Human sufferings are realities of life. In itself, growing up is painful. Primary teeth must go to give way to permanent teeth. The process is painfully memorable for most people.
For religions of dualistic flavour, sufferings are accepted more easily because besides the benevolent principle, there is an evil one which explains all the destructions and sufferings of the universe. But for a benevolent and almighty God, it is more difficult to explain why He allows bad things to happen to good people. Therefore, He is either not a benevolent God or not an almighty God or both because of the existence of evils and sufferings. Of course, this is only human logic which cannot claim sovereignty over God. Isaiah spoke very well about this.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD (Isaiah 55:8).
Let's return to the gospel reading today. It is hard to understand how it was possible, after he was made the foundation of Jesus' Church, for Peter to persuade Jesus not to die. A moment ago, God the Father had inspired him, had revealed to him that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. God the Father must have given Peter the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, how was it possible for Peter to confess that Jesus was the Christ? Filled with the Holy Spirit, how was it logically possible for Peter to try to prevent Jesus from going to his death. Therefore, it is more reasonable to hypothesize that the Confession of Peter was anachronistic. It might be a post-resurrection event transposed to the present location. The whole thing makes sense. God does not choose a perfect person to do a job. Everybody is flawed one way or another. Despite our vulnerabilities, God still entrusts the mission of evangelization and salvation to our hands.
Look at the story from another angle. It tells us that following Jesus is not all roses. Don't expect life to be worry-free the moment you believe in Jesus. He does not promise us any gold or honour, money or power. Instead, he tells his followers to carry their own crosses.
Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Matthew 16:24).
We believe that nothing can happen without God's consent. The drama of Job illustrates just this. Satan had to seek God's permission before it could torture Job. If we interpret this drama cynically, man is truly a deplorable creature. He is merely a pawn in a game between God and Satan!
The story of Job is an attempt to understand the meanings of suffering. It struggles against the contemporary view that God rewards the good and punishes the bad. In the cruel reality of daily life, the bad usually runs away from punishments to enjoy their spoils while the good usually suffer for no reason. It violates the principle of justice.
It is a sense of justice lying behind our mind which makes us believe that the bad deserve to be punished and the good rewarded. This kind of thinking is intuitive and reasonable. People suffer because they have sinned. They deserve to be punished. But when bad things happen to good people, we cannot insist that the good must have done something bad which incurs God's wrath.
We are not trying to save God's face. But we really find that sufferings can be beneficial to us. They humble us, enable us to confront and recognize our weaknesses. Hopefully, we may manage to sublime and outgrow our defects. Everybody knows how hard it is to kick an addiction but the price (the pains of withdrawal symptoms) is worth paying.
When we come to Jesus, suffering is elevated to an even higher plane. Sufferings save. At the end of the age, Jesus will judge the living and the dead to repay our sufferings which become some sort of a measure of how much we love our God.
For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done (Matthew 16:27).
Dear Lord, You offer us opportunities to suffer in order to galvanize us. May we learn to embrace them, to see them as opportunities to love You more. Amen.
Sunday, 28 August 2011
Thursday, 25 August 2011
The Confession of Peter as a study of Revelation
As promised, I am going to write up how I understand the Confession of Peter as a study of Revelation. Theologians try to explain what revelation is. What does it mean to say that God communicates Himself to us? It is a question of what and not how. Cardinal Avery Dulles had summarized the efforts of many theologians into 5 models. One group treats revelation as doctrines handed down from heaven. The second group takes revelation as the historical deeds God performed to save us. The third group goes into our inner experience. The fourth emphasizes the dialectical presence of Christ and the last one looks at the consequence of revelation: a new and heightened awareness. All these models have something to say about the confession of Peter.
The doctrinal model digs up the doctrines found in this story. There are several. First of all, God the Father is the source of revelation. Peter did not come up with the answer himself. Nor did he learn the truth from some other sagas. Jesus affirmed that it was God the Father who revealed the true identity of Jesus to Peter (Matthew 16:17). Secondly, the story affirms once more that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:16). But nowadays, scholars would challenge the dating of this event. Many Bible scholars hold the view that the story is anachronistic. Matthew put the post-Easter experience into the mouth of Peter. Lastly, the story provides evidences to prove the primacy of Peter etc.
