Reading: Mark 10: 46-52 Karen commented last week on my lack of interest in novels. She is both right and wrong at the same time. It is true that I cannot remember the last novel I read. And I concede that some of the great thinkers of our day have given up writing weighty tomes and have turned to the novel as a means of getting their message across. John Ralston Saul is one who springs to mind. Notwithstanding this I have a keen interest in novels/stories - especially as they appear in the scriptures and it was with a great deal of interest that I attended the lectures of John Dominic Crossan in Sydney a few weeks ago. The lectures were in effect a presentation of his latest book The Power of Parable. How fiction of Jesus became fiction about Jesus`. Crossan`s biblical and historical scholarship is beyond question and the book breaks quite a bit of new ground. Crossan sees the key question of scripture as, `Where does factual history begin and fictional parable end?` In this he is in accord with his associate Marcus Borg who says that it is `the more than literal meaning` that counts. He also had some very good things to say about the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth and his alternative way of life to that offered by Rome and the contemporary culture. He was also very strong on the essential non-violence of Jesus, which for me remains a central tenet of the Christian faith.

I was, however generally disappointed in the lectures. I had read most of what he had to say in the book, and I have no great appetite for warmed up beans! I was expecting him to develop the theme, not repeat it.

Where Crossan was very good, however, was when he returned to his old topic of `matrix` - the stuff you have to know to know what is going on, the common knowledge of the day. This is the point at which I give thanks for Crossan, and can distinctly remember an occasion when I was preparing a sermon and was unhappy with the idea of Palm Sunday being seen as a triumphal procession. It just didn`t seem to make sense in the light of the events that followed. It was Crossan who pointed out that as Jesus rode through the Eastern gate on a donkey accompanied by a motley group of supporters, Pilate rode through the western gate on a prancing war horse accompanied by a troop of soldiers in full armour. Passover was time of unrest in Jerusalem and each year at that time Pilate would come from his palace in Caesarea with a troop of soldiers to keep the peace. Having listened to Crossan for four days I can hear him saying in his high pitched voice: `It was a demonstration, dummies! - the matrix, the context, is all important.` I still remember the first time I saw a man riding a donkey, with his legs within an inch of the ground. The contrast with Pilate on a black stallion could not be greater. Jesus was throwing down the gauntlet, challenging the State, in no uncertain manner. It was a demonstration of huge significance and devastating consequences.

I also remember Crossan as the one who pointed out that the titles Son of God, Saviour, Lord, Prince of Peace etc were already in use when Jesus came on the scene. They were used of the Emperor Caesar Augustus; they were on the coins of the realm. The scandal of the gospel is that it asserts that Jesus of Nazareth, not Caesar Augustus, is Lord, Son of God, Prince of Peace. The way that we go along with the government and society of our day would be of acute embarrassment to Jesus.

Crossan`s emphasis on the `matrix` really should have been of no surprise to me. I had a New Testament lecturer who used to begin each lecture by solemnly stating `No text without a context`. Referencing the matrix is essential to understanding what was going on in the first century. It is also crucial in understanding the gospel for the twenty first century.

What was then my over all impression of the lectures? Whilst I appreciated the re-emphasising of `matrix` and the importance of Jesus of Nazareth, the central concern of both the lectures and the book was not fulfilled. What is the power of the parable? What is so significant about the parable in that it resulted in Jesus using it almost exclusively as his method of teaching? I hesitate to say it, but I feel Crossan dropped the ball at this point. We heard a lot about parables but not about `the power` of the parable,

Crossan did however have some great throw away lines. The best of these was `Emmaus never happened, Emmaus always happens . . . The story is about feeding the stranger as oneself . . . It is in the shared meal that Jesus is recognised as being present . . . Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens`. Whether it was fact or fiction is not the issue. The issue is Jesus present in the shared meal.

On the question of how you determine whether an account is fact or fiction, whether it is a parable about Jesus, Crossan says `Read the passage!` Read it intently, read it closely, read it in detail. `Read the passage!`

So when I looked up the lectionary passage for today and found it was about Bartimaeus, I determined to really read it, and when I came to the words `What do you want me to do for you?` I found myself asking, `Where have I read before those words: `What do you want me to do for you?` And then I remembered. It was the same question he asked the dopey disciples, and they had answered, `We would like to sit on your right and left hand when the Kingdom comes.` They had been with Jesus for three years and they still didn`t have a clue. Can you imagine what that answer must have done to Jesus? And here Jesus asks precisely the same question of a blind guy called Bartimaeus.

