MARTHA AND MARY

Sunday's gospel reading is about a warm welcome and one very simple meal.

I would argue that we can find historical memory in the Lukan passage. Martha and Mary’s home was a house church, open to everyone: a sanctuary. Martha and Mary were involved in the diakonia of the open table. There are scholars who argue that the sisters were once wealthy, and the lack of servants in the narrative and Martha doing all the preparations by herself, showed that they had followed what Jesus required from the rich.

Jesus’s admonition to her that “there is need for only one” is a reminder to us that, one dish was enough, “tama na ang isang ulam,” especially for the poorest of the poor who were most welcome in these house churches. Maybe Martha, so used to feasts and banquets, momentarily forgot that--for those whose only hope is God-- there is need for only one.

That Jesus is referred to as LORD three times in the passage reminds us of the Basileia movement’s most fundamental, subversive affirmation: JESUS IS LORD AND NOT CAESAR! And to proclaim that Jesus is Lord is to proclaim the good news for the poor.

What about Mary choosing the better part? But what is the better part? Martha and Mary’s sanctuary was a home, not a cathedral most churches today want their worship places to be. Jesus admonished Martha that the open table needed just one dish for everyone, not a feast or a banquet most of us believe are expressions of hospitality, prosperity, and fullness today. And he praised Mary for focusing on the guest: the neighbor. [In the Lukan narrtive, the neighbor includes strangers and enemies!]

And because most of us are not poor, we forget that for millions of people in the world who gargle water for breakfast, drink hot water for lunch, and cry themselves to sleep for supper, a welcoming home and a simple meal is God’s shalom!

#IAmWithJesus
#25percentrevolution
#JusticeForMyanmar
#FreePalestine
#JusticeForNewBataan5
#EndTheCultureOfImpunity

*art, "Martha and Mary," JESUS MAFA, 1973 (from the vanderbilt divinity library digital archives).

THE "BAD" SAMARITAN

Yes, we love the parable. It is one of the two favorites among Christians: the other being the Prodigal Son.

We identify with the Samaritan. We name our institutions after him. I know of a Good Samaritan Hospital, a Good Samaritan Church, and a Good Samaritan Multi Purpose Credit Cooperative. But before we continue patting each other's backs and celebrating, let us remember what Samaritan meant during Jesus’s time.

There were at least three groups of people that were most hated and despised during Jesus’s time. Centurions, tax collectors, and Samaritans. These were the bad guys. Jesus's enemies pejoratively call him a Samaritan.

Priests and Levites were the good guys. They were models of society in word and deed. They were expected to help the wounded, their fellow Jew, on that "bloody way" connecting Jerusalem to Jericho. But they did not.

The bad guy did. Ironically, to this day, the bad guys still do. They continue to help the wounded, rescue the dying, save the half-dead. But we don't call them Samaritans anymore. We call ourselves that now. We even added a qualifier, the "Good" Samaritan.

But, tragically, we still do not stop and help. We have even come up with the best excuses for our inaction, apathy, and indifference: especially if the wounded is Indigenous, Black, Palestinian, Rohingya, LGBTI+, PLHA, communist, or, simply, different from us.

The bad guys do not care about labels. They are red-tagged, vilified, harassed, and demonized. Yet, they continue helping the wounded along the world's bloody ways.

*art, "The Good Samaritan," JESUS MAFA, 1973 (from the vanderbilt divinity library digital archives).