at 11:58 PM     Read More  


Sat - October 25, 2003

the sword and the Word


more on NT metaphors of violence

Seems to me that the Spirit (Grace) vs. Law reading is a good one.
Thinking further, I note that while in this place Jesus says, "I come to
bring not peace, but a sword," numerous other references to a sword in
the NT use it as a spiritual metaphor, e.g., "the sword of the Spirit,
which is the Word of God" (Ephesians 6); "the word of God is alive and
powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12), and
of course the references to the vision of the risen Christ in
Revelation, where "out of his MOUTH proceeds a sharp two-edged sword."
There were those, then, in the first generation after Jesus, who thought
of a spiritual sword that creates a spiritual division between what is
holy and unholy, within the individual first of all, separating a sinner
from his/her own sin, and separating the Christian community, the new
family, from the former way of life in which the members "once walked"
—a way of life that demanded loyalty to family and tribe and nation
(ethnos) first of all. Turning away from such loyalties to the new
loyalty which, as it belongs to the God of all the earth, embraces all
mankind and transcends human enmities, no matter how dearly held (as
shown in, notably, Ephesians 2), is liable to create friction in those
groups, including families, whose demand for first allegiance
effectively amounts to idolatry .

This same spiritual sword is also wielded by the Christian community in
calling people to the living God who is beyond all such tribal
loyalties, such that those who hear the word are, as it says in Acts,
either "pierced to the heart" (and thus respond in repentance, Acts
2:37) or "cut to the heart" (and turn violently against the messenger,
often in defense of their own tribal loyalties. Acts 5:33, 7:54).

By contrast, with regard to the use by Christ's followers of a literal
sword or the initiation of violence, it just doesn't appear in the NT
after the resurrection (and beforehand only once, only to evoke a rebuke
from Jesus). Hence it seems, again, that division is expected to happen
as a response to the proclamation of the Gospel of peace, but it is not
somehow mandated as part of the program.

Posted at 10:34 AM     Read More  

fire and sword


Does Jesus promote division? In what way?
from an ongoing listserv discussion

When I have preached on this passage what stands out for me is that the
divisions Jesus promises are precisely not the divisions that confirm
people's prejudices: the us versus them, my household versus your
household, my clan versus your clan, people who are like me versus
people who are like you. Thus it specifically does not endorse a
division between, say, Christians and Jews, or for that matter
"Judeo-Chrisitans" and Muslims, especially when these are thought of in
terms of ethnic/national/cultural values.

Instead, the division is between those who "have ears to hear" and those
who don't: in simplest terms, between those who seek to love their
neighbor as themselves (and even, following Christ's instruction, to
love their enemies) and those who would look out for their own, and
their families (and clan and nation's) interest first.

That's how I read it, anyhow. But what do I know? I'm just a country
preacher.

On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 08:58 AM, someone wrote:
Following is today's Gospel reading from the Catholic lectionary. I
always find it unsettling. I can see how fundamentalists could apply
this to all the division in the world today, with them on Jesus' side,
of course. (Or does he say that he ends up on one side or the other?)
Does he mean the separation between the Christians and the Jews is
part of God's plan? What do you all think it means?
Gospel
Lk 12:49-53
Jesus said to his disciples:
"I have come to set the earth on fire,
and how I wish it were already blazing!
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized,
and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth?
No, I tell you, but rather division.
From now on a household of five will be divided,
three against two and two against three;
a father will be divided against his son
and a son against his father,
a mother against her daughter
and a daughter against her mother,
a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Posted at 10:33 AM     Read More  


Fri - October 24, 2003

The weblog experience


a journal-like reflection on this process

So, here am I working to see how this process works. Using a nifty Aqua interface, I should be able to post not just thoughts and ideas, but also links like this one which points to my own web pages. I should also be able to post other attachments, binary files such as music and photos, and perhaps other stuff. What I'm going to do here is just post this thing, and see how it looks.

Then I'll edit it, and load it again. Whoops, looks like I just did.

By the way, this is produced using iBlog 1.3.1, a free download courtesy of Apple and my .Mac membership. Entries are in reverse chronological order; you'll see the last thing I wrote first.

My name is Bob, and I'm a preacher.

Posted at 02:16 PM     Read More  

©