How good a listener are you? I learned recently that I still have to work on my listening skills. Most nights of the week, our family manages to gather around the kitchen table for a family dinner. Not everyone is there every night, but there is always some combination of parents and kids. I’ve noticed, during these meal times, that from time to time the conversation will be about something that I don’t know much about, or that doesn’t interest me very much, and I tend to disengage. Soon I’ve withdrawn completely and am reading something or looking at my smartphone while I’m eating. It's a bad habit. I don’t think that’s very admirable of me. In fact, I think it can be sinful not to give people my attention when they’re trying to tell me something. So I decided that I had been sinning, and the next time I went to confession, which I do from time to time, I confessed it as a sin. I felt better immediately; there is something about admitting the things I did wrong that always makes me feel better. The priest to whom I was confessing this was very sympathetic. He was a good listener. And he sought to give me spiritual advice. After a sentence or two of advice I thought he had said what he needed to say and was done, but he kept going. And kept going. And after a while my mind started to wander ...
It is not
easy to pay attention. Listening can be
hard work. If you do a job that involves
a lot of listening to other people, whether it be as a teacher or a social
worker or a sales professional or someone in the medical field, then I admire
you. Of course, deacons and priests
should be good listeners, and most of the time, I do try to listen to others. But I still haven’t reached listening
perfection.
In today’s
Gospel passage, Martha is bustling about, while Mary is listening. Martha complains: Mary isn’t *doing* anything. Martha doesn’t recognize that listening to
Jesus *is* doing something; in fact, it’s the most important thing we can
do. And Jesus gently corrects Martha: he tells her
that Mary has “chosen the better part”.
It is hard
to listen to Jesus. It’s kind of a
paradox, really: everyone agrees that Jesus said many wise and wonderful and
beautiful and thought-provoking things throughout his ministry, and yet his
words seem to go in one of our ears and out the other. Even those of us who are here week after
week, even day after day, and constantly hear the Word of God spoken to us,
have a hard time retaining what is said, and letting it shape our lives.
I fear it is
even worse for those who choose not to expose themselves regularly to God’s
word, or for those who never have heard God’s word. If public-opinion polls are to be believed, there is a trend these days to claim that one
is “spiritual but not religious”. By
that, I think people mean that they are open to spiritual experiences, but they
don’t actually follow any traditional religious practices, such as joining a church, or gathering
together for worship, or reading the bible, or praying regularly. If I may say so, I’m a bit skeptical of the
claim of being “spiritual but not religious”.
If the Word of God is not being heard, if it is not being actively listened
to, and meditated upon, and discussed with others; if God's word is not challenging us, and transforming
us, then it seems likely enough that there is in fact a spiritual vacuum, and that vacuum would be filled by other words, from other sources. We are always being formed, either by God or
by the world. Even for those of us who are
religious, both God and the world are forming us day by day. Just speaking for myself: on some days, it can be a toss-up as to
whether God or the world is having more influence on me.
All of us
are in the world already. It’s all
around us. It’s the water in which we
swim like fish every day. And its influence
on us is profound. We can busy ourselves,
like Martha, with our day-to-day habits and routines, and as we are busily ordering
our world, the world in turn is ordering us.
And we will end up as creatures of the world. This is the most natural thing, and it will
absolutely happen to each and every one of us unless we are willing to let God
come into our lives. We do that by
listening – by listening to him. His
voice is there, amid the din and cacophony that is around us day by day. If we are able to pick out the thread of his
voice, and fasten upon it, and listen to it, then over time it will begin to do
its work on us. And it will change us,
for the better. It will replace our
turmoil with peace, our selfishness with a willingness to serve, our rage and indifference
with love, our resentments and feuds with forgiveness. Doesn’t that sound wonderful? That’s the life I want. And to have it, all I need to do is be like
Mary – I just need to choose the better part and listen.
Good one, Jim. I can certainly relate to the disengaging bit. My mind tends to drift when I should be listening. Seems like it's getting worse as I get older. I used to kid myself that my mind could multitask. Though in reality if someone had quizzed me about what I was listening to, I probably couldn't have repeated much of it.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about the failure to pay attention being a moral failing. Listening is sometimes mortification. such as when I get up in the morning I like a little quiet time, and other family members are feeling chatty.
