Sunday, December 20, 2020

May it be done to me according to your word

 This is my homily for today, the 4th Sunday in Advent.  Today's readings are here.

We cooked our own Thanksgiving dinner this year.  That’s not usual for us.  Every single year, without fail – until this year - we go to my parents’ house in Rockford for Thanksgiving, and my mother, still healthy and active in her 80s, cooks an enormous dinner for the family.  This year, she already had purchased a 19 lb. turkey in hopes that the extended family would get together again.  But not this year.  I’m afraid I disappointed my mother by telling her that this year, we’d better not get together; it didn’t seem safe for them.  They are in a high-risk category.  I learned that, at age 59, I still don’t like to disappoint my parents.

As elderly people, my parents are vulnerable.  The pandemic has left all of us feeling vulnerable.  And with good reason.  Even now, as we wait for vaccines to get rolled out on a large scale, all of us still are vulnerable.  And not only to the virus itself, which has infected many people, in some cases rendering them seriously ill, and even has killed some people.  We’re also vulnerable because the pandemic has weakened our economy, which we all rely upon for our well-being.  Many people have lost their jobs, their businesses, their livelihoods.  My wife Therese and I are very fortunate: we’re still employed, but it’s something we can’t take for granted.  

Some folks haven’t dealt very well with their feelings of vulnerability and helplessness.  In some cases, vulnerability has given way to anger, undergirded by fear and even panic: I don’t want to be sick.  Why doesn’t someone do something?  Who will save us?  Some people have cast about for others to blame for our predicament.  If we’re this vulnerable, it must be someone’s fault.

If we’re not used to this feeling of vulnerability and helplessness, it’s worth reflecting how atypical we are.  Because being vulnerable and helpless has been the daily reality for most human beings in most times and places.  

Vulnerable and helpless are words that fit the situation of the Jewish residents of Galilee and Judea at the time of our Gospel reading.  They were living under an enemy occupation, with all the restrictions, dangers and humiliations, large and small, that come from having an occupying army in one’s midst, directing one’s daily life.  We can be sure that many of the Jews of that time were longing for someone to come to save them.  “God, help us!” “God, don’t forget us – send someone to save us!” surely were frequent prayers.

When we think about our own vulnerability and helplessness, it helps us appreciate how vulnerable and helpless Mary and her neighbors must have felt.  And it helps us appreciate what good news it was that the Angel Gabriel brought to Mary, when he appeared to this young woman.  Because the child that God proposed that she bear would save them all.  He would be great, and would be called the Son of the Most High.  Of his kingdom there would be no end.  And all of that came to pass.  That kingdom hasn’t ended – it continues even now.  Mary’s son saves us, too, even today.  

It’s worth noting, too, that the way God has chosen to save us, is to get us involved in the plan.  Mary wasn’t a passive bystander; she had her part to play. And it was a great part – one of the greatest of any human being in history.  Yet God respected her autonomy.  He didn’t make her do this.  He allowed her to choose.

And Mary had every reason to say “No!”  She was betrothed to a man, and a pregnancy out of wedlock would complicate her dreams and her plans, to say the least.  And yet, here was the angel, asking Mary to set aside all her plans and dreams and take another path, a path of great risk to her.

How many of us would have said “Yes”, if we were in Mary’s shoes?  How many of us would have trusted to God rather than clinging to our own familiar way of life in such a situation?  

We love and venerate Mary for many reasons, from the stories recounted in scripture to her Assumption into heaven where she reigns as Queen of Heaven, to her appearances at Lourdes and Fatima and Guadalupe, and even in Wisconsin, near Green Bay.  But surely the heart of her greatness was her assent to Gabriel, “May it be done to me according to your word”.   How simple those words were, but how hard it would be for most of us to utter them.  Mary agreed to make herself even more vulnerable, for the sake of her people, and for us.  

