Today, the institution of family is at risk. On one hand, people acknowledge the importance of the institution called marriage and family, to the stability of the society. For example, among the 30 articles of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), getting married and founding a family appear in Article 16, prior to property right (#17), religious freedom (#18) and freedom of speech (#19) etc. Article 16, paragraph 3 acknowledges its importance by stating that "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
On the other hand, people allow this important institution to be threatened and corroded without giving it proper protection. It began with adultery which was once punishable by death in ancient times. Nowadays, extra-marital affairs are not even frowned on at all. Divorce, though tolerated by Moses, had been a social stigma. Nowadays in some countries, more than 50% of marriages end up in divorce. Moreover, economic affluence proves to be a curse to family. High living standards force both parents to work to their exhaustion, leaving very little time for spouses and family members to share some quality family time. When the claims of human rights are blown out of proportion, same-sex civil unions want to have their legal status upgraded to marriage so as to enjoy equal rights! A number of countries have legalized same-sex marriage, allowing two men to become spouses to found a family. Some countries even allow them to adopt children. In short, our families are at risk. Our children are at risk. Adults are mature enough to fend for themselves. They might be able to survive infidelity, divorce and even the disorderliness of gay marriage. What about the children?
In the gospel reading today, we read of the story of the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt to evade the murderous attempt of Herod on the life of Infant Jesus. Though the Son of God had incarnated to become its member, the Holy Family did not fight against political persecutions with miracles.
Let's take a closer look at the so called Holy Family. It began with a single-parent family. When Mary gave the consent to become the mother of Jesus, she became an unwed mother. She had participated in a social problem. Depending on the number of unwed mothers at that time, the social costs of this social problem vary. Stoning them to death was the cheapest and thus the most favoured solution in ancient times. The Holy Family has an inglorious beginning.
Luckily, Joseph stood up to bear this social cost. Together with the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph would protect this Son of God at all costs. However, Joseph was only a carpenter, an artisan. He was not able to earn much money and power. Furthermore, he lived in Galilee, an outskirt of Judaism. Greek and Gentile influences were strong. The cultural milieu could not command any respect (John 1:46). Indeed, God had chosen rather unwisely according to human standard. At first, the Holy Family was not holy at all. Nor could their situation improve after receiving the gifts from the Magi. The Holy Family simply could not use those gifts without running into troubles. So, what made the Holy Family holy must be something else. It is total dedication to God. All three of them dedicated their lives totally to doing the will of God. No miracles nor power could make one holy. Rather, it is humble submission to God's will that makes one holy.
Let's face it. God took up flesh to become man not to tinker with humanity but to help us transcend humanity. God did not choose a royal family to provide power and respect for the birth and growth of Jesus. He chose an ordinary peasant girl and her betrothed husband at the margin of Jewish land. God did not vapourize Herod the Great immediately or even before Herod was able to give the order to massacre the Innocent Infants in order to protect the Holy Infant. No, God's intervention was minimum --- sending messages to Joseph in dreams.
To a certain extent, our present situation is similar though less severe than that confronting the Holy Family. We are still able to put up some resistance against the legislation of same-sex marriage in Hong Kong. We do not know who will win the day. We do not expect God to intervene either. If the worst comes to the worst, we will follow the example of the Holy Family to protect the Holy Infant by fleeing to the archenemy of HKSAR to wait for the demise of those who sought the child's life (Matthew 2:20).
My sweet Holy Infant, your presence is enough to prod us ahead to build up a society conducive to the healthy development of family life. Amen.
Sunday 29 December 2013
Thursday 26 December 2013
GRACE & BLESSING FROM THE LORD 2013
Christ is the Best Gift that God gives us.
Light and Life He gives us.
May the Light of Christ
Illuminate and Inflame our hearts, making us
Gifts to our Brethren.
May I wish you
Every Grace and Blessing
from the Lord
I thank Fr. Seàn, who taught me Greek and Theological Propædeutics in HKCBI, for correcting my mistake in greeting people Merry Christmas.
Sunday 22 December 2013
The Problem faced by St. Joseph
For us Christians, Jesus is the Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. This is a distinctively Christianity doctrine, not shared by the other monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Islam. Like any other doctrines, it must have gone through a development before it comes down to the final form as we know it today.
St. Paul wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. For example, biblical scholars opine that the letter to the Romans was written in early 58 A.D. Luke, a disciple of Paul, followed the teachings of Paul to write the gospel of Luke in around 62 A.D. Even here, we see a development of the views on Jesus being the Son of God. For Paul, Jesus is the Son of God because of his resurrection from the dead, which is the core of his proclamation of the gospel.
"and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4)
On the other hand, in the gospel of Luke, Jesus is the Son of God not because of his resurrection but of his incarnation.
"And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
Jesus is the Son of God from the very beginning. Subsequently, Satan tested him and the demons recognized him.
To both New Testament authors, the Holy Spirit makes Jesus the Son of God, whether it is the beginning or the end of Jesus' earthly existence.
Now, let us return to meditate on the gospel reading today, on the problem St. Joseph faced when Mary was found to be pregnant. Let us put ourselves in his shoes. St. Joseph had no idea who violated Mary and even when Mary told him that the child was the work of the Holy Spirit, how would Joseph accept this so called explanation? The Torah did not offer much help for cases of betrothed virgins. Deuteronomy 22 could not deal with a man who was missing in this case. As for the woman, her life would be spared if the case took place in the open country where nobody would come to rescue her even if she cried for help. But since "the man" was missing, there was no way to determine where it happened. Therefore, the Torah could not give any guidance. Surely Mary would not be the first woman violated by a "missing man". There must be in place some customs to deal with it. No matter what customs they might be, Mary and similar victims would be the only person to bear the burden, some kind of public shame. Stoning her to death would still be a legitimate option. There might be other forms of public shame, depending on the particular social and political situations of different towns. But Joseph did not want to put Mary to shame.
Matthew is ambiguous as to how public Mary was found to be pregnant. From what Joseph resolved to do, we hypothesize that it was not yet a public knowledge. Just think about it. How could Joseph divorce (ἀπολῦσαι) Mary quietly (Matthew 1:19)? It would be a contradiction. Joseph could follow the Torah to write a divorce letter to free Mary from her marriage obligation so that she would be able to marry her "missing man". In so doing, it could not be done in private.
One way to resolve this contradiction is to look for another translation of the word ἀπολῦσαι. This word which is usually translated as divorce (ἀπολῦσαι) can be rendered as "send away". Therefore, we have to assume that Mary's pregnancy was not yet public so that Joseph could send her away quietly and Mary had to leave Nazareth. Here, an angel intervened and the rest is history.