BTW when reading Gospel accounts involving the multiple Marys, I have wished that Biblical parents had been a little more creative. It would have avoided a lot of confusion.
Katherine - I've always had a pretty active "inner life", i.e. thoughts, conversations with myself, daydreaming, etc. Whether everyone is like that, or I'm a 'special case', I have no idea.
DeleteNaming is interesting. I've read that one of the challenges for biographers of Johann Sebastian Bach is that there were so many Johanns in that extended family, and many of them were musicians; music was the trade for that family in the way that farming or blacksmithing would be trades for other families. A single Bach family would name multiple sons Johann.
Yeah,the Bach family. The other Bachs I am familiar with are Johann Christof and Carl Phillip Emmanuel, who were cousins of J.S., who himself had 20 kids, with two wives. Three of his sons also had the first name of Johann. Too bad I can't time travel the Bachs a Nameberry link. Though I should talk. One of my sisters and I both have a son named Anthony. Mine was here first.
DeleteMade me think of the old Newheart show. "...this is my brother Darryl, and my other brother Darryl.
DeleteBefore TV figured out it wasn't radio, people listened to each other even in public. Irv Kupcinet in Chicago had a set of soft seats around a coffee table, and there he would gather, say, a visiting Hollywood actor, a law professor from the University of Chicago, a novelist and the first violinist of the Chicago Symphony. And they would talk. And since none of them knew much about the others' specialties, they would either get into some common subject from different angles or ask each other the dumb questions many in the audience were dying to ask. And no one raised his or her voice, except in telling a joke. Dave Garroway's show was like that, too,
ReplyDeleteThen network consultants announced, as ober dicta, that quiet lost eyeballs, pauses lost more eyeballs, and the best thing in the world would be Judge Judy, who hadn't been invented yet, where everyone yells everything and none of it makes sense. All the talk on TV lemminged in that general direction, and their audiences, not being lemmings, monkey-saw and monkey-did. And that, children, is and that's how the conversations of today came up the coaxial cable and into our kitchens. An interview, even on NPR, gets more words into 20 seconds than my father and his pals used in 20 minutes while drinking beer and being more fun to listen to.
Why do we assume Martha is not listening? She has listened enough to know Jesus is the messiah.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we always assume this story is a rebuke to Martha of the petty problems vs. Mary the pious disciple?
I see Jesus inviting Martha to join them. He is telling her that it is OK to set aside her strict adherence to Jewish hospitality laws. He is acknowledging that she is a thinking, fully functioning human being who deserves to come out of the kitchen and participate in what's going on.
Maybe Mary really was that sister who is as lazy as a pet rat, who was dumping everything on Martha. Maybe Jesus's words were meant as a sly rebuke to Mary--she has chosen the better part, even if it is to get out of work, so quit worrying that you're the one who has to carry her half of the "women's work" load.
I must believe that Jesus understood sisterly dynamics, and that he was trying to ease a minor family blow-up as well as to free Martha from obligations and expectations imposed by culture and religion.
There are so many ways to interpret this without jumping all over Martha's case or making this about good choice-bad choice.
"...lazy as a pet rat", LOL, good one to remember.
DeleteI've never seen the passage as criticizing Martha. One homily I heard had a different take, that it was about Jesus. He knew where he was headed, maybe he needed some support from his good friends. Perhaps he needed them to listen and just be there for him.
Jean - sure, I have no issue with your take on the story, including your speculations about Mary's character. FWIW, in a prior version of the homily (which I ended up tearing up, or doing the electronic equivalent thereof), I speculated that Mary and Martha had fought like cats and dogs since they were little.
DeleteI'm harder on Martha in this homily than others are. Mary, in sitting at Jesus's feet, assumes the traditional posture of the disciple. Martha may be listening while she's bustling, but if so, she's multi-tasking. Jesus is suggesting to her that his words are worthy of single-threaded attention.
Well, we agree that these sisters were of very different temperaments.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJim, I have read many articles that reflect the same lack of understanding of SBNR folk as you do. Most of these articles come across as defensive, and usually attack or demean or trivialize the spiritual path taken by the SBNR.