Throughout this season of Advent, which now is drawing to its fulfillment on Friday when we celebrate Christmas, we’ve been hearing the word of God announce the preparations that he has made for the coming of his Son among us.  Those preparations go back thousands of years.  I expect that Mary, too, had prepared to play the role that God would ask her to take on.  We can be sure that Mary’s words, “May it be done to me according to your word”, weren’t spoken in a vacuum; they didn’t come from nowhere.  Surely, she already was a spiritual person and someone who prayed constantly – surely, she already was attuned to God.  And we can be sure that God is preparing us, too, for the coming of his Son into our lives, into our hearts.  Like Mary, our part is to cooperate – to simply let God do with us what he wants.  

Whether we realize it or not, all of us are vulnerable.  We’re helpless.  And God wants to save us.  Like Mary, let us say “Yes” to God.  Let Mary’s words be our daily prayer: “May it be done to me according to your word.”



23 comments:

  1. Did any of you see the article titled "the Mary Enigma" from Dec 16 on Jim McCrea's thread? I thought it was interesting, because it seems a stretch to think that Mary made a four day journey, apparently alone, to see Elizabeth.
    From the article: "Let us look at some reasons for favouring Matthew’s account, of a flight from Bethlehem to Egypt followed later by coming to settle in Galilee. After the annunciation, Mary goes with haste to visit her relative Elizabeth “in the hill country of Judea”. She appears to travel alone. This is much more plausible if she is travelling from Bethlehem or somewhere else near Jerusalem (her father’s house rather than that of her betrothed). The journey from Nazareth in Galilee to Judea took four days on foot. Even the fact of her having a relative in Judea makes it more likely that Mary, too, came from Judea."
    The Matthew account of Mary (and Jesus and Joseph) coming to Nazareth later makes more sense.
    Here is a link to the article from the Tablet. It seems to be behind a paywall, but Jim McCrea's email copies it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, saw it. The reasoning seems sound.

      All the text of the Annunciation says is that Gabriel was sent to Galilee, to Mary. Naturally, we assume that is where Mary lived permanently, but the text doesn't insist upon it. Why would she have been there if she didn't live there? Who knows?

      For the Visitation, Luke says that Mary traveled to the hill country to a town of of Judea. Whether that statement would make sense if her point of departure was Jerusalem, I am not sure. But I believe Luke is thought to not be rock-solid reliable in some of his geographical details, which is one reason scholars assume he lived elsewhere.

      Delete
  2. Katherine, how do you react to learning of historical or other discrepancies in scripture?

    This is just one example - there are many, including many others ( besides the visit to Elizabeth) that seem to belie the fundamental stories of the events at the time of Jesus’ birth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel that the discrepancies are normal and expected, when you have several different people's accounts. Doesn't mean anyone's intention was to deceive. I know when researching family history that not everyone's story tallies up. Even my siblings and I remember some events differently. And as I get older memory becomes blurry about some things.

      Delete
    2. I believe that one of the tenets of biblical form criticism is that the Gospels are written (and redacted) collections of oral traditions about what Jesus said and did; and that oral traditions are not always historically accurate. These inconsistencies and geographic errors are (according to the adherents of form criticism) thought to be examples of the unreliability of oral tradition.

      (I remember Alan Mitchell from the old dotCommonweal forum is a scholar who could be skeptical about the historic reliability of biblical texts.)

      Delete
    3. At the same time that I recognize that not everything (in the New Testament) is reliably historically accurate, I believe that much of it is. And that they got the big parts right, that's where the Holy Spirit comes in.

      Delete
  3. BTW, it's been a couple weeks since Tom Blackburn was on this site. I hope he and his wife are okay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know - I've been missing him, too. I just sent him an email, I'll let folks know if he responds.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for keeping us posted, Jim

      Delete
    3. The email address I had bounced. I'll have to see if I have a different one.

      Delete
    4. Found a different email for Tom, and also one for Margaret, and sent them both notes.