Joseph was a righteous man. He was righteous not just because he followed the Torah but because he did not want to put Mary to shame. He had a big heart and cared about the needs of Mary, his betrothed wife. He did not take Mary as his property which he was entitled to as a betrothed husband. St. Joseph thought about what the best for Mary was. St. Joseph is a role model for husbands.
St. Joseph, pray for us husbands and men. Amen.
St. Paul wrote his epistles before the gospels were written. For example, biblical scholars opine that the letter to the Romans was written in early 58 A.D. Luke, a disciple of Paul, followed the teachings of Paul to write the gospel of Luke in around 62 A.D. Even here, we see a development of the views on Jesus being the Son of God. For Paul, Jesus is the Son of God because of his resurrection from the dead, which is the core of his proclamation of the gospel.
"and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4)
On the other hand, in the gospel of Luke, Jesus is the Son of God not because of his resurrection but of his incarnation.
"And the angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)
Jesus is the Son of God from the very beginning. Subsequently, Satan tested him and the demons recognized him.
To both New Testament authors, the Holy Spirit makes Jesus the Son of God, whether it is the beginning or the end of Jesus' earthly existence.
Now, let us return to meditate on the gospel reading today, on the problem St. Joseph faced when Mary was found to be pregnant. Let us put ourselves in his shoes. St. Joseph had no idea who violated Mary and even when Mary told him that the child was the work of the Holy Spirit, how would Joseph accept this so called explanation? The Torah did not offer much help for cases of betrothed virgins. Deuteronomy 22 could not deal with a man who was missing in this case. As for the woman, her life would be spared if the case took place in the open country where nobody would come to rescue her even if she cried for help. But since "the man" was missing, there was no way to determine where it happened. Therefore, the Torah could not give any guidance. Surely Mary would not be the first woman violated by a "missing man". There must be in place some customs to deal with it. No matter what customs they might be, Mary and similar victims would be the only person to bear the burden, some kind of public shame. Stoning her to death would still be a legitimate option. There might be other forms of public shame, depending on the particular social and political situations of different towns. But Joseph did not want to put Mary to shame.
Matthew is ambiguous as to how public Mary was found to be pregnant. From what Joseph resolved to do, we hypothesize that it was not yet a public knowledge. Just think about it. How could Joseph divorce (ἀπολῦσαι) Mary quietly (Matthew 1:19)? It would be a contradiction. Joseph could follow the Torah to write a divorce letter to free Mary from her marriage obligation so that she would be able to marry her "missing man". In so doing, it could not be done in private.
One way to resolve this contradiction is to look for another translation of the word ἀπολῦσαι. This word which is usually translated as divorce (ἀπολῦσαι) can be rendered as "send away". Therefore, we have to assume that Mary's pregnancy was not yet public so that Joseph could send her away quietly and Mary had to leave Nazareth. Here, an angel intervened and the rest is history.
Joseph was a righteous man. He was righteous not just because he followed the Torah but because he did not want to put Mary to shame. He had a big heart and cared about the needs of Mary, his betrothed wife. He did not take Mary as his property which he was entitled to as a betrothed husband. St. Joseph thought about what the best for Mary was. St. Joseph is a role model for husbands.
St. Joseph, pray for us husbands and men. Amen.
Monday 16 December 2013
Jesus' view on the Messiah
Through the Prophet Nathan, God promised David an eternal kingdom.
"... I will establish his throne forever." (2 Samuel 7:13)
God's promise never fails. But in reality, Israel was conquered by Assyrians and Judah Babylonians. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian Exile, they pondered on how God's promise would fulfill. Thus, they developed a Messianic expectation. God would raise a Messiah from the line of David to restore the kingdom of David. This Messianic kingdom would last forever. Since the Babylonian Exile, Judah only managed to achieve a brief independence for a brief period of less than a century when the Greek Empire fell into in-fighting. Then the Romans appeared and colonized Judah once more in 63 B.C. It was during this Roman colonization time that Jesus was born.
Under the Roman rule, self proclaimed Messiahs arose to lead the Jews to fight for independence. For example, Theudas and then Judas the Galilean. They rose and were crushed (Acts 5:36-37). The same uprisings repeated in 70 A.D. and 132 A.D. From these events, we could understand that during the Roman rule, Jews expected the Messiah to be a military leader to liberate them. Jesus refused to be cast a military Messiah. So, today we read of Jesus' answer to the Baptist's question: Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another? (Matthew 11:3)
Here is Jesus' reply.
And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see:
the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them." (Matthew 11:4-5)
Jesus the long awaited Messiah came to liberate the lowly and afflicted. He did not come to restore the kingdom of Israel. Instead, he came to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. God, not the rulers of the earth, stands up for the blind, the lame, the lepers, the deaf, the dead and the poor etc. So, these are the people whom God wants to gather into His Kingdom.
What Jesus has started, he delegates to his Church to continue his mission. Jesus taught. The Church continues to teach. Jesus sanctified. The Church continues to sanctify. Jesus acted. The Church continues to act in Jesus' manner. Jesus was political. Therefore the Church cannot be apolitical. How could Jesus be apolitical when it came to the allocation of resources? He needed to recover what was due the exploited and the outcasts. The Church needs to continue Jesus' mission to stand up for the exploited and the poor to recover what is due them. No wonder Jesus is deemed a revolutionary by some. The Church cannot avoid to be revolutionary when the situation demands. When the society is structured in such a way as to discriminate and marginalize the disadvantaged, the Church must act to deconstruct the injustice to make the world a better place for all, including the rich and the poor, the powerful and the lowly to live in. Jesus is meek and mild. So must the Church be. She is to fight injustice in a meek and mild way. How do you fight a powerful injustice with a meek and mild force? Here lies the paradox and demands prudence.
Dear Lord, the HKSAR government has started consultation on universal suffrage. I pray that we may contribute to make this initiative a success, to bring about a society with more justice. Amen.
"... I will establish his throne forever." (2 Samuel 7:13)
God's promise never fails. But in reality, Israel was conquered by Assyrians and Judah Babylonians. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian Exile, they pondered on how God's promise would fulfill. Thus, they developed a Messianic expectation. God would raise a Messiah from the line of David to restore the kingdom of David. This Messianic kingdom would last forever. Since the Babylonian Exile, Judah only managed to achieve a brief independence for a brief period of less than a century when the Greek Empire fell into in-fighting. Then the Romans appeared and colonized Judah once more in 63 B.C. It was during this Roman colonization time that Jesus was born.