ReplyDeleteI am SBNR. My husband likes to go to church on Sunday (most of the time anyway), so I go with him. But formal church is the least important aspect of my spiritual life, and one that would disappear completely if I did not wish to be supportive of my husband's desire for more conventional religious practice than I prefer.
Although articles appear regularly in the christian media (protestant and Catholic) full of angst and hand-wringing about the "nones" and SBNR, few of them seem to "get it".
And I think that is because the conventionally religious don't listen to what the SBNRs actually say about their own beliefs and practices.
Those who criticize the SBNRs make assumptions and judgments that aren't borne out by the studies that have been done.
One article I have summarizes it pretty well. The author says at one point
"Which brings me to another misconception, that SBNRs are dilettantes, like serial daters who can’t commit. Yes, there are plenty of superficial dabblers among them, but not as many as commentators assume. In fact, I would wager that, on average, they spend far more time in meditation, prayer, study of sacred texts, devotional activities, group discussions and other actual practices than the conventionally religious. Let’s face it, a large percentage of people who call themselves religious engage their faith for a couple of hours a week at most, and many only on holidays. As someone once said, sitting in church and thinking you’re spiritual is like sitting in a garage and thinking you’re a car.
SBNRs who devote time to their spirituality are basically mystics—pragmatic, in-the-world mystics who probe the great mysteries from the inside out and try to live up to their spiritual standards
The section I bolded reflects my experience and knowledge of those who are SBNR also.
The quoted section is from a short article and worth the couple of minutes it takes to read.
https://theshiftnetwork.com/blog/2018-01-09/spiritual-not-religious-misunderstood-and-here-stay
Anne, thanks for that article. I grant that SBNRs are not monolithic, and you make some fair points. On the other hand, that article to which you linked affirms some of my own impressions: SBNRs disaffiliate from traditional faith communities, their notions of spirituality have them drifting toward Eastern spiritualities, and so on.
DeleteThis Pew Research note has some more info on SBNRs. An interesting (and, in my view, catastrophic) finding is that the biggest group of SBNRs is found in the age range of 30-49 (as is the largest group of neither-spiritual-nor-religious) - that is, parents that are in the thick of rearing children and, ideally, passing their faith along to those kids.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/06/more-americans-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/
I don't argue with anyone's experience. But some people like quinoa. If I decided to meditate while walking along the beach at sunrise I would expect to get very good at ... walking along the beach at sunrise.
DeleteIn my personal experience, Pope Benedict got it right when he wrote (in Spe Salvi): "Our lives are involved with one another; through innumerable actions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone." President Obama offended some of the steel-eyed entrepreneurs, job creators and tax advantaged beneficiaries of good lobbyists when he said they didn't create their wealth all by themselves. He meant they couldn't have done it without roads, and fire and police departments, and regulated insurance companies and other people's inventions, and, and, and. His opponents got great mileage about the insult to the Marlboro Man they see in the mirror.
Like Katherine, I don't think Jesus was criticizing Martha. I think he was again trying to show that the patriarchal norms of the religion and culture should not limit women to their traditional roles.
ReplyDeleteMary's presence in the room with the men, being taught as they were taught so that all present could teach others, was one of the ways that Jesus affirmed the equality of women in an era when women were not seen as equal to men, an era where women's "proper" roles were limited to male-approved roles, primarily in support of the men. Cooking and cleaning for the men was an approved role. Much like the RCC still teaches today.
It is against what Jesus taught - over and over Jesus demonstrated that he believed women to be equal to men. Perhaps that's why the Mary at the tomb on Easter morning was tasked to go teach the men - Jesus kept trying to get the message through, but the time wasn't right. His own apostles didn't get the message. The evangelists who later wrote the stories didn't get it either. And evangelical christianity and Roman Catholicism still don't get it. They cling to their patriarchal "religious formation" - but they still aren't listening.
Protestant and Catholic teachings on "complementarianism" reflect two millenia of misunderstanding of the gospels - whether read, or proclaimed or conveyed in any other way - so that they can continue to attempt to justify treating women as "less than" men - not fit for leadership, especially in formal religious environments, Jim can preach but his wife cannot. Katherine's husband can preach, but she cannot. Yet both Theresa and Katherine have had exactly the same training as Jim and Katherine's husband have had.