The historical model would encounter great difficulty here because there is no independent extra-biblical evidence to support this story. Did it actually happen? Even if it did, did it happen as Matthew wrote? In fact, miracles would be better candidates to prove the identity. However, if the motive of this story is to prove the primacy of Peter, the historicity of the story has to be established first. Unfortunately, confession is confession. The historical model is not adequate here.
The inner experience model puts into relief the peculiarity of Christianity. Modern Christians do not have the first hand experience of Jesus. The apostles did. The second-generation Christians and those who came after them, like us, do not. Except for some saints whom Jesus had appeared to them, very few people actually experience Jesus. Through prayers and sacraments, modern Christians encounter the Lord. But this is indirect and relies on the intervention of symbols. So, Christianity relies on the credibility of the witnesses borne by outsiders. Now, an event took place in Caesarea Philippi. Peter had an indescribable experience. Matthew put the event in record. Now, we accept that Peter was the first Pope. Will you accept this even when we cannot prove this event to be historical?
The Presence/Encounter model seems to be the most suitable model to explain the Confession of Peter. Revelation is an encounter with Christ. The Samaritan woman by the well (John 4) and the adulterous woman (John 8) are prime examples of such a model of revelation. Similarly, those fishermen met Jesus and they gave up everything to follow him. After staying with Jesus for two and a half years, it was now time to pledge their allegiance. In the gospel, we find records of these encounters in which we find revelations. Even if such a series of event did not happen, even if they are hypothetical, they are logical and consistent. We can still take their face values and accept their message.
Lastly, all evidences for the transformational model lie outside the gospel. Why do I make such a bold claim. The death and resurrection of Jesus was the climax of God's revelation. Yet, the apostles still thought of the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6). Their transformation took place after the coming of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in their writing of the gospel, they were writing in hind-sight. They recalled events in the light of the resurrection of Jesus. Before the resurrection, the meanings of some events were obscure. After the resurrection, the meanings still remained obscure. The Apostles needed to wait for the Holy Spirit to illuminate their mind to discern the meanings. For example, I speculate that Simon was not too happy to be called Peter because in Greek, the word "rock" is feminine. Perhaps Simon felt offended because Jesus made fun of him, giving him a feminine name! If anybody knows Aramaic, I would be most grateful if he would tell me whether the gender of "rock" in Aramaic is feminine or neuter. Surely there is a new, heightened awareness. But that would be after Pentecost.
What is my understanding of the Confession of Peter?
For me, Jesus himself is the revelation. In order to reveal Himself to the apostles and to us, Jesus engaged in a dialogue with the apostles. He began with something within reach, something they were able to know --- an opinion poll. But doing social research will not yield the mysteries and the truth of God. Jesus is not John the Baptist, not Jeremiah and not one of the prophets. These public opinions do not come any closer to the truth. To obtain the truth, we need to dive deep into our innermost self, our soul. He confronted them with the "basic option" --- Who do you say I am? Will you choose Jesus, or some other principalities or powers?
But at the end of the day, we do not obtain the revelation with our efforts. It is God the Father who reveals.
A question remains. Besides Peter, who else knew the answer? Did Peter speak on behalf of all the apostles? Then all the apostles knew that Jesus is the Son of God. However, why then was only Peter being blessed and not the rest? Why then did Judas betray Jesus? The conclusion is obvious. Not everyone is able to obtain the revelation. If we fail to enter into a genuine dialogue with God, God remains inaccessible.
Dear Lord, am I speaking to myself? Do we dialogue? Amen.
The doctrinal model digs up the doctrines found in this story. There are several. First of all, God the Father is the source of revelation. Peter did not come up with the answer himself. Nor did he learn the truth from some other sagas. Jesus affirmed that it was God the Father who revealed the true identity of Jesus to Peter (Matthew 16:17). Secondly, the story affirms once more that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 16:16). But nowadays, scholars would challenge the dating of this event. Many Bible scholars hold the view that the story is anachronistic. Matthew put the post-Easter experience into the mouth of Peter. Lastly, the story provides evidences to prove the primacy of Peter etc.
The historical model would encounter great difficulty here because there is no independent extra-biblical evidence to support this story. Did it actually happen? Even if it did, did it happen as Matthew wrote? In fact, miracles would be better candidates to prove the identity. However, if the motive of this story is to prove the primacy of Peter, the historicity of the story has to be established first. Unfortunately, confession is confession. The historical model is not adequate here.
