She gave from her sustenance

 

As the educated class of religious leaders the scribes were regarded as the "professionals" of their time. As such they expected to sit in a reserved place in the temple. In addition to doing nothing for the oppressed, much of their wealth was derived from the poor and the oppressed. This was part of an ongoing much larger criticism that Jesus levies against the temple-based authority that began with the clearing of the Temple earlier. Note, the money referenced is used to fund the Temple’s treasury; it makes no mention of its use to comfort or feed the needy. 

Jesus denounces the scribes for their hypocrisy, as they are seen in all their pompous finery and feigned reverence, and the way in which they amass their wealth.. While the scribes are acknowledged for what they contribute to the treasury from their abundance, the poor widow is blessed for what she contributes from her own need.

Do we need to ask whose contribution is greater? 

I wonder how this message relates to us today. Over the centuries many explanations have been proposed to explain Jesus’ anger with the merchants in the temple and in this reading, the hypocrisy of the scribes. And what about today? I wonder what Jesus would have to say about the church-governing bodies, the high priests, church councils and vestries whose public piety often runs counter to the sharing God’s love. Their focus on the adherence of rituals of worship often serve as distractions for what Jesus wanted for his "church."

Jesus was a radical whose focus was preaching the love of God and not about the man-made rules associated with misguiding the faithful in the name of God. Jesus sought to overturn “the tables” and rid the temples of all the false piety, the purity codes and social rules created in the name of God for the sole purpose of control and power.

The Church does play an important role in our lives primarily because it provides for a communal gathering in which we can proclaim the Gospel and share God’s grace through the sacraments. But the real "church" exists in the "pots and pans" of our lives. It is a dynamic amorphous entity that has no fixed walls and whose very existence is based on doing. In this church we are sent out to look for God in those who need our love and support, as we partner with him to feed the needy and comfort those who are oppressed. Isn’t that the image we should hold for Church?  

Jesus’ anger in this Gospel Mark12:38-44 is directed toward those who use the love of power to control their congregations rather than the power of love to create an environment that sets the stage for the sharing of God’s love. Do we have the courage to overturn the tables as Jesus did and tear down the walls that exclude, and become the Word as the Word become flesh in us?

 

What If You Couldn't Fail?

 

What would you do if failure didn't matter? What would you endeavor, dare, or try? What mission would you attempt, what venture would you risk; what great deed would you undertake?

Last week we read in (Mark 10: 35-45) a response from Jesus to James and John that was identical to his response to Bartimaeus: "What do you wish me to do for you?" However, the contrast in attitudes between Bartimaeus and the “Zebedee brothers” is striking. Bartimeus being made aware of Jesus presence cries out two times from the depth of his faith and humility, "Son of David, have pity on me," "Son of David, have pity on me.” While James and John, came to Jesus and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you…grant that in your glory we may sit one at your right and the other at your left."

So, how do we react when we hear these two appeals? How are they different; how are they very similar?

Would you, like Bartimaeus in our Gospel (Mark 10:46-52) have the courage to shout out for healing even though the people around you try to shush you into silence? I wonder, could it be that Bartimaeus was so used to failure and disappointment that he saw no reason not to try one more time? He, as opposed to James and John, were not part of Jesus’ inner circle… but was he?

Would we be able to silence the hushes of our false self and surrender to God as Bartimaeus did? What about James and John? They may have missed the point in that they felt that they were privileged to be part of Jesus’ inner circle. But how was their faith different from the blind man?

So often we hesitate to ask God’s help because whether great or small, our needs seem so hopelessly impossible or so ridiculously insignificant that we just don't even try. Yet the promise of the Gospel is that we are free... free to risk, to dare, to love, to live, to work, to dream, and yes… free to fail, because we have God's promise that there is no small gesture and there is no impossible deed, and that the God who raised Jesus from the dead will also bring all things – even our failed efforts – to a good end. And yes, we are all part of God’s inner circle.

So, if we’re going to risk anything that matters, not failing is not an option. Risk entails failure. Change entails failure. Creativity and innovation and experimentation all entail failure. And if we forget that, we will either never try anything that matters or end up sorely disappointed.

The First Will Be Last

 Throughout our lives, most of us have been told by our teachers that there is no such thing as a stupid question. Well, in Mark 10:35-45 James and John blow the lid off that myth. They really did ask a really dumb question at an even more inopportune time. Jesus had just finished telling the twelve for the third time, that his destiny as a servant messiah would result in his suffering, death, and ultimately, resurrection. Yet, immediately following this profound revelation, they asked Jesus if they could sit on his right and left side when he came to glory.

Talk about not getting it! What do you suppose the "Zebedee boys" had in mind? They wanted a piece of the “messianic action,” and sit on either side of Jesus’ throne. Needless to say they were still relating Jesus destiny to an earthly king and despite their time with Jesus during his ministry, James and John still didn't really know what it meant to follow Jesus to the end.