I can tell you this, if Jean was ever able to give a homily during mass, I would fly to Michigan to go to it! But she can't - she's a woman.
The men continue to believe that running churches - "running" religions - using only half a brain is what God wants. They fool themselves into believing that patriarchy is God's will, when it's really just a way to justify the desires of their own male egos.
Jesus disagreed and the story of Mary and Martha is one example of occasions when he tried to dispel the false notions of his patriarchal society and religion.
But Jim's wife does preach, and he has posted her homilies here. I presume he runs things by her. I assume she speaks up.
DeleteI have never been interested in sermonizing, but I agree that men don't see the same things women do in these stories, and that's a problem.
Jean, the Catholic church does not allow anyone who is not ordained to give the official homily. Some get around it be inviting selected non-ordained to give "reflections" after the official homily, which may be two sentences, but complies with the letter of the law. I have seen this done at a local, very progressive parish - the "reflection" is longer than the official homily and given by someone who is neither priest nor deacon.
DeleteSince Jim and Katherine are both experts in the GIRM, I assume they will correct me if I misunderstand the rule about homilies. I found the paragraphs below online.
". The current guidelines of the Catholic Church on this matter are quite clear. The Code of Canon Law says: “Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is pre-eminent” (No. 767).
Similarly, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which serves as the church’s liturgical “rulebook,” says, “The homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself or be entrusted by him to a concelebrating priest, or from time to time and, if appropriate, to the deacon, but never to a layperson” (No. 66)."
Perhaps things vary according to location how they interpret the GIRM as regards a homily by a layperson. But that is how I understand it, that laypeople, either men or women, don't homilize. And they do get around it sometimes by calling it a "witness talk", usually before Mass starts or at the end, before the final blessing.
DeleteI have never been talented as a public speaker. But I can sing (and play the organ rather inexpertly). I'm going to hate it when I can no longer hit the notes or climb the choir-loft stairs.
I think there are a lot of lay people who could give an excellent homily, especially if they received some instruction in what constitutes a good homily (concise, focused, not too long). It would also help if they had taken classes in speech in high school or college.
I have known some religious sisters who could give good homilies. Seems like the rules could be changed without making a huge deal of it.
It is interesting how the teaching of homiletics in deacon formation in our archdiocese has changed since we went through (my husband started in 1997, was ordained in 2000). Back then the formandi were assigned a time and a scripture reading, usually following the liturgical year pretty closely. They were expected to prepare ahead of time, and were permitted (actually encouraged) to use notes.
DeleteNow the emphasis is on being able to do it extemporaneously, without notes. Personally I would find that very intimidating.
The church could permit women to preach at mass. One way, of course, would be if women could be admitted to the diaconate - the same diaconate to which men are admitted (rather than some separate "women's diaconate"). For whatever reason, Francis seems to have decided that this is not something he wants to pursue.
DeleteI agree that some women would be excellent homilists and the church would be the richer for it.
FWIW, I do ask my wife for her thoughts when I'm assigned to preach. I don't always go in the direction she would go, but she always has an interesting take on it. Many people in our parish tell me that they like it when she preaches - they tell me, months later, that they remember her homilies.
DeleteShe's kind of introverted and it's not easy for her to get up there and do public speaking. I don't know whether she'd want to do it every month (or more frequently).
Katherine and Jean, the point is not the personal interest that you as individuals might have in being preachers. The point is that women who are as well or better trained in homiletics, either officially or unofficially, are not allowed (by men) to give a homily - not because they are unqualified, but because they are female.
DeleteHad to laugh when I turned to America's website today - a story popped up by a woman who preached for years at her parish - until a bishop stopped it.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/07/22/im-catholic-woman-who-was-allowed-preach-mass-until-it-was-banned
Anne, I will check out the America article. And I agree that being female shouldn't be a disqualifier for preaching.
DeleteHow odd. I distinctly remember Megan McKenna not reading the Gospel but reciting it from memory and then not preaching but talking about it. Right in my parish. She is a theologian of course. By coincidence her recitation and her talk came at the exact point in the Mass when the Gospel is usually proclaimed and the homily preached.