The inner experience model puts into relief the peculiarity of Christianity. Modern Christians do not have the first hand experience of Jesus. The apostles did. The second-generation Christians and those who came after them, like us, do not. Except for some saints whom Jesus had appeared to them, very few people actually experience Jesus. Through prayers and sacraments, modern Christians encounter the Lord. But this is indirect and relies on the intervention of symbols. So, Christianity relies on the credibility of the witnesses borne by outsiders. Now, an event took place in Caesarea Philippi. Peter had an indescribable experience. Matthew put the event in record. Now, we accept that Peter was the first Pope. Will you accept this even when we cannot prove this event to be historical?
The Presence/Encounter model seems to be the most suitable model to explain the Confession of Peter. Revelation is an encounter with Christ. The Samaritan woman by the well (John 4) and the adulterous woman (John 8) are prime examples of such a model of revelation. Similarly, those fishermen met Jesus and they gave up everything to follow him. After staying with Jesus for two and a half years, it was now time to pledge their allegiance. In the gospel, we find records of these encounters in which we find revelations. Even if such a series of event did not happen, even if they are hypothetical, they are logical and consistent. We can still take their face values and accept their message.
Lastly, all evidences for the transformational model lie outside the gospel. Why do I make such a bold claim. The death and resurrection of Jesus was the climax of God's revelation. Yet, the apostles still thought of the restoration of Israel (Acts 1:6). Their transformation took place after the coming of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in their writing of the gospel, they were writing in hind-sight. They recalled events in the light of the resurrection of Jesus. Before the resurrection, the meanings of some events were obscure. After the resurrection, the meanings still remained obscure. The Apostles needed to wait for the Holy Spirit to illuminate their mind to discern the meanings. For example, I speculate that Simon was not too happy to be called Peter because in Greek, the word "rock" is feminine. Perhaps Simon felt offended because Jesus made fun of him, giving him a feminine name! If anybody knows Aramaic, I would be most grateful if he would tell me whether the gender of "rock" in Aramaic is feminine or neuter. Surely there is a new, heightened awareness. But that would be after Pentecost.
What is my understanding of the Confession of Peter?
For me, Jesus himself is the revelation. In order to reveal Himself to the apostles and to us, Jesus engaged in a dialogue with the apostles. He began with something within reach, something they were able to know --- an opinion poll. But doing social research will not yield the mysteries and the truth of God. Jesus is not John the Baptist, not Jeremiah and not one of the prophets. These public opinions do not come any closer to the truth. To obtain the truth, we need to dive deep into our innermost self, our soul. He confronted them with the "basic option" --- Who do you say I am? Will you choose Jesus, or some other principalities or powers?
But at the end of the day, we do not obtain the revelation with our efforts. It is God the Father who reveals.
A question remains. Besides Peter, who else knew the answer? Did Peter speak on behalf of all the apostles? Then all the apostles knew that Jesus is the Son of God. However, why then was only Peter being blessed and not the rest? Why then did Judas betray Jesus? The conclusion is obvious. Not everyone is able to obtain the revelation. If we fail to enter into a genuine dialogue with God, God remains inaccessible.
Dear Lord, am I speaking to myself? Do we dialogue? Amen.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
An evaluation of the Models of Revelation
The story of the Confession of Peter (Matthew 16:13-20) is a good specimen to evaluate the 5 models of revelation (1983) put forth by the late Cardinal Avery Dulles (1918-2008). This Matthean version of the story also includes the text which proves the primacy of Peter --- Jesus gave Simon a new name Peter and on this Peter(Rock), Jesus would build his Church (Matthew 16:18) etc. The audience of the Gospel of Matthew was Jewish and this text reads very much like an etymology story which is a popular genre in the Pentateuch (the Five Books of Moses). The audience understood it and had no problem accepting it well. Gentile readers like us may not be able to appreciate the suggestive force of such genre. Anyhow today, I would like to focus more on the question of revelation.
First of all, let's take a look at the idea of revelation. For us Christians, we believe that there is something out there beyond the physical realm in which we exist. For convenience's sake, let's call this something God. Furthermore, we will never know this something, this God unless it/He communicates with us. Therefore, revelation is God's self-communication to us. We still maintain our autonomy. We may accept His revelation or we may reject it. We believe that God reveals Himself in many different ways: the nature, beautiful things, disasters and the human history etc. But we Christians believe that Jesus is the greatest revelation of God. When we see Jesus, we see the Father.