Under the Roman rule, self proclaimed Messiahs arose to lead the Jews to fight for independence. For example, Theudas and then Judas the Galilean. They rose and were crushed (Acts 5:36-37). The same uprisings repeated in 70 A.D. and 132 A.D. From these events, we could understand that during the Roman rule, Jews expected the Messiah to be a military leader to liberate them. Jesus refused to be cast a military Messiah. So, today we read of Jesus' answer to the Baptist's question: Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another? (Matthew 11:3)
Here is Jesus' reply.
And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see:
the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them." (Matthew 11:4-5)
Jesus the long awaited Messiah came to liberate the lowly and afflicted. He did not come to restore the kingdom of Israel. Instead, he came to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. God, not the rulers of the earth, stands up for the blind, the lame, the lepers, the deaf, the dead and the poor etc. So, these are the people whom God wants to gather into His Kingdom.
What Jesus has started, he delegates to his Church to continue his mission. Jesus taught. The Church continues to teach. Jesus sanctified. The Church continues to sanctify. Jesus acted. The Church continues to act in Jesus' manner. Jesus was political. Therefore the Church cannot be apolitical. How could Jesus be apolitical when it came to the allocation of resources? He needed to recover what was due the exploited and the outcasts. The Church needs to continue Jesus' mission to stand up for the exploited and the poor to recover what is due them. No wonder Jesus is deemed a revolutionary by some. The Church cannot avoid to be revolutionary when the situation demands. When the society is structured in such a way as to discriminate and marginalize the disadvantaged, the Church must act to deconstruct the injustice to make the world a better place for all, including the rich and the poor, the powerful and the lowly to live in. Jesus is meek and mild. So must the Church be. She is to fight injustice in a meek and mild way. How do you fight a powerful injustice with a meek and mild force? Here lies the paradox and demands prudence.
Dear Lord, the HKSAR government has started consultation on universal suffrage. I pray that we may contribute to make this initiative a success, to bring about a society with more justice. Amen.
Sunday 8 December 2013
向洗者若翰學習
將臨期第二主日（甲年）
主題：向洗者若翰學習
讓我們來想像下，門徒向群眾宣講耶穌復活的初期是怎樣的。當時無聖經，更沒有梵二的4大憲章，有的祗是舊約的46部書。當時無彌撒，在耶路撒冷的門徒祗有在聖殿祈禱、祭獻並在家中舉行擘餅。當時福音並未成書，有的祗是門徒憑記憶宣講耶穌的言行。當時無聖洗聖事，有的祗是沿用猶太人的洗禮。可以說當時是沒有系統，沒有組織的。當一班人信從了你的宣講，再接受你的洗禮之後，就成為了你的門徒，而不是天主教徒。格林多前書1章告訴我們教會一開始就陷入了分裂的危機。因為當時洗禮未曾統一，各施各法。計有保祿的洗禮、阿頗羅的洗禮、伯多祿的洗禮和基督的洗禮。可能還有其他教派的洗禮，例如洗者若翰的洗禮。
洗者若翰的一派是不容忽視的。首先，耶穌曾受洗者的洗禮。其次，根據若望福音的記載，伯多祿的哥哥安德肋原本是洗者的門徒，後來改為跟隨耶穌。洗者若翰被黑落德殺死之後，他的門徒開始離開約旦河一帶逃避迫害，他們比基督徒至小早三至四年到達厄弗所，他們有起步早的優勢。大家試想一想，當基督徒遇上洗者若翰的門徒時，會發生甚麽事？
首先，基督徒要如何回應一個不爭的事實，就是耶穌曾受洗者若翰的洗禮呢？耶豈不是洗者若翰的門徒，洗者豈不是基督徒的老祖宗嗎？基督徒要稱呼洗者的門徒為「大師伯」了。在傳福音的初期，基督徒如何處理這個尷尬的局面呢？
還有，基督徒的洗禮與洗者的洗禮有何不同，有何優勢？如果可以選擇，為甚麽要選擇基督徒的洗禮而不是洗者的洗禮呢？
宗徒大事錄19章記載了保祿在厄弗所遇到一些門徒。保祿詢問他們領受了聖神沒有，他們說連聖神也沒有聽過。保祿再進一步問清楚他們接受了甚麽洗禮。原來他們受的是洗者若翰的洗禮。於是，保祿向他們解釋了若翰洗者是耶穌的前驅。之後，這些門徒奉耶穌的名再一次受洗。當保祿為他們覆手的時候，聖神便降臨到這些門徒身上，他們就開始講各種語言和先知話。
宗徒大事錄19章，一次過解決了上述的兩個困難。根據舊約的傳統，默西亞來臨之前，厄里亞先知會首先出現，作為默西亞的前驅，為他鋪路。耶穌是默西亞，而洗者就自然成為了耶穌的前驅了。前驅的地位又豈能與默西亞的地位媲美呢？而且，就算洗者悔改的洗禮可以赦罪，都不及基督徒賦予聖神的洗禮。
時至今日，天主教的洗禮，已發展成為很有系統的「入門聖事」。成年人在復活節前夕，領受洗禮，堅振與及聖體聖事。其中，接受完洗禮的人，藉堅振聖事領受聖神，得到「聖神七恩」。今天所讀的依撒意亞先知書，就提到這聖神的七個恩典了。讓我們重溫這七樣神恩如何幫助我們做一個名副其實的基督徒。
智慧之恩幫助我們生活在這花花世界之中，仍能愛慕靈性的事物。
生活在這充滿錯謬的世俗世界之中，聰敏幫助我們發現真理，明白如何正確地處世待人。
超見之恩幫助我們明辨是非，獲得正確的判斷。
獲得正確判斷之後，我們還需要剛毅之恩，鼓起道德勇氣，不怕困難去力行正義。
明達是知識，幫助我們了解天主的心意，掌握行善避惡的途徑。
擁有了上述的超人力量，更加需要虔敬與敬畏天主之心的約束，纔不會狂妄自大，濫用天主的恩賜。耶穌三退魔誘就是最好的榜樣了。
其實，洗者若翰也是基督徒的好榜樣。他在聖母探訪依撒伯爾時，在母胎中已領受了耶穌帶給他的聖神，令他手舞足蹈。在他身上，我們可以見到聖神七恩運作的點滴。
他蒙智慧之恩，愛慕天主，放棄繼承父親的司祭之職，而接受了做先知的聖召。聰敏之恩令他知所進退，明白耶穌的出現，就是他引退之時。超見之恩，幫助他正確判斷法利塞人、撒杜塞人和黑落德的錯謬。剛毅之恩令他不懼強權，直斥黑落德的不是，連黑落德亦佩服他、想保護他。明達之恩幫助他選擇了在曠野過清貧的生活，體會天主的心意，避開都市的繁華去履行其先知之職，成為曠野中的呼號者的聲音，默西亞的前驅。虔敬和敬畏天主就不用多說了。
擺在我們眼前的洗者若翰就是一個基督徒的好榜樣。做基督徒就有責任好像洗者一樣，做耶穌的前驅，向身邊的人傳福音。今天，我們的聽眾的教育水平高了，所以，我們不能停滯在教會初期沒有組織、沒有系統的狀況。否則，我們不但被聽眾辯駁到每言以對，而且還成了耶穌基督的反見証。
在信德年結束的時候，教區宣佈未來一年是「學習年」，去認識梵二的精神。所以，我請大家每日讀經，祈禱，深入認識我們信仰的根源。其次留意並參加堂區及教區在未來一年所安排的學習活動，使我們這個二千年的古老信仰，不致與時代脫節。
天主保祐。
2nd Advent Sunday, Year A
Theme: Learn from John the Baptist
Let us exercise our imagination and try to envision what it would be like when the disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. There were no Bible or Vatican II constitutions. There were only the 46 books of the Old Testament**. There was no mass. Disciples in Jerusalem prayed at the Temple and broke bread at homes. There was no gospel. The disciples recalled the words and deeds of Jesus from memory. There was no sacrament of Baptism. The first disciples made use of the Jewish customs of cleansing available. At that time, there was no system or organization. When people believed in your proclamation and received baptism from you, they became your disciples and not Catholics. The First Epistle to the Corinthians informs us how at the start, the church fell into the crisis of division. At that time, baptism was not unified. There were baptisms of Paul, of Apollo, of Peter and of Christ. There were probably baptisms of other sects such as the baptism of the Baptist.