Jesus, as he tells James and John after their bold request, is a servant messiah, and to follow a servant messiah one must also become a servant: "whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:44-45).

In fairness to James and John, answering the call to "servant-hood" does not come easy. Aren't we much like them in many ways? We would much prefer to be known as a great "anything" but servant. Yet, we will realize by the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we are in God's presence when we are called to give of ourselves to serve the least of our brethren.

Jesus' ministry and destiny makes it clear that if we are to follow in his footsteps, then the bare basic of love's dedication are not enough. That love is going to want to be expressed in going above and beyond rudimentary religious "piety," in leaving the comfortable and familiar, and following a voice other than our own. St. Teresa of Calcutta rightly instructs us that for “love to be real, it must cost, it must hurt, it must empty us of self.” Being in love with God requires more than just checking the boxes. It requires a sincere and unconditional self-investment. Desiring God with our whole heart, mind, and soul means that I must also desire a relationship with my neighbor with that same degree of fervor. This is why following Christ can be difficult. It is less a matter of intellect and more a matter of heart and soul. (Weekly Bulletin, St. Benedict Church, October 10, 2021)

If I Were a Rich Man

What does it mean to have a personal union with God? For me and most Christians, personal union with God is primarily defined by our relationship with Jesus the incarnational divine Being whose very coming was intended  to enhance that intimate relationship. When we are free from those attachments that divert our attention from God, we are able to turn our lives over to him, and he comes alive to us through Christ. In essence, we get out of the way and let God’s love take us through the rest of our journey. 

We can accept what Jesus says at face value in that wealth can be hazardous to our spiritual health; however, Jesus is not suggesting that it’s impossible for a rich man to “enter” the kingdom of God. In our reading this week Mark 10:17-30 Jesus reinforces the metaphor of wealth as a spiritual liability to our gaining entry into God’s kingdom. But is he only talking about money and riches here? All too often we relate one’s being poor as an automatic “ticket to admission” to the kingdom. Yet, if we refuse to take responsibility for our own lives and well-being and passively accept our self-imposed fate as a “gift” in and of itself, we are missing the point. There are no merit badges for being rich or poor and co-dependent. Not taking responsibility for one’s own welfare…if one is able, is as much a distraction and a liability to entering God’s kingdom as being diverted from our union with God by coveting excess and abundance for abundance sake.

An important message in this reading is Jesus’ call for us to give up our “false selves,” as Thomas Keating calls it. Whether rich or poor, he asks us to set aside all the attachments, devices, security blankets and even spiritual practices that we devise as “props” so that we can stay in our comfort zones. As such, we hide behind an egotistical illusion of the false self. Simply stated, anything that gets in the way of our becoming closer to and being united with God is a stumbling block. Jesus makes it clear that people, places and things can be millstones, or "stumbling blocks" that can block us from our relationship with God.

Christian practice aims at our dismissing the false self by developing an awareness of God’s presence in our lives. Then as we can see our deep-rooted attachments and with God’s help, let them go as he takes them away and replaces them with Himself. (Keating, Open Mind Open Heart, p 72.)

I have always enjoyed Eugene Peterson’s citations in The Message on the false self or ego: Then Jesus went to work on his disciples. "Anyone who intends to come with me has to let me lead. You're not in the driver's seat; I am. Don't run from suffering; embrace it. Follow me and I'll show you how. Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self. What kind of deal is it to get everything you want but lose yourself? What could you ever trade your soul for? "Don't be in such a hurry to go into business for yourself."

 

Is it Caesar's or God's

Once again the Pharisees  attempt to test Jesus (Mark10:2-16,) and ask him about divorce. And once again they misunderstand or misuse the scripture to justify their agenda. They hope their question will expose Jesus as dangerous to families, in light of his scandalous comments in prior encounters. 

In typical Socratic fashion Jesus turns the table on the Pharisees away from their legal foundation for divorce to God's design for marriage.

Because of the hardness of your hearts, he [Moses] wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God made them [husband and wife] male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together no human being must separate.

God is love. We are products of God’s love and handiwork, a small but treasured part of God’s great ongoing work of art. Love in all its manifestations, cannot be governed by any temporal law of man any more than God can. 

We  have been conditioned to speak of marriage, as a construct of civil law that conforms to God’s law, as a contract. But is it? I can remember studying what goes into the essential parts of a valid contract in a business law course a long time ago. For a contract to be valid there must be a valid offer and a valid acceptance of that offer; there must be "consideration," an agreed upon exchange, or a quid pro quo, that is “something for something,” and the contract must detail specified “consideration,” a term used to affix a value exchange, usually money or equitable services rendered. 

