In America, this week, fourteen parcel bombs were intercepted. 

A number were sent to prominent liberal-progressive politicians including former President Obama...

his Vice-President, Joe Biden...

and his former Attorney General, Eric Holder;

also to Hillary Clinton...

Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris...

and Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

Bombs were also sent to a former Director of National Intelligence...

a former Director of the CIA...

the actor, Robert De Niro...

wealthy philanthropists, Tom Steyer and George Soros;

and the offices of CNN.

All of them were outspoken critics of Donald Trump.

Fortunately, none of the bombs went off.

And, following the discovery of fingerprints and DNA evidence on at least two of the bombs...

the FBI has now made an arrest.

It probably won't come as much of a surprise... 

that the suspect is a middle-aged white man and a life-long Republican...

who has a long history of violence.

His white van was covered in pro-Trump stickers...

as well as pictures of many of the bomb recipients with targets drawn over their faces.

It appears that there are pictures of him, online, attending Trump rallies... 

and wearing one of Trump's red "Make America Great Again" baseball caps.

He has also posted online a range of anti-Muslim propaganda...

and material related to popular right-wing conspiracy theories.

As news of this arrest broke...

Trump fans were gathering for a midterm campaign rally in North Carolina.

The response of most of them was scepticism.

Some labelled the evidence against the suspect as tenuous.

Some described it as an outright lie.

"I bet it was a liberal who did it", one suggested...

adding, "The truth is, the liberals are the terrorists".

Another claimed that the evidence had been planted to make it look like a Trump supporter was responsible.

There were also claims that the photos of the sticker-covered van had been photo-shopped.

"Maybe he bought the van already with the stickers on it", suggested another.

"Maybe this whole thing is a setup".

 

It's a sad fact of human nature, isn't it?

 

So often, we cannot or will not recognise the truth--

even when we're confronted by it in a compelling way--

not if that calls into question some fervently-held belief...

or contravenes some deeply-cherished tradition...

or smacks up against some unquestioned assumption or ideology.

Clearly it occurs in regards to politics.

And yet, don't we see it, in particular, when it comes to religion?

And, in essence, it's this phenomenon that this morning's reading from Mark's Gospel is addressing.

 

But, wait a minute, I hear you say--

didn't we just hear the story of the healing of blind Bartimaeus?

Yes, we did.

But, in order to understand what the author was really saying here...

we need to understand it in its literary context.

So let's just do a little bit of literary criticism.

And the first thing to notice is that there is... 

in fact... 

another story of a blind man being healed in Mark's Gospel...

just two chapters earlier.

These two accounts of blind men being healed form-- 

if you like-- 

literary bookends around, unquestionably, the most critical section of Mark's Gospel.

In between these two healing stories... 

are the three accounts of Jesus predicting his impending death.

And each time Jesus that makes such a prediction... 

the disciples are unable to hear--

or to accept--

what he is saying.

After all, they were expecting him to enter Jerusalem triumphantly...

to throw out the Romans...

to purge out all the corrupt politicians...

and to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel--

like it had been under King David.

Everything in their upbringing and tradition said that that was what he was going to do.

That's what their religious beliefs told them would happen.

So they couldn't accept--

or they wouldn't recognise--

what it was that he was trying to say to them.

That's where the book-ended stories of the healing of blind men come in.

They're highly symbolic and, in fact, incredibly ironic.

In effect, by arranging his narrative this way... 

the author is effectively inviting us to consider the disciples-

the twelve insiders...

those who ought to know...

and those who ought to understand--

as being, metaphorically, blind.

On the other hand, two blind men--

two outsiders...

two men on the fringes and margins of society...

two men, whom many good religious people would have regard as cursed...

or, perhaps, as irredeemable sinners because they are blind--

symbolically see and are healed.

But the irony is even more delicious...

because the question that Jesus puts to blind Bartimaeus here...

is exactly the same as the one that he put to James and John in last week's reading--

when they came to him, asking him to give them whatever they asked for.

While they sought power and prestige, Bartimaeus simply wanted to see.

Symbolically blind, the disciples stumble.

Physically blind, Bartimaeus symbolically sees.

In crafting his narrative this way...

effectively, the author is warning us that those who are close to Jesus...

those who ought to know what he is on about...

don't always get it...

because their conditioning...

their traditions...

their beliefs...

their ideologies...

don't allow them to.

And, sometimes, those who are outsiders--

those who may not even be considered members of the Church--

may, in fact, recognise what is really happening...

and discern where and how God might be at work.

 

And that warning is as relevant to us, today--

in twenty-first century Australia--

as it was to the intended readers of Mark's Gospel.

How often are we, the Church, blind?

How often do our beliefs and practices...

our traditions and upbringings...

our politics and ideologies...

blind us to where God is at work?

Let's be honest!

There are some Christians--

including members of successive governments--

who are willing to treat asylum seekers as political footballs...

and subject them to any number of indignities...

and, dare I say, atrocities...

based on a shoddy end-justifying-the-means sort of argument...

without recognising the blatant and irreconcilable contradiction with the faith that they profess.

Meanwhile, nearly all of the mainline denominations still regard gay people as somehow abhorrent...

label them as deviants and sinners...

and lobby the government to deny them the sorts of rights that we straight people take for granted...

even though we have strong medical evidence... 

that homosexual orientation is something people are born with...

that it isn't an illness... 

and it isn't something that can be "cured".

And the majority of churches...

while fervently proclaiming that they are welcoming, loving, and compassionate--

in the tradition of Jesus--

deny many who are terminally ill and suffering indescribable pain and humiliation...

the right to a death with dignity...

even though there is nothing in the Bible that directly forbids euthanasia...

and its denial can only be maintained on slightly shonky theological grounds...

and even though a vast majority of the population want it legalised.

How often do we hear Christian leaders confidently declare...

that God disapproves of such things...

or finds such things abhorrent?

Do we, twenty-first century Christians-- 

because of our traditions...

beliefs...

and ideologies--

now take the place of the twelve in Mark's Gospel:

unable to perceive where and how God is at work today;

while those outside the community of faith...

intuitively...

or even inadvertently...

see and understand more clearly?

 

As the old adage goes:

There are none so blind...