The followers of the Baptists formed a movement which Christians could not ignore. First of all, Jesus received baptism from the Baptist. According to the gospel of John, Andrew, the brother of Peter, was at first a disciple of the Baptist. Later, the Baptist told him to follow Jesus. After the death of the Baptist at the hand of Herod, the followers of the Baptist left the area around River Jordan to run away from persecution. They must have reached Ephesus at least three to four years before the Christians. They enjoyed the advantages of early starters. Let us imagine what would happen when a Christian met a follower of the Baptist?
Firstly, how would the Christian respond to the undisputed fact that Jesus was baptized by the Baptist? This made Jesus one of the disciples of the Baptist who would be the Patriarch of all Christians. Christians had to greet the followers of the Baptists as seniors. How would early Christians handle such an embarrassing situation in their preaching? Moreover, what did Christian baptism offer which the Baptist’s baptism could not offer? If there was a choice, why should people choose Christian baptism instead of the Baptist’s baptism?
Acts 19 tells us that Paul met some disciples in Ephesus. Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit which they replied they had never heard of. Paul further asked them what baptism they had received and it was the Baptist’s. Paul then explained to them that the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus. So, they received baptism once more in the name of Jesus. When Paul lay hands on them, the Holy Spirit came down to them and they began to speak in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:1-7). This passage solves the two previously mentioned embarrassments once and for all. According to the Old Testament tradition, before the coming of the Messiah, Elijah appeared first as the forerunner to prepare his way. Jesus is the Messiah and naturally the Baptist his forerunner. How can the status of a forerunner compare to that of the Messiah? Even if the baptism of repentance of the Baptist can forgive sins, it is incomparable to the Christian baptism that gives the Holy Spirit.
Nowadays, the Catholic baptism has developed into the systematic Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. Adults are baptised on the eve of Easter. They receive Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. In Confirmation, they receive the Holy Spirit and its seven gifts. In the passage taken from Isaiah today, we find the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Let us revise how these seven gifts help us lead a truly Christian life.
The gift of wisdom helps us love spiritual things in this materialistic world which is full of false and competing views. The gift of understanding helps us grasp the truth and know how to deal with people in the right ways. The gift of counsel helps us discern right from wrong and make the right judgment. After making the right judgment, we need the gift of fortitude to act according to justice with moral courage. The gift of knowledge helps us know the will of God and ways to do good and avoid evil. Gifted with these supernatural powers, we need piety and the fear of the Lord to discipline ourselves, to prevent us from becoming arrogant and abuse God’s gifts. Jesus’ struggle with the Devil’s temptations is a good model.
In fact, John the Baptist is also a good model for Christians. When the Blessed Virgin Mary visited Elizabeth, the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and leapt in his mother’s womb. In him, we can glimpse the working of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
With the gift of wisdom and the love of God, the Baptist gave up the priestly office inherited from his father and accepted God’s call to be a prophet. The gift of understanding made him know that it was time for him to “retire” with the rise of Jesus. With the gift of counsel, he was able to judge the errors of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod Antipas. The gift of fortitude made him fearless of the cruelty of Herod who admired him and even wanted to protect him. The gift of knowledge helped him choose to lead a life of poverty in the wilderness to discern the will of God and to avoid the vanity of city life to carry out his prophetic office. The Baptist became the voice in the wilderness and the forerunner of the Messiah. Piety and the fear of the Lord need no further elaboration.
Placed before our eyes is John the Baptist, a good model for Christians. Like the Baptist, Christians have the duty to be forerunners in this world to proclaim the gospel. Today, the education level of our audience is high. Therefore, we cannot afford to remain unsystematic and unorganized. Otherwise, not only will we be confounded speechless, but we will also become a counter-witness for Christ.
With the closing of the Year of Faith, the Diocese announces that the coming year shall be the Year of Learning for us to deepen our understanding of the spirit of Vatican II. Here, I invite all of you to read the scripture everyday. Pray and know more deeply the roots of our faith. Pay attention and participate in the learning activities organized by our parish and the Diocese so that our 2000-year old faith will not become irrelevant in modern time.
God bless.
** To be more precise, the canon of the Old Testament was not yet fixed. The first Christians were probably using parts of the Septuagint.