As you probably know, Mark`s gospel is divided into three parts - Galilee, the journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, and the last week in Jerusalem. The middle section is about the failure of the disciples to understand what Jesus is on about. Jesus speaks of his willingness to die, and they talk about privilege and status. They are blind to the significance of the events of which they are a part. The fact that James and John see it in terms of personal benefit shows just how blind they were. They just didn`t get it! This section of Mark`s gospel has what Keith Rowe refers to as `two book ends`, two stories of blind men being healed, two stories that Bill Loader says are `highly symbolic`. The story of Bartimaeus is one of these stories - and the fact that Jesus asks of Bartimaeus the precise question that he asked of his disciples makes it even more so. Crossan says of passages like this that he can almost hear the writer of the gospel saying, `Can`t you see? They are parables, dummies - parables about Jesus` - just as are the stories of Jesus walking on the water, and turning the water into wine were parables. In this section of Mark`s gospel, two planes of thought are intersecting. One is about the dopey disciples who can`t see the wood for the trees, and the other about a guy who responds to Jesus` question,`What do you want me to do for you?` with the words `I want to see`.

So do I Bartimaeus! So do I!

The story is set in Jericho with which I have a passing acquaintance. When I was there with Bernadette in 1993 we were walking along the road from the ruins of the old town to the new town when we came across a beggar on the side of the road. Whether he was blind or not I have no idea but he must have thought all his Christmases had come at once as we remembered the story of Bartimaeus and dropped what cash we had into his cloak on the ground. Jericho is just 18ks from Jerusalem. The long journey from Caesarea is almost over and Jesus seeks to open the eyes of his disciples to his understanding of life before it comes to an end. And they haven`t a clue. In the face of his impending rejection and crucifixion, they seek privilege for themselves. `We would like to be on your right and your left when you come in glory.` As it turned out, there was one on his left and one on his right when he came in glory - but they were revolutionaries. The disciples had made themselves scarce.

The important thing about this story is to recognise that it is part of a wider one, one where Jesus seeks to open the eyes of his disciples to the truth about life. In Mark`s gospel it starts with a man in Bethsaida recovering his sight, it then recounts the blindness of the disciples, and ends with the story of a blind man saying, `I want to see`.

If you`ll excuse the pun, there`s a lot more to this passage than meets the eye!

Indeed the words with which the section concludes are the key to the passage: `Your faith has made you whole`. Bartimaeus` cry of faith liberated him from his affliction. Faith is a word which has the basic meaning of commitment and, for some reason or other, we think of faith as an attitude of mind. But what if faith is a verb and, as Bruce Sanguin says, `We faith new futures into being`? It is an interesting suggestion and fits well into Paul Tillich`s definition of faith as `the willingness to be apprehended by the future`. We usually think of faith in terms of something that happened in the past. Not so! Faith is about the future. As John Haught reminds us `the past has gone, the present vanishes before we can grasp hold of it. The future on the other hand is always arriving at the edge of each moment bringing with it the possibility of new being . . . In the experience of faith it is the future that comes to meet us, takes hold of us and makes us new`.(2) God is the Spirit, the life force of the future. I am not suggesting that our cosmic past isn`t important. It is. But to be locked into the past or present, to be locked into the metaphysics of the past is to miss the essential meaning of faith. Faith is about the future and it is of significance that Bartimaeus became a follower of Jesus. Having sat on the roadside, the way side, we are told he accompanied Jesus on the road. He became a `follower of the way` - as the early disciples were described - probably humming to himself, `Once I was blind but now I see`.

The story of Bartimaeus is that of a guy who saw his future in Jesus, who refused to be put off by the negatives of others, who had a clear understanding of what he wanted most, who was convinced Jesus could grant it, and acted accordingly. He faithed his future into being. This is not a simple story of a blind man being healed. It is about people needing their eyes opened so they can see to follow Jesus on the way of the cross.

In the very early days of cataract surgery my mother had the operation. After it she said to me. `There must be something wrong. I can see things so clearly`. I had to say to her `No Fan, that`s what it`s all about`. It is the same with spiritual perception - seeing things clearly.

I conclude with a passage that always pops up in my mind when talking about blindness. It is the passage in John where Jesus is referred to as `the light of the world`, and where after the healing of the blind man who was told to go and wash in the pool of Siloam, we read of Jesus saying, `It is to create a crisis that I have come into the world - to give sight to the sightless.` And the Pharisees say to him, `Are we also blind?` And back comes the magnificent answer. `Because you say `We see` your blindness remains.` As far as we know they went back to their religious life and their religious tradition. What a shame! What they should have said was, `Lord, let me see`.

Are we also blind?` If it is a case of `faithing the future into being` it may well be that we too are blind. Bartimaeus asks not about eternal life as did the rich young ruler. Bartimaeus asks not about the top posts in the coming kingdom as did the disciples. Bartimaeus asks that he might see - and so, I hope, say all of us!