DeleteThe Church has rules. It also has pastors. Both the rules and the pastor are supposed to serve the congregation.
Tom: "The Church has rules. It also has pastors. Both the rules and the pastor are supposed to serve the congregation."
DeleteAnd when they don't?
Find a parish where the pastor knows what to do about it. There are such parishes.
DeleteJim, re your comment to Jean about Martha "multi-tasking".
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that "proper" first century Jewish women were not even supposed to be the sole female in the same room with men if they were not family members, as Mary was. They could go in and out to serve the men, but if it was "men's business", women were supposed to follow Martha's example, not Mary's. Women were not allowed to go to temple to be taught - the formal teaching of the Hebrew scriptures was reserved for males alone.
Now, I may be wrong about some or all of these customs (not about the teaching of scripture being limited to males though), but it seems clear to me that Jesus was demonstrating that women not only could break out of traditional female roles, but that he wanted them to.
True complementarianism involves using both male and female brains and talents equally and to their fullest extent. Patriarchal religious cultures limit the religious understandings to those of the male alone.
They seem to forget that to have a holistic - whole or complete - understanding of scripture requires both masculine and feminine understandings and insights. The ancient writers seemed to grasp this at least a bit when they said that "God created them male AND female in God's image'. To reflect God holistically, both are needed. God has no body, God is not a man, nor is God a woman. The patriarchal religions forget this.
Conventional christianity shuts out the feminine and the divine feminine is not reflected in the teachings at church. This is one reason young women today are often SBNR. Conventional religion believes that affiliation with male-dominated religious institutions should be the main way people should be "formed" in God's teachings - by listening to men's understandings.
Men wrote the scriptures in ancient times. Men have interpreted them ever since. It is only very recently that Catholic women were even allowed (by men) to study theology in Catholic institutions. Even fewer are "allowed" by men to teach in them. No women are allowed to give homilies, homilies that might reflect a different understanding of scripture than the conventional male-oriented understandings.
Jesus was not dissing Martha, he was teaching her and ALL women, that they should not allow men to define narrow roles for them in their homes, in their society, in their religion. IMHO. ;)
Tell it!
DeleteYes, that's an interesting take on the story. There is more than one direction possible on this one.
DeleteIn the spirit of causing more trouble, let me note that the first reading complicates the dichotomoy of Martha: traditional women's role / Mary: transgressing upon men's traditional role. It is Abraham rather than Sarah who waits on the three visitors. It seems that serving guests was not, in the traditional code of hospitality, strictly "women's work".
But, Jim, men were not limited to the hospitality roles. They could choose. And they still can. Only men can choose to pursue the priesthood even if a woman wants to pursue it. Nobody will stop a man who wants to be chief cook. But they will stop a woman from preaching in church. The most highly paid cooks (chefs) are male, true of most professions that include both men and women.
DeleteThe difference is - Abraham could choose to serve the guests himself. Or he could choose to order the women to do it.
The women did not have similar choices and the women were not permitted to define the male roles FOR the men, nor to limit their roles to what the women thought appropriate.
Sarah may have asked Abraham to serve the guests - but it would be considered a favor to her, not an obligation that he was "expected" to fulfill.
If you all are talking about Genesis 18, Abraham tells Sarah and the servant to do all the preparations for the guests while he waits on them. Sarah also stays in the tent.
DeleteI would be careful about comparing the role of Sarah, the wife of a nomad, to Martha, a single woman who lived 500 years later (at least) in her own home in a town with her siblings.
I'm no kind of Biblical scholar, but I think the role of and attitudes toward Jewish women was probably different at different times.
On the subject of "Spiritual Nut Not Religious", there is yet another category, "Religious But Not Spiritual". There are those who attend services at least some of the time, who do it for the liturgy, the community, or the moral formation, but don't really feel a mystical or spiritual connection.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, that describes my husband's parents. They attended faithfully, participated in numerous activities, but they went to church for the community primarily, with moral formation a more distant second. Since it was a UCC, liturgy was not a factor, and since the UCC is pretty not-dogmatic, the moral formation was a secondary consideration.
DeleteI have written too much today, but the subjects discussed in this thread are close to my heart.