“God created, a covenant bond, with humanity, in the person of Adam. Adam’s name is not only the name of an individual, the "founding father" of the human race, but it’s also the Hebrew word for humanity…The difference between a covenant and contract, in the Old Testament and throughout scripture, is profound. Contractual relations are transactional, usually an exchange of property, goods and services, whereas covenants exchange persons(?). So when people enter into a covenant, they say, ‘I am yours and you are mine.’ So God uses the covenant to enter into a relationship with those whom he created in his own image: humanity and all human persons.” (Scott Hahn, Contract vs. Covenant, Outlook, February, 2002.)

So how do we apply a transactional agreement to love? We can’t. Love cannot be governed by man. No human can break the love between two people; it’s not theirs to break. Once again in our reading, Jesus refuses to be trapped by either the Pharisees or his disciples as he challenges the rules of men with the law of God. Each of the synoptic gospels cite some variation on Jesus’ take on separation of Church and state with the famous quote Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s. This phrase has profound resonance throughout scripture and God’s law based on his love and covenant with man. It has become widely quoted as a summary statement of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority that goes far beyond whether it was lawful for Jews to pay taxes to Caesar.

"We renew our faith in the word of the Lord which invites faithful families to this openness. It invites all those who want to share the prophecy of the covenant of man and woman, which generates life and reveals God!”(Pope Francis, Openness, 9-27-15, Philadelphia) 
"I leave you with this question, for each one of you to respond to. In my home, do we yell, or do we speak with love and tenderness? This is a good way to recognize our love.
(Pope Francis, Patience, 9-26-15, NYC)

Be Open

How often have we read about Jesus’ healing the sick; restoring speech to the impaired; sight to the blind, and hearing to the deaf? Somehow we have become jaded to Jesus’ ability to perform miracles. I recall having read somewhere that the great mystery of the incarnation of God in Jesus is not his divinity, after all God can do anything, but the true mystery is Jesus living his life fully human, just like us.

We spent most of this summer reading and discussing John’s Gospel. We almost sequentially delved into the mystical significance of the Bread of Life; the sharing of the Bread, and what becoming flesh in each of us means. Knowing the mystery of the Eucharist required that we suspend "belief" and palpably feel its meaning with our "gut," which after all's said and done defines faith for me.

We are told that striving to be in a “right relationship with God” is what being a Christian means and living the Word is what it's all about, right? But what does being in a right relationship with God really mean? Let’s close our eyes and picture how being in a right relationship "feels" for a minute. Note, I use the word “picture,” not “understand.” This may prompt our imagination and senses to feel the words as a palpable, sensory experience. For me being in a relationship with God is not anything I can describe with words. And here to help I invoke a line from Thomas Merton's prayer: The fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so.  But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you.  

You see, for me it's all about the feeling and calling all our senses into action.  "Albert Einstein said that the 'true measure of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.' Being a disciple of Jesus Christ requires a great deal of imagination. It is not enough to simply attend to facts, rules and rituals and consider the job done. "  (St. Benedict Church Bulletin, August 29, 2021.)

God fully shared our humanity through Jesus as we through Jesus, fully share in God’s divinity. Anything less than that relationship with God would be reduced to being mere acquaintances. So, with this as our premise, we consider Mark 7:31-37 from the perspective of both the healer and one who is in need of healing. Do we ever think of ourselves as “healers”? Think of the times we listen, comfort and support one another.
    
What is required for us to be healed or the healer or both? Why do we resist the potential that resides within each of us? We hear but do not listen while remarkable things happen all the time, and we dismiss them as “coincidences.”

“Our ministering and supporting one another morph into the essence​ of our being and become who we are, as if they exist as an integral part of us. We become ever changed by their existence. Like an encrusted stone picking up moss while rolling down a hill, we are ever changed with each turn… And at the core is "love" God's love. I suppose, this is what's meant by becoming the Word. We need not speak of what we do, they describe us and speak quietly; and we give thanks for them.” (Ministries 7/28/15)

What comes out is what defiles

 

In Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23 Jesus teaches that the people of God are not set apart by particular religious traditions or ethnicity, but by what comes from the heart, characterized by love for others. We do not need more religion, but more reflection on what proceeds from our heart. Yes, traditions can be good, and can help point us and others closer to God. However, they can also send subtle or explicit messages that say "you don't belong."

Jesus challenged the purity “laws” and turned them upside down. In their place he substituted a radically alternate social vision. The new community that Jesus announced would be characterized by compassion for everyone, not based on external compliance to a purity code and egalitarian inclusivity.

"No outcasts," writes Garry Wills in What Jesus Meant, "were NOT cast out far enough in Jesus' world to make him shun them — not Roman collaborators, not lepers, not prostitutes, not the crazed, not the possessed. 

“Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile…from within come evil thoughts and they defile.”

Who do we judge when we sanctimoniously spurn those who are not like us or not part of our group? (Bible Study Blog, Bob Reina, August, 28, 2012)