Sermons Online ...
Sermon - The Twenty-Third Sunday in Pentecost (B) - 8th November 2009
St Alban's Anglican Church Epping 7, 8 and 10am
Readings: Ruth 3:1-5, 3-17 Psalm 127,Hebrews 9:23-28. Mark 12:38-44
In Mark 8:15, a little earlier than today’s Gospel reading, Jesus warned his disciples to watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod. Now, in this morning’s reading, he warns the crowd to watch out for the scribes. Although the reference to Jesus' "teaching" suggests that the warning will apply to the scribes teaching, the sayings that follow describe the scribes' practices instead. The description of the scribes lists what could be seen as normal privileges of the aristocracy in a traditional society: wearing long, ornate robes; being greeted by others when they go out in public; having the best seats in public gatherings; and indulging in elaborate banquets. In this section of the Gospel, Mark frequently associates scribes with the high priests. Although not all scribes would be in the position to indulge in ostentatious display of this sort, those who were retainers of the wealthy high priestly families around Jerusalem might have taken on the trappings of wealth and power.
The charge that the scribes "devour widows' houses" also seems more characteristic of prophetic charges against the rich than of a particular role played by scribes. Some interpreters have suggested that scribes might have acted as guardians for widows who lacked male relatives. Others suggest that they may have accepted hospitality from widows under the pretence of piety in order to support their tastes for wealth and power. When he sent them out to preach, Jesus prohibited his own disciples from accumulating wealth or moving from the first household to take them in to one more socially acceptable. Jesus also constantly warned his own disciples against seeking honour rather than serving others. Mark's Gentile readers were not likely to have had dealings with scribes, but they could recognize the same characteristics among others. The wandering Cynic philosophers who frequented Greco-Roman cities often castigated other philosophers whose wealthy patrons provided luxurious clothes, sumptuous food and social honor.
With the exception of the wise scribe, mentioned a couple of verses earlier, the controversies with the scribes and other religious authorities have demonstrated that they did not care about God's truth. This focused personal attack undermines the authority of the scribes by linking them with their patrons, a posturing, wealthy aristocracy that had no concern for the people.
The story of the wise scribe makes it clear that this description of the scribes should not be treated as being stereotypical of all scribes in the Jewish community. It describes the rich and powerful at their worst, much as the sharp social commentary that one finds in newspaper columnists. Every debater knows that if one can use a strong image to make opponents look ridiculous, the audience will have a hard time believing anything the opponents say. Of course, such comments must point to a real evil or social problem in order to be effective. Jesus insisted that his disciples not adopt social standards of power and influence. This depiction of the scribes applies to any religious authorities who treat their position as access to the influence and power of the wealthy, making those who should be defenders of the widow, the orphaned and the poor the agents of their destruction. The condemnation for those who engage in such practices will be even worse than that for others, since they use the name of God to mask what they are doing.
The Diocesan authorities disinclination to really try to understand the need to take responsibility for the disastrous financial dealings of the recent past by saying that perhaps God was/is testing “us” is like saying “The Devil made me do it!” The use of the collective “we” spreads the blame to everyone, including you and me, thus allowing the guilty to get of cheaply.
Their clever logic of not admitting to anything, in other words not being completely open and transparent in all their dealings, continues today. In being responsible for the needs of the widows, no mention has been made of how the reserves of the Anglican Retirement Villages have been or are invested. I have asked the Diocesan Secretary to provide me with information concerning such investments. They may have been invested wisely but the lack of transparency does not auger well.
The Diocese loves all the trappings of success and respect in marketplaces, attractive presentations and seats of honour. The words of David can be used here, “How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle. … How the mighty have fallen and the weapons of war perished!” It seems to me that the Dioceses arrogance can be easily compared to the self-righteousness of the scribes mentioned in the reading. It is to hoped that the trend-setters of the Diocese will be soon convicted of their need to understand that they do not and can never know the mind of God on all matters and that they are only one group among many that are called to spread the Gospel.
Isn’t it good to know that we are all saved not by our own righteousness but by God’s free gift of grace.
On another matter suggested by this reading, the story of the widow’s mite poses the same challenge to readers today as it did in Jesus' time. People usually think of giving to the church and to charities as an option. The money for charitable giving comes out of the surplus after personal expenses have been met. Those "necessary" expenses usually include many extras in terms of entertainment, clothes, food and toys.
This story can be linked with prophetic condemnations of the rich who provide for a luxurious cult at the sanctuary while fostering injustice that reduces others in the society to poverty. Jesus intensifies the difference between the two types of giving. The woman has two small coins and gives both, all that she had to live. The image of an impoverished widow giving all that she has forms a remote parallel to the story of the poor widow and the prophet Elijah, reported in 1 Kings 17, who asks for her last bit of food. In that case, the widow, her son and the prophet are provided for during the famine. Jesus does not offer this widow any such reassurance. The contrast between her offering and all the others who are tossing in what they can spare exhibits the false values of a society that does not really offer sacrifice to God. Jesus has already told his disciples that persons must be willing to renounce their own desires, take up the cross, and become slaves of all in order to follow him.
The widow's story can be read as an anticipation of Jesus' own sacrifice of his life. It also reminds us our faith commitment in physical not conceptual terms. Like the Prime Minister I hold the example of Dietrich Bonheoffer as an excellent example of Christian faith commitment. Bonheoffer reminds us in words and actions that God’s grace while freely given is not cheap! He, as most of us know, lost his life, killed by the Nazis, for the grace of the enlightenment given to him by God. He was like each one of us a fail human being who made stupid mistakes during his life. However his faith led him to his death as it did for Jesus and the martyrs down through the ages.
This little story calls each one of us consider how much we are prepared to commit ourselves to faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ not just in words but in practice. In our society how much do we financially support something indicates our true intentions. Do we commit out of our abundance or out of uncomfortable dependence upon the God who provides our every need, trusting that God will provide for all our needs?
This sermon prepared using The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol VIII.