      Delete
  4. BTW it has been several months since we heard from Margaret. Her last post was August 26th, and her last comment on September 25. I hope she is well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heard back from Margaret, she and Peter doing very well, seems just taking a break.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Jim. Now I hope you hear from Tom.

      Delete
    3. Glad to hear Margaret is doing very well. The tenor of her last post suggested she needed a break. Once Trump is no longer president I will be interested in her opinions about Biden, the Democrats and bi-partisanship. Also I think she brought a European perspective to our discussion that is now lacking

      Delete
    4. Speaking as a not-Democrat: I think Biden is batting nearly 1.000 so far. To be sure, his presidency hasn't actually begun yet (at least officially; but in reality I think he already is filling the vacuum at the top as the guy going to seed in the Oval Office continues to explore the QAnonish fever-swamps).

      Delete
    5. Our nightly newscast reported last night that the president may not sign the COVID relief bill. I guess that's his retort to the country which showed the bad judgment not to re-elect him.

      Delete
    6. His line is that the $600 stimulus check isn't enough. Which I agree with. But where was he when the deal was getting hammered out? He could have gotten some support from Democrats over that. He also mentioned some questionable stuff that was larded into the bill. Which I also would agree didn't need to be there. But again, where was he earlier?

      Delete
  5. Anne says "how do you react to learning of historical or other discrepancies in scripture?"

    Writers and readers then did not have our modern notions of factual evidence, e.g. a video camera or scribe recording the event. They felt free to write what the tradition told them likely was said or happened.

    For example according to Mark immediately before the passion Jesus has a series of disputes with key groups, Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes in the temple. These tell the reader that Jesus had disputes with all the key factions at that time. Coming immediately before his passion and occurring in the temple they tell us not to expect much support for Jesus in Jerusalem. It is unlikely they happened right at that time. They may never have happened in the Temple. It may even be that Jesus did not have much direct confrontation with the leadership in Jerusalem. However it is very likely that these stories talk about real issues, and that the Jerusalem authorities of all factions were concerned about the preaching of Jesus even if they had heard about it from rumors.

    Mark tells the story of Jesus as if he had a ministry in Galilee then made one journey to Jerusalem. John tells the story such that Jesus had multiple journeys to Jerusalem, and he locates the story of the cleansing of the Temple near the beginning rather than the end of the journeys.

    Many scholars think that John's story is more historically correct, i.e. has more correct factual details especially about Jerusalem. It may have been that it tells Jesus story more from the perspective of a Judean supporter of Jesus whereas Mark tell us more from the perspective of Galilee. Both likely had different sources and put them together differently.

    We also think that Matthew and Luke had access to the preaching of Jesus preserved in a common source (called Q) and various other sources. It seems they felt free to arrange these and the scaffolding of Mark's narrative. They also felt free to modify Mark, e.g. both tone down his criticism of the disciples. Many scholars think Mark writing earlier at a time of threatening persecution had a lot more concern about church leadership crumbling as it had with Jesus than Matthew and Luke who writing later were able to see apostolic successes, e.g. Luke continued the story in Acts.

    All the various perspective we get (Paul, Mark, Q, Matthew, Luke, and John) give us a rich multidimensional perspective that to me makes the NT far more attractive than just a single factually correct narrative of events and sayings because we are talking not just about Jesus but about the Jesus movement which involved many people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim, I'm concerned that you have not reached Tom. Let the non-pray-er here suggest prayers that Tom and his wife are both well, and simply very busy.

    Many blessings to ALL of you here. I have come to feel that you are friends - and even Jim and Tom put up with my lack of faith in the true faith!

    Jean, come back soon and take care during this holy season.

    Anne

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anne, yes I agree - no word from Tom. I thought he was traveling to see a family member over Thanksgiving? Seems we haven't heard from him since?

      Christmas blessings to you and your family, Anne.

      Delete