Now, let's turn to theology, the study of God. Since God is transcendental, the methods we use in the study of sciences will become very inadequate in doing the job properly. First and foremost, we do not have a precise language to describe God and His activities. Therefore, we use images and analogies to speak about Him. For example, we find many images such as father, rock, shield and living water etc. in the Bible to express the authors' experiences of God. Secondly, God is not an inanimate object. He is a free person. Therefore, we cannot establish any formulae or laws to predict His activities. Still, theologians can make use of some images as ideal types, as reference points to discuss a theological topic. These ideal types are called models. They are "useful in guiding theological investigations, in framing hypotheses and in writing descriptions." (Method in Theology by Fr. Bernard Lonergan, 1971, pg. 285)
Nine years after Vatican II, in 1974, Cardinal Dulles made use of the methodology of model to study ecclesiology and wrote "Models of The Church". Nine more years later in 1983, he published one more book, this time applying the methodology of model to the study of revelation. He defended the validity of using models to study revelation. Then, he summarized the efforts of generations of theologians into 5 models.
Dear Lord, I confess with Peter. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Amen.
First of all, let's take a look at the idea of revelation. For us Christians, we believe that there is something out there beyond the physical realm in which we exist. For convenience's sake, let's call this something God. Furthermore, we will never know this something, this God unless it/He communicates with us. Therefore, revelation is God's self-communication to us. We still maintain our autonomy. We may accept His revelation or we may reject it. We believe that God reveals Himself in many different ways: the nature, beautiful things, disasters and the human history etc. But we Christians believe that Jesus is the greatest revelation of God. When we see Jesus, we see the Father.
Now, let's turn to theology, the study of God. Since God is transcendental, the methods we use in the study of sciences will become very inadequate in doing the job properly. First and foremost, we do not have a precise language to describe God and His activities. Therefore, we use images and analogies to speak about Him. For example, we find many images such as father, rock, shield and living water etc. in the Bible to express the authors' experiences of God. Secondly, God is not an inanimate object. He is a free person. Therefore, we cannot establish any formulae or laws to predict His activities. Still, theologians can make use of some images as ideal types, as reference points to discuss a theological topic. These ideal types are called models. They are "useful in guiding theological investigations, in framing hypotheses and in writing descriptions." (Method in Theology by Fr. Bernard Lonergan, 1971, pg. 285)
Nine years after Vatican II, in 1974, Cardinal Dulles made use of the methodology of model to study ecclesiology and wrote "Models of The Church". Nine more years later in 1983, he published one more book, this time applying the methodology of model to the study of revelation. He defended the validity of using models to study revelation. Then, he summarized the efforts of generations of theologians into 5 models.
- Revelation as Doctrine: This is the traditional view which upholds the belief that revelation is found in the Scripture and, for Catholics, the Tradition and the teaching office of the Church. That is the official documents released by the Magisterium.
- Revelation as History: God reveals Himself in the great deeds He does in the salvation history of mankind. It reaches the climax in the Jesus-event.
- Revelation as Inner Experience: Revelation is a direct, unmediated encounter with God.
- Revelation as Dialectical Presence: Christ is the Revelation. He makes us know our sins and saves us. (That explains why the model is called dialectical.) Therefore, revelation is also salvific.
- Revelation as New Awareness: Revelation helps us breakthrough our limitations to a more advanced stage of human consciousness.
Dear Lord, I confess with Peter. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Amen.
Sunday, 14 August 2011
Racist Remarks by Jesus
We are all familiar with a game of communication in which players pass a message down a queue. Each player is allowed to whisper only once in his partner's ear and cannot ask any questions to clarify. This game is very enjoyable and illustrates how easily messages are distorted in the process of passing on.
This morning, Wulstan and his partner conducted a bible sharing session enlivened with a modified version of the communication game. Instead of whispering in the ear, the player speaks aloud the message in front of an audience. Of course, other members of his team are waiting outside the room. Now, this is educational. The audience can witness clearly how crucial details are left out and irrelevant elements are emphasized and inserted.
Why is it so? A lot of distortions can be explained with psychology. We are not able to remember so many details. We do not pay enough attention. When we fail to catch the meaning, we make it up with something we understand etc. Seeing so many pitfalls in communication, we wonder how faithfully we are able to evangelize.
Evangelization requires us to pass on the good news of Jesus to the others. But how reliable are the messages and stories handed down to us through a period of 2000 years? In the beginning, there were no written documents. The Good News was passed on orally. Apostles and disciples bore witnesses to what they had seen, had heard and had touched in gatherings of believers. Luckily, unlike our communication game, there must have been interactions between the speakers and the listeners. Conflicting information was rectified. After a certain length of time, the details must have been harmonized within a community: what parables Jesus had told, how and where Jesus had healed a certain blind man etc. But between communities, the details of certain incidents might not agree. If we opine that a gospel represents the experience of a certain church, then we can conclude that the details of their stories might not agree. Therefore, in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus rode an ass and a colt into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:7) while in the gospel of Mark, Jesus rode a colt only (Mark 11:7). So, how many animals did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? Well, as long as it makes sense to the particular community, it does not matter whether Jesus rode one colt or two. On the other hand, when most of the Synoptic gospels and even the gospel of John agree on the detail of a certain incident, when such an incident is universally proclaimed, it must be historically reliable. For example, the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish. All four canonical gospels report it. The story of the greatest commandment is reported in all three Synoptic gospels in different degrees of sophistication. Here, we see another important point about "revelation". God does not dictate what words to write in the Bible. The human authors contribute their creativity as well.
When we come to the story of the Canaanite woman today, we should feel offended by Jesus' racist remark directed towards her, calling her a dog. Though the gospel of Luke does not record this story, I think many people will agree with me that even one report is too much from a holy man like Jesus. Even if the motive of the story is to encourage faith, it does not give Jesus (the Evangelists) the license to make such a racist remark. The ends does not justify the means. I can accept the fact that the human authors (Matthew and Mark) were culturally conditioned and we cannot expect them to transcend their existential limitations. However, Jesus is the Son of God. Surely we don't expect him to condone racism. I really cannot come up with any defence for Jesus, unless you argue that in the process of passing on the story, the Evangelists have emphasized some irrelevant details and put them into the mouth of Jesus. This is not easy to prove or refute. But this morning, I did an experiment with the members of the choir. The inspiration came from Brenda's speech at one of the morning assemblies in Shung Tak. Perhaps this experiment might throw light onto the reasonableness of the above argument.
Experiment:
Many people know the story of the forbidden fruit. So, ask someone to tell you the story. Check his details against Genesis 3. Pay attention to how he misses some crucial points and how he embellishes some irrelevant details. Moreover, see how he puts words into the mouth of the characters: the Serpent, Eve, Adam and even God! Enjoy!
Dear Lord, You alone have the word of life. Give us life. Amen.
This morning, Wulstan and his partner conducted a bible sharing session enlivened with a modified version of the communication game. Instead of whispering in the ear, the player speaks aloud the message in front of an audience. Of course, other members of his team are waiting outside the room. Now, this is educational. The audience can witness clearly how crucial details are left out and irrelevant elements are emphasized and inserted.
Why is it so? A lot of distortions can be explained with psychology. We are not able to remember so many details. We do not pay enough attention. When we fail to catch the meaning, we make it up with something we understand etc. Seeing so many pitfalls in communication, we wonder how faithfully we are able to evangelize.
Evangelization requires us to pass on the good news of Jesus to the others. But how reliable are the messages and stories handed down to us through a period of 2000 years? In the beginning, there were no written documents. The Good News was passed on orally. Apostles and disciples bore witnesses to what they had seen, had heard and had touched in gatherings of believers. Luckily, unlike our communication game, there must have been interactions between the speakers and the listeners. Conflicting information was rectified. After a certain length of time, the details must have been harmonized within a community: what parables Jesus had told, how and where Jesus had healed a certain blind man etc. But between communities, the details of certain incidents might not agree. If we opine that a gospel represents the experience of a certain church, then we can conclude that the details of their stories might not agree. Therefore, in the gospel of Matthew, Jesus rode an ass and a colt into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:7) while in the gospel of Mark, Jesus rode a colt only (Mark 11:7). So, how many animals did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? Well, as long as it makes sense to the particular community, it does not matter whether Jesus rode one colt or two. On the other hand, when most of the Synoptic gospels and even the gospel of John agree on the detail of a certain incident, when such an incident is universally proclaimed, it must be historically reliable. For example, the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fish. All four canonical gospels report it. The story of the greatest commandment is reported in all three Synoptic gospels in different degrees of sophistication. Here, we see another important point about "revelation". God does not dictate what words to write in the Bible. The human authors contribute their creativity as well.
When we come to the story of the Canaanite woman today, we should feel offended by Jesus' racist remark directed towards her, calling her a dog. Though the gospel of Luke does not record this story, I think many people will agree with me that even one report is too much from a holy man like Jesus. Even if the motive of the story is to encourage faith, it does not give Jesus (the Evangelists) the license to make such a racist remark. The ends does not justify the means. I can accept the fact that the human authors (Matthew and Mark) were culturally conditioned and we cannot expect them to transcend their existential limitations. However, Jesus is the Son of God. Surely we don't expect him to condone racism. I really cannot come up with any defence for Jesus, unless you argue that in the process of passing on the story, the Evangelists have emphasized some irrelevant details and put them into the mouth of Jesus. This is not easy to prove or refute. But this morning, I did an experiment with the members of the choir. The inspiration came from Brenda's speech at one of the morning assemblies in Shung Tak. Perhaps this experiment might throw light onto the reasonableness of the above argument.
Experiment:
Many people know the story of the forbidden fruit. So, ask someone to tell you the story. Check his details against Genesis 3. Pay attention to how he misses some crucial points and how he embellishes some irrelevant details. Moreover, see how he puts words into the mouth of the characters: the Serpent, Eve, Adam and even God! Enjoy!
Dear Lord, You alone have the word of life. Give us life. Amen.
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Take heart, it is I; have no fear.
Do we see Jesus in our times of despair, times of darkness? We had better do.
Yesterday, I attended the Election Rite for Deacons in which Cosmas officially became a candidate. Fr. Dominic Chan, V.G. officiated at the mass. He opened his homily with the crash of stock market last Friday. The HSI closed nearly 1000 points down from the previous day. The total capitalization shed roughly 5% and the market is expected to be very bumpy in the next few days. Seeing their assets shrinking out of control, many people were panicking.
But immediately he spoke to them, saying, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."(Matthew 14:27)
Do these words mean anything to us?
In psychology, we learn that fear is an inborn emotion which is evolutionarily beneficial for the survival of an organism. Facing an imminent, life-threatening danger, an organism will either fight or flight. Fear drives the organism to run away to save its life. Fear signals us to retreat, to stay away, to take cover. Without fear, we blindly walk into hell and perish. Therefore, fear is healthy. However, some fears can be dysfunctional and can immobilize the organism. In such situations, the organism is stuck and needs professional support from without.
Whatever we do, there will always be a percentage of risks. Nothing we do is 100% safe. We do not choose to put ourselves in dangers, in hopeless situations. However, bad things just happen and fall upon our heads. Therefore, what Peter had done is difficult to reason. The gospel of Mark does not report this incident. Only Matthew does.
Jesus sent the apostles away on a boat after the feeding of 5000 miracle. He himself went up the mountain alone to pray. It was about 4 a.m. when Jesus saw his apostles still straining at the oars, tossed around in the waves, he walked to them on the water. At least four of the apostles were fishermen. They used to work at night but had never experienced such great waves. So, when they saw something moving on the water, they were terrified and cried out that it was a ghost. Jesus reassured them that it was he. What happened next was totally illogical. Peter requested the permission to walk to the Lord on the water. Jesus granted the permission and Peter started walking on the water to Jesus (Matthew 14:28-29). What was going on inside the head of Peter? Why did he decide to put himself in great perils?
Perhaps we should not read this incident too literally. The V.G. was right when he told the congregation about meeting God in our private prayers. Jesus has set us a good example. In many occasions, the evangelists tell us that Jesus goes away from the hustle and bustle of the day and prays in solitude. Very often, we fill up our life with many many activities: watching TV, surfing the Internet, reading tabloids, playing online games and chatting on the phone etc. In fact, we make ourselves so fully occupied in order to run away from our inner self and from God. We are afraid to confront our true self and a perceived fearful God.
We are not familiar with ourselves. There are too many defects: greed, hatred, lust, prejudice, pride and wounds which are too powerful to overcome and threaten to drown us once they are let loose. We are not familiar with our God. He is too judgmental, omniscient, revengeful and watchful but never gets tired. Crisis provides us with a golden opportunity to turn to God for help.
Peter and his company were strained in a difficult situation. They had worked very hard to escape from a deathtrap but couldn't. Among them, only Peter saw hope in Jesus. He wanted to reach Jesus. On his way, he saw his sinfulness bear down on him and he nearly sank and drowned. Jesus delivered him.