主題：向洗者若翰學習
讓我們來想像下，門徒向群眾宣講耶穌復活的初期是怎樣的。當時無聖經，更沒有梵二的4大憲章，有的祗是舊約的46部書。當時無彌撒，在耶路撒冷的門徒祗有在聖殿祈禱、祭獻並在家中舉行擘餅。當時福音並未成書，有的祗是門徒憑記憶宣講耶穌的言行。當時無聖洗聖事，有的祗是沿用猶太人的洗禮。可以說當時是沒有系統，沒有組織的。當一班人信從了你的宣講，再接受你的洗禮之後，就成為了你的門徒，而不是天主教徒。格林多前書1章告訴我們教會一開始就陷入了分裂的危機。因為當時洗禮未曾統一，各施各法。計有保祿的洗禮、阿頗羅的洗禮、伯多祿的洗禮和基督的洗禮。可能還有其他教派的洗禮，例如洗者若翰的洗禮。
洗者若翰的一派是不容忽視的。首先，耶穌曾受洗者的洗禮。其次，根據若望福音的記載，伯多祿的哥哥安德肋原本是洗者的門徒，後來改為跟隨耶穌。洗者若翰被黑落德殺死之後，他的門徒開始離開約旦河一帶逃避迫害，他們比基督徒至小早三至四年到達厄弗所，他們有起步早的優勢。大家試想一想，當基督徒遇上洗者若翰的門徒時，會發生甚麽事？
首先，基督徒要如何回應一個不爭的事實，就是耶穌曾受洗者若翰的洗禮呢？耶豈不是洗者若翰的門徒，洗者豈不是基督徒的老祖宗嗎？基督徒要稱呼洗者的門徒為「大師伯」了。在傳福音的初期，基督徒如何處理這個尷尬的局面呢？
還有，基督徒的洗禮與洗者的洗禮有何不同，有何優勢？如果可以選擇，為甚麽要選擇基督徒的洗禮而不是洗者的洗禮呢？
宗徒大事錄19章記載了保祿在厄弗所遇到一些門徒。保祿詢問他們領受了聖神沒有，他們說連聖神也沒有聽過。保祿再進一步問清楚他們接受了甚麽洗禮。原來他們受的是洗者若翰的洗禮。於是，保祿向他們解釋了若翰洗者是耶穌的前驅。之後，這些門徒奉耶穌的名再一次受洗。當保祿為他們覆手的時候，聖神便降臨到這些門徒身上，他們就開始講各種語言和先知話。
宗徒大事錄19章，一次過解決了上述的兩個困難。根據舊約的傳統，默西亞來臨之前，厄里亞先知會首先出現，作為默西亞的前驅，為他鋪路。耶穌是默西亞，而洗者就自然成為了耶穌的前驅了。前驅的地位又豈能與默西亞的地位媲美呢？而且，就算洗者悔改的洗禮可以赦罪，都不及基督徒賦予聖神的洗禮。
時至今日，天主教的洗禮，已發展成為很有系統的「入門聖事」。成年人在復活節前夕，領受洗禮，堅振與及聖體聖事。其中，接受完洗禮的人，藉堅振聖事領受聖神，得到「聖神七恩」。今天所讀的依撒意亞先知書，就提到這聖神的七個恩典了。讓我們重溫這七樣神恩如何幫助我們做一個名副其實的基督徒。
智慧之恩幫助我們生活在這花花世界之中，仍能愛慕靈性的事物。
生活在這充滿錯謬的世俗世界之中，聰敏幫助我們發現真理，明白如何正確地處世待人。
超見之恩幫助我們明辨是非，獲得正確的判斷。
獲得正確判斷之後，我們還需要剛毅之恩，鼓起道德勇氣，不怕困難去力行正義。
明達是知識，幫助我們了解天主的心意，掌握行善避惡的途徑。
擁有了上述的超人力量，更加需要虔敬與敬畏天主之心的約束，纔不會狂妄自大，濫用天主的恩賜。耶穌三退魔誘就是最好的榜樣了。
其實，洗者若翰也是基督徒的好榜樣。他在聖母探訪依撒伯爾時，在母胎中已領受了耶穌帶給他的聖神，令他手舞足蹈。在他身上，我們可以見到聖神七恩運作的點滴。
他蒙智慧之恩，愛慕天主，放棄繼承父親的司祭之職，而接受了做先知的聖召。聰敏之恩令他知所進退，明白耶穌的出現，就是他引退之時。超見之恩，幫助他正確判斷法利塞人、撒杜塞人和黑落德的錯謬。剛毅之恩令他不懼強權，直斥黑落德的不是，連黑落德亦佩服他、想保護他。明達之恩幫助他選擇了在曠野過清貧的生活，體會天主的心意，避開都市的繁華去履行其先知之職，成為曠野中的呼號者的聲音，默西亞的前驅。虔敬和敬畏天主就不用多說了。
擺在我們眼前的洗者若翰就是一個基督徒的好榜樣。做基督徒就有責任好像洗者一樣，做耶穌的前驅，向身邊的人傳福音。今天，我們的聽眾的教育水平高了，所以，我們不能停滯在教會初期沒有組織、沒有系統的狀況。否則，我們不但被聽眾辯駁到每言以對，而且還成了耶穌基督的反見証。
在信德年結束的時候，教區宣佈未來一年是「學習年」，去認識梵二的精神。所以，我請大家每日讀經，祈禱，深入認識我們信仰的根源。其次留意並參加堂區及教區在未來一年所安排的學習活動，使我們這個二千年的古老信仰，不致與時代脫節。
天主保祐。
2nd Advent Sunday, Year A
Theme: Learn from John the Baptist
Let us exercise our imagination and try to envision what it would be like when the disciples proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus. There were no Bible or Vatican II constitutions. There were only the 46 books of the Old Testament**. There was no mass. Disciples in Jerusalem prayed at the Temple and broke bread at homes. There was no gospel. The disciples recalled the words and deeds of Jesus from memory. There was no sacrament of Baptism. The first disciples made use of the Jewish customs of cleansing available. At that time, there was no system or organization. When people believed in your proclamation and received baptism from you, they became your disciples and not Catholics. The First Epistle to the Corinthians informs us how at the start, the church fell into the crisis of division. At that time, baptism was not unified. There were baptisms of Paul, of Apollo, of Peter and of Christ. There were probably baptisms of other sects such as the baptism of the Baptist.
The followers of the Baptists formed a movement which Christians could not ignore. First of all, Jesus received baptism from the Baptist. According to the gospel of John, Andrew, the brother of Peter, was at first a disciple of the Baptist. Later, the Baptist told him to follow Jesus. After the death of the Baptist at the hand of Herod, the followers of the Baptist left the area around River Jordan to run away from persecution. They must have reached Ephesus at least three to four years before the Christians. They enjoyed the advantages of early starters. Let us imagine what would happen when a Christian met a follower of the Baptist?
Firstly, how would the Christian respond to the undisputed fact that Jesus was baptized by the Baptist? This made Jesus one of the disciples of the Baptist who would be the Patriarch of all Christians. Christians had to greet the followers of the Baptists as seniors. How would early Christians handle such an embarrassing situation in their preaching? Moreover, what did Christian baptism offer which the Baptist’s baptism could not offer? If there was a choice, why should people choose Christian baptism instead of the Baptist’s baptism?