ReplyDeleteAfter years of struggle with the Catholic church in particular and with christian religion in general, I finally came to believe that much of the harm done by western institutional religion, especially in the conservative christian world, the RCC, and the Orthodox churches, is tied to patriarchal notions that distort the teachings of Jesus, and often border on misogny.
I really started paying close attention after hearing the story of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes for the umpteeth time in my life (one problem is that the readings are so often repeated that many, like me, tune them out). But hearing this account, from Matthew, for the umpteeth-first time awakened me from my slumber.
Matthew 14:13-21 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
13 When Jesus heard of it, he withdrew in a boat to a deserted place by himself. The crowds heard of this and followed him on foot from their towns. 14 When he disembarked and saw the vast crowd, his heart was moved with pity for them, and he cured their sick. 15 When it was evening, the disciples approached him and said, “This is a deserted place and it is already late; dismiss the crowds so that they can go to the villages and buy food for themselves.” 16 [Jesus] said to them, “There is no need for them to go away; give them some food yourselves.” 17 But they said to him, “Five loaves and two fish are all we have here.” 18 Then he said, “Bring them here to me,” 19 and he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking[a] the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the fragments left over[b]—twelve wicker baskets full. 21 Those who ate were about five thousand men, not counting women and children.
Jesus played the Martha role in that instance. Or are you pointing to the fact that Matthew counted only the men?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe second, Tom. Women (and children) were not persons who "counted".
DeleteThis passage (and many others) reflect the low status of women (and children) in Jesus' time. Not quite non-human, but definitely not persons who were worth counting.
Since Matthew was not there, not an eyewitness, he (and the other evangelists) pretty clearly convey the accepted understanding of women's subservient status in the culture, and their "proper" roles in society.
But their ordinary first century male understanding does not necessarily reflect what Jesus thought, and his thinking was very often reflected in his actions - such as having Mary be the first witness to the empty tomb. Such as telling another Mary that she was doing the right thing in listening to him.
The writers of the scriptures reflect the understandings that were unquestioned in their own era of history. They have an excuse.
The men today who run organized religion and continue the patriarchal attitudes of ancient times, do not have the same excuse. Their misogny is inexcusable actually.
The story of Monday's Mass (feast of St. Mary Magdalene), main lesson: The greatest event in history and not a man in sight.
Delete"The men today who run organized religion and continue the patriarchal attitudes of ancient times, do not have the same excuse."
DeleteI think the Church needs to guard against Holy Tradition being used as cover to oppose valid reforms and revitalization. Change makes many people uncomfortable. Some people become irate just talking about it. There is also a notion that reform is synonymous with dumbing things down or making it "easier" to be a Catholic.
So I don't see change happening in my lifetime, and my challenge is whether I can accept the Church as it is ... and whether it wants the likes it me!
I don't want to tear down Jim's idea that we should listen (and I am trying to do so here).
ReplyDeleteI understand what he sees that makes the Mary-Martha story a springboard for a message about listening, and his premises for the story are literarily, and I presume, theologically sound.
Jim's meditation on the story, however, doesn't happen to gel with my reading of the general character of St. Martha or how I perceive Jesus, likely because of my experiences as a woman. And while Jim does not seem to indicate my interpretation is wrong, it clearly doesn't speak to him.
What is missing from the Church is the possibility for anybody to hear my POV at Mass because women in the Church can read words that are put before them, but they are generally barred from offering commentary.
In my case, that's fine. I don't have the training or scholarship to jack my jaws in a sermon, though I'm happy to sputter and argue in here among friends. But we do have many women saints who have contributed to our understanding of Scripture through their writings. Sadly, I cannot think of any examples when I have heard homilists draw on these women's insights.
It's not that I think what priests and deacons offer in their homilies is wrong. Far from it. Bless them for doing God's work. The problem is that alone they can only do half of it.
Jean, many thanks for this comment. I am quite sympathetic to what you're saying here. I also probably haven't been clear enough in my comments: your take, and Anne's take, on this passage, both are quite good. I'd love to hear a homily from either one of you. For myself, I don't think I could give a homily along those lines. The commentary here spurred me to write a separate post where I attempt to explain why.
Delete