Confronting our stark nakedness is a very disturbing experience. We may resort to different defence mechanisms to soothe our ego. We may compartmentalize our life so that we can be saintly on Sunday and become beastly once we step out of the Church. We may project and put all the blames on the others. We may keep on torturing ourselves with a sense of guilt instead of taking a step to reconcile because it would be more painful to do so. Very often, we are hindered by our own sinfulness. Out of shame, out of guilt, we don't feel we deserve salvation.
Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord. (Luke 5:8b)
Have no fear. Jesus assures us. He goes all the way out to save and to heal.
And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. (Matthew 14:32)
Dear Lord, may we be healed and live in Your peace forever. Amen.
Yesterday, I attended the Election Rite for Deacons in which Cosmas officially became a candidate. Fr. Dominic Chan, V.G. officiated at the mass. He opened his homily with the crash of stock market last Friday. The HSI closed nearly 1000 points down from the previous day. The total capitalization shed roughly 5% and the market is expected to be very bumpy in the next few days. Seeing their assets shrinking out of control, many people were panicking.
But immediately he spoke to them, saying, "Take heart, it is I; have no fear."(Matthew 14:27)
Do these words mean anything to us?
In psychology, we learn that fear is an inborn emotion which is evolutionarily beneficial for the survival of an organism. Facing an imminent, life-threatening danger, an organism will either fight or flight. Fear drives the organism to run away to save its life. Fear signals us to retreat, to stay away, to take cover. Without fear, we blindly walk into hell and perish. Therefore, fear is healthy. However, some fears can be dysfunctional and can immobilize the organism. In such situations, the organism is stuck and needs professional support from without.
Whatever we do, there will always be a percentage of risks. Nothing we do is 100% safe. We do not choose to put ourselves in dangers, in hopeless situations. However, bad things just happen and fall upon our heads. Therefore, what Peter had done is difficult to reason. The gospel of Mark does not report this incident. Only Matthew does.
Jesus sent the apostles away on a boat after the feeding of 5000 miracle. He himself went up the mountain alone to pray. It was about 4 a.m. when Jesus saw his apostles still straining at the oars, tossed around in the waves, he walked to them on the water. At least four of the apostles were fishermen. They used to work at night but had never experienced such great waves. So, when they saw something moving on the water, they were terrified and cried out that it was a ghost. Jesus reassured them that it was he. What happened next was totally illogical. Peter requested the permission to walk to the Lord on the water. Jesus granted the permission and Peter started walking on the water to Jesus (Matthew 14:28-29). What was going on inside the head of Peter? Why did he decide to put himself in great perils?
Perhaps we should not read this incident too literally. The V.G. was right when he told the congregation about meeting God in our private prayers. Jesus has set us a good example. In many occasions, the evangelists tell us that Jesus goes away from the hustle and bustle of the day and prays in solitude. Very often, we fill up our life with many many activities: watching TV, surfing the Internet, reading tabloids, playing online games and chatting on the phone etc. In fact, we make ourselves so fully occupied in order to run away from our inner self and from God. We are afraid to confront our true self and a perceived fearful God.
We are not familiar with ourselves. There are too many defects: greed, hatred, lust, prejudice, pride and wounds which are too powerful to overcome and threaten to drown us once they are let loose. We are not familiar with our God. He is too judgmental, omniscient, revengeful and watchful but never gets tired. Crisis provides us with a golden opportunity to turn to God for help.
Peter and his company were strained in a difficult situation. They had worked very hard to escape from a deathtrap but couldn't. Among them, only Peter saw hope in Jesus. He wanted to reach Jesus. On his way, he saw his sinfulness bear down on him and he nearly sank and drowned. Jesus delivered him.
Confronting our stark nakedness is a very disturbing experience. We may resort to different defence mechanisms to soothe our ego. We may compartmentalize our life so that we can be saintly on Sunday and become beastly once we step out of the Church. We may project and put all the blames on the others. We may keep on torturing ourselves with a sense of guilt instead of taking a step to reconcile because it would be more painful to do so. Very often, we are hindered by our own sinfulness. Out of shame, out of guilt, we don't feel we deserve salvation.
Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord. (Luke 5:8b)
Have no fear. Jesus assures us. He goes all the way out to save and to heal.
And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. (Matthew 14:32)
Dear Lord, may we be healed and live in Your peace forever. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)