Acts 19 tells us that Paul met some disciples in Ephesus. Paul asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit which they replied they had never heard of. Paul further asked them what baptism they had received and it was the Baptist’s. Paul then explained to them that the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus. So, they received baptism once more in the name of Jesus. When Paul lay hands on them, the Holy Spirit came down to them and they began to speak in tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:1-7). This passage solves the two previously mentioned embarrassments once and for all. According to the Old Testament tradition, before the coming of the Messiah, Elijah appeared first as the forerunner to prepare his way. Jesus is the Messiah and naturally the Baptist his forerunner. How can the status of a forerunner compare to that of the Messiah? Even if the baptism of repentance of the Baptist can forgive sins, it is incomparable to the Christian baptism that gives the Holy Spirit.
Nowadays, the Catholic baptism has developed into the systematic Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. Adults are baptised on the eve of Easter. They receive Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. In Confirmation, they receive the Holy Spirit and its seven gifts. In the passage taken from Isaiah today, we find the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Let us revise how these seven gifts help us lead a truly Christian life.
The gift of wisdom helps us love spiritual things in this materialistic world which is full of false and competing views. The gift of understanding helps us grasp the truth and know how to deal with people in the right ways. The gift of counsel helps us discern right from wrong and make the right judgment. After making the right judgment, we need the gift of fortitude to act according to justice with moral courage. The gift of knowledge helps us know the will of God and ways to do good and avoid evil. Gifted with these supernatural powers, we need piety and the fear of the Lord to discipline ourselves, to prevent us from becoming arrogant and abuse God’s gifts. Jesus’ struggle with the Devil’s temptations is a good model.
In fact, John the Baptist is also a good model for Christians. When the Blessed Virgin Mary visited Elizabeth, the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit and leapt in his mother’s womb. In him, we can glimpse the working of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
With the gift of wisdom and the love of God, the Baptist gave up the priestly office inherited from his father and accepted God’s call to be a prophet. The gift of understanding made him know that it was time for him to “retire” with the rise of Jesus. With the gift of counsel, he was able to judge the errors of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod Antipas. The gift of fortitude made him fearless of the cruelty of Herod who admired him and even wanted to protect him. The gift of knowledge helped him choose to lead a life of poverty in the wilderness to discern the will of God and to avoid the vanity of city life to carry out his prophetic office. The Baptist became the voice in the wilderness and the forerunner of the Messiah. Piety and the fear of the Lord need no further elaboration.
Placed before our eyes is John the Baptist, a good model for Christians. Like the Baptist, Christians have the duty to be forerunners in this world to proclaim the gospel. Today, the education level of our audience is high. Therefore, we cannot afford to remain unsystematic and unorganized. Otherwise, not only will we be confounded speechless, but we will also become a counter-witness for Christ.
With the closing of the Year of Faith, the Diocese announces that the coming year shall be the Year of Learning for us to deepen our understanding of the spirit of Vatican II. Here, I invite all of you to read the scripture everyday. Pray and know more deeply the roots of our faith. Pay attention and participate in the learning activities organized by our parish and the Diocese so that our 2000-year old faith will not become irrelevant in modern time.
God bless.
** To be more precise, the canon of the Old Testament was not yet fixed. The first Christians were probably using parts of the Septuagint.
Sunday 1 December 2013
Paradoxes of Advent
It was an exhausting day today. Perhaps the Lord wants me to rest and ponder over all that have happened today and cherish them.
Today, the Catholic Church begins a new liturgical year, the First Sunday of Advent. The key message of the gospel is to stay alert and get prepared for the unexpected second coming of the Lord. Yes, he will return at a time when most of us do not expect him. So, he will not come during the Advent season since most of the Catholics pray and expect his second coming in Advent. Here lies the paradox. When we expect him to come, he will not come. Then, when we think he will not come this year, he comes. Will he comes to end this world? Truly, only God knows!
Fr. Milanese shared his perspective on the attitude of Catholics towards the second coming of Christ. Again, there is paradox. Christians are like ordinary secular citizens. We eat, drink and marry like them. But our similarity ends there. We are different from ordinary secular citizens. We keep in mind the second coming of Christ and are told to get alert and prepared. On one hand, we are ordinary secular citizens. We must be in order to make Christianity relevant to secular citizens we relate in our daily life. On the other, we are different because we look beyond this present life. Then, Fr. Milanese brought up the theme of the upcoming year --- the year of Learning the documents and spirit of Vatican II. Here lies the paradox and tension. The more we are different from secular citizens, the less relevant our messages will be to them. So, we cannot be preachy. We bear witness with our lives. Action speaks louder than words.
Today, the Holy Spirit Seminary Theology and Philosophy College celebrates the 21st Graduation ceremony. The College chooses to celebrate on the first Sunday of Advent for a good reason. Their mission is to prepare the seminarians as well as the educated laity to evangelize. John the Baptist is the prototype. He prepared the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah. We graduates have received much training, thus have taken up a similar mission to proclaim Christ like John the Baptist.
Cardinal John Tong made use of the Institution Narrative as an image to exhort us. Jesus took up the bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to his disciples. Similarly, we are the bread. God took us up (chose us), blessed us (trained us) broke and gave us (sent us) to the world to bear witness. A good analogy and a paradox. We come together for dispersion.
Dear Lord, we long and prepare for Your second coming. But You are already with us till the end of the world. Amen.
Today, the Catholic Church begins a new liturgical year, the First Sunday of Advent. The key message of the gospel is to stay alert and get prepared for the unexpected second coming of the Lord. Yes, he will return at a time when most of us do not expect him. So, he will not come during the Advent season since most of the Catholics pray and expect his second coming in Advent. Here lies the paradox. When we expect him to come, he will not come. Then, when we think he will not come this year, he comes. Will he comes to end this world? Truly, only God knows!
Fr. Milanese shared his perspective on the attitude of Catholics towards the second coming of Christ. Again, there is paradox. Christians are like ordinary secular citizens. We eat, drink and marry like them. But our similarity ends there. We are different from ordinary secular citizens. We keep in mind the second coming of Christ and are told to get alert and prepared. On one hand, we are ordinary secular citizens. We must be in order to make Christianity relevant to secular citizens we relate in our daily life. On the other, we are different because we look beyond this present life. Then, Fr. Milanese brought up the theme of the upcoming year --- the year of Learning the documents and spirit of Vatican II. Here lies the paradox and tension. The more we are different from secular citizens, the less relevant our messages will be to them. So, we cannot be preachy. We bear witness with our lives. Action speaks louder than words.
Today, the Holy Spirit Seminary Theology and Philosophy College celebrates the 21st Graduation ceremony. The College chooses to celebrate on the first Sunday of Advent for a good reason. Their mission is to prepare the seminarians as well as the educated laity to evangelize. John the Baptist is the prototype. He prepared the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah. We graduates have received much training, thus have taken up a similar mission to proclaim Christ like John the Baptist.
Cardinal John Tong made use of the Institution Narrative as an image to exhort us. Jesus took up the bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to his disciples. Similarly, we are the bread. God took us up (chose us), blessed us (trained us) broke and gave us (sent us) to the world to bear witness. A good analogy and a paradox. We come together for dispersion.
Dear Lord, we long and prepare for Your second coming. But You are already with us till the end of the world. Amen.
Monday 25 November 2013
To overcome oneself
Overcoming others proves that you are mighty. Overcoming yourself proves that you are strong.
「勝人者有力，自勝者強；」【道德經三十三章】
This piece of Chinese wisdom was amply demonstrated by Jesus when he was crucified on the cross. For Jesus, crucifixion was the last temptation. After his baptism, he spent 40 days in the wilderness to go through temptations from the Devil. Each time, the Devil questioned Jesus' identity as the Son of God. Each time, Jesus overcame himself and refused to demonstrate his might as the Son of God (Luke 4:1-13). These temptations kept on popping up throughout his public ministry until the last temptation, the crucifixion.
During crucifixion, rulers scoffed at him, "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!" (23:35); soldiers mocked him, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!" (23:37); one of the crucified criminals railed at him, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" (23:39). These were all too familiar for Jesus. He needed to overcome himself one last time in order to accomplish God's will. He declined to demonstrate his identity as the Christ, the Son of God.
The other crucified criminal turned to Jesus to acknowledge the kingship of Jesus.
"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (23:42)
This thief was rewarded Paradise (23:43).
When we are successful, we do not have the motivation to acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ. Yet, when our efforts are a total failure, our project a disaster, we often forget to acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ too. In despair, we might even lose our hope and commit suicide. We do not even have a chance to turn to Jesus. So, when shall we acknowledge Christ like the other crucified thief? I think the secret lies in overcoming oneself.
When we are successful, we need to overcome our pride to acknowledge God's grace in making us successful. In failures, we need to overcome our frustrations and even despair to see God's grace in removing our arrogance, God's given opportunity to strengthen our weaknesses so that we may do better next time. In overcoming ourselves, we allow God's hand in guiding our feet in the way of peace (1:79). In overcoming ourselves, we grow strong 自勝者強.
David was wise in his way of becoming the king of Israel. He refrained from killing Saul, God's anointed one even though David himself was also an anointed one. He was anointed king of Judah in Hebron. For seven years, he allowed the in-fightings within the Saul's family to annihilate itself until nobody from the Saul's clan was able to rise up to challenge him. After seven years, the elders of Israel came and anointed David king over Israel (2 Samuel 5:3). David overcame himself and was made king over Israel. Jesus overcame himself and was made the Universal King over humanity.
I discover that I felt upset inside when my efforts and talents were not acknowledged these days. Here is my homework. Overcome myself. Overcome my lack of confidence. Keep in mind that I am only an unworthy servant doing what I have been commanded (Luke 17:10).
Dear Lord, help your unworthy servant to overcome himself. Amen.
「勝人者有力，自勝者強；」【道德經三十三章】
This piece of Chinese wisdom was amply demonstrated by Jesus when he was crucified on the cross. For Jesus, crucifixion was the last temptation. After his baptism, he spent 40 days in the wilderness to go through temptations from the Devil. Each time, the Devil questioned Jesus' identity as the Son of God. Each time, Jesus overcame himself and refused to demonstrate his might as the Son of God (Luke 4:1-13). These temptations kept on popping up throughout his public ministry until the last temptation, the crucifixion.
During crucifixion, rulers scoffed at him, "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!" (23:35); soldiers mocked him, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!" (23:37); one of the crucified criminals railed at him, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" (23:39). These were all too familiar for Jesus. He needed to overcome himself one last time in order to accomplish God's will. He declined to demonstrate his identity as the Christ, the Son of God.
The other crucified criminal turned to Jesus to acknowledge the kingship of Jesus.
"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." (23:42)
This thief was rewarded Paradise (23:43).
When we are successful, we do not have the motivation to acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ. Yet, when our efforts are a total failure, our project a disaster, we often forget to acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ too. In despair, we might even lose our hope and commit suicide. We do not even have a chance to turn to Jesus. So, when shall we acknowledge Christ like the other crucified thief? I think the secret lies in overcoming oneself.
When we are successful, we need to overcome our pride to acknowledge God's grace in making us successful. In failures, we need to overcome our frustrations and even despair to see God's grace in removing our arrogance, God's given opportunity to strengthen our weaknesses so that we may do better next time. In overcoming ourselves, we allow God's hand in guiding our feet in the way of peace (1:79). In overcoming ourselves, we grow strong 自勝者強.
David was wise in his way of becoming the king of Israel. He refrained from killing Saul, God's anointed one even though David himself was also an anointed one. He was anointed king of Judah in Hebron. For seven years, he allowed the in-fightings within the Saul's family to annihilate itself until nobody from the Saul's clan was able to rise up to challenge him. After seven years, the elders of Israel came and anointed David king over Israel (2 Samuel 5:3). David overcame himself and was made king over Israel. Jesus overcame himself and was made the Universal King over humanity.
I discover that I felt upset inside when my efforts and talents were not acknowledged these days. Here is my homework. Overcome myself. Overcome my lack of confidence. Keep in mind that I am only an unworthy servant doing what I have been commanded (Luke 17:10).
Dear Lord, help your unworthy servant to overcome himself. Amen.
Tuesday 19 November 2013
Global Chinese Permanent Deacon Symposium (III)
Today, I escaped into my comfort zone --- becoming an IT technician to help those speakers who used PowerPoint to present their talks. In so doing, I have missed out the essence --- diaconate spirituality. The organizing committee invited three Chinese deacons from north America to share their spiritual experience. The only thing I could remember from the second speaker was that he was an introvert! He did not use PowerPoint and spoke from his script. I fared a bit better in the third speaker because I pressed the down arrow key during his PowerPoint presentation. Though he was ordained for about two years, he was able to articulate the virtue of humility very well. Moreover, he is a more lively and outgoing person,.
The first speaker is a physician. He sees God's plan and God's hand in everything that happened to him. He could discern God's voices. He was able to see his own arrogance and dislike against other physicians. Yet, in serving the altar, he could hear God telling him clearly to offer sacrifice for those people he dislike. God has His own way to polish us, giving us chances after chances to transform ourselves and to serve Him.,
I did not join the group discussion, making myself busy preparing the computers for the subsequent presentations. The group discussions focused on family spirituality. The feedback from the wives are most enlightening of all. One deacon wife conjured up the image of the poor widow who offered up all that she had. In a similar way, when she signed the consent letter to support her husband to become a deacon, she had given up "all that she had". Good point. Full support from wives involves a lot of sacrifice indeed.
The best feeling came today when Deacon Sung asked me to read during the Diocesan celebration in Hong Kong Stadium this coming Sunday. On one hand, my reading skill is being appreciated. On the other, it gives me another temptation not to be humble.
Dear Lord, help me emerge from my comfort zone. Help me to be humble. Amen.
Monday 18 November 2013
Global Chinese Permanent Deacons Symposium (II)
The actual program began this morning. Deacon Dupont delivered a keynote speech on the development of the restoration of diaconate since Vatican II. The Americans are pioneers. They started nearly immediately after the ecumenical council. Today, there are more than 40,000 permanent deacons in USA. Deacon Dupont is the President of the National Association of Diaconate Directors. He painted a rosy picture of USA.
Theologically, deacons are icons of the servanthood of the Church. The Church should be the servant of humanity. This is most clearly expressed in the service of deacons. Deacons sacramentalize service. Deacons serve the Word, serve the liturgy and serve in charity works. To help us visualize the development of diaconate in USA, Deacon Dupont summarized it into three generations. The first generation lasted for the first twenty years. It was marked with the service of liturgy. Here, most of the conflicts with priesthood arose. The second generation saw the rise of service in charity and deacons began to identify their service with the underprivileged. Of course, the service of liturgy continues but it occupies less time of the deacons. After about 10 years, the service of the Word emerged. At last, the American diaconate has matured. Meanwhile, the American deacons as a whole is aging.
It is obvious that the Church needs young recruits. However, the Church also has worries about young deacons. She is rather hesitant and the Hong Kong Diocese tends to accept more mature aspirants. Deacon Stephen Kwok begged to differ. He believes that when a young father responds to the vocation and begins training, the whole family benefits from the husband's training. It is easier for younger children to incorporate into their identify the children of a deacon, whereas for teenage children, it would be more difficult because adolescence suffers from identity crisis. Deacon Stephen has a valid point.
In a sharing in response to Deacon Dupont's keynote address, Deacon Raymond Chan shed a different light on the ministry of deacons. In his situation, the parish priest never gave him a chance to deliver homily. He had to serve where no priests want to serve. Priests tend to see him as a rival. On the other hand, some stronger laity communities do not want to lose their autonomy to deacons who are caught in the middle, rejected on both sides. Only the bishop supports him or the bishop wants to implement the idea. This is not as rosy a picture as painted by Deacon Dupont. I hope I am not judgmental. I feel that communication skills are essential in diaconate ministry. Deacons are interfaces between the laity and the priests.
Many people who spoke today spoke the same vocabulary --- humility. A deacon cannot be not humble. He must be an icon.
Today, I feel better. At least, my room has a proper label. Yesterday, I had to take down the original label and wrote my own name at the back. In the morning, I met the Vicar General on our way down to the chapel for the morning prayer and mass, he told me to make sure the sound system would function properly when the speakers delivered their speech. I was puzzled. Had the VG Office not already assigned somebody to handle it? Indeed, the major problem did not lie there but somewhere else. Deacon Dupont wanted to present his PowerPoint with his own notebook computer! This would surely bring chaos. In the end, we copied his PowerPoint onto own computer to play.
No matter what, I have learned not to be so pushy today. Dear Lord, teach me to be humble. Amen.
Theologically, deacons are icons of the servanthood of the Church. The Church should be the servant of humanity. This is most clearly expressed in the service of deacons. Deacons sacramentalize service. Deacons serve the Word, serve the liturgy and serve in charity works. To help us visualize the development of diaconate in USA, Deacon Dupont summarized it into three generations. The first generation lasted for the first twenty years. It was marked with the service of liturgy. Here, most of the conflicts with priesthood arose. The second generation saw the rise of service in charity and deacons began to identify their service with the underprivileged. Of course, the service of liturgy continues but it occupies less time of the deacons. After about 10 years, the service of the Word emerged. At last, the American diaconate has matured. Meanwhile, the American deacons as a whole is aging.
It is obvious that the Church needs young recruits. However, the Church also has worries about young deacons. She is rather hesitant and the Hong Kong Diocese tends to accept more mature aspirants. Deacon Stephen Kwok begged to differ. He believes that when a young father responds to the vocation and begins training, the whole family benefits from the husband's training. It is easier for younger children to incorporate into their identify the children of a deacon, whereas for teenage children, it would be more difficult because adolescence suffers from identity crisis. Deacon Stephen has a valid point.
In a sharing in response to Deacon Dupont's keynote address, Deacon Raymond Chan shed a different light on the ministry of deacons. In his situation, the parish priest never gave him a chance to deliver homily. He had to serve where no priests want to serve. Priests tend to see him as a rival. On the other hand, some stronger laity communities do not want to lose their autonomy to deacons who are caught in the middle, rejected on both sides. Only the bishop supports him or the bishop wants to implement the idea. This is not as rosy a picture as painted by Deacon Dupont. I hope I am not judgmental. I feel that communication skills are essential in diaconate ministry. Deacons are interfaces between the laity and the priests.
Many people who spoke today spoke the same vocabulary --- humility. A deacon cannot be not humble. He must be an icon.
Today, I feel better. At least, my room has a proper label. Yesterday, I had to take down the original label and wrote my own name at the back. In the morning, I met the Vicar General on our way down to the chapel for the morning prayer and mass, he told me to make sure the sound system would function properly when the speakers delivered their speech. I was puzzled. Had the VG Office not already assigned somebody to handle it? Indeed, the major problem did not lie there but somewhere else. Deacon Dupont wanted to present his PowerPoint with his own notebook computer! This would surely bring chaos. In the end, we copied his PowerPoint onto own computer to play.
No matter what, I have learned not to be so pushy today. Dear Lord, teach me to be humble. Amen.
Global Chinese Permanent Deacon Symposium (I)
I asked from my school a 4-day leave to join the Global Chinese Permanent Deacon Symposium. I am badly in need of a longer retreat to reflect on my vocation. I thank my colleagues in the Ethics and Religious Studies Department for their generosity to replace all my lessons. Even though I am entitled to hire a supply teacher when a leave lasts for three or more days, the school says it was rather impossible to hire a supply teacher to take up my lessons! Meanwhile, two Chinese teachers and the Principal chaperoned a group of Italian students to Beijing for about 5 days. Supply teachers were hired. I should be elated for being indispensable.
13 overseas Chinese permanent deacons from Australia, Belgium, Canada and USA came to join this Symposium. One of them is Deacon Peter Fan who is my ex-colleague in La Salle and an alumnus. It is a great pleasure to meet him again after more than three decades. Yesterday he also took part in our Deacon Ordination Mass in which three candidates were ordained. John Lam, another deacon candidate like me and a La Salle old boy, came to the banquet afterwards and I introduced him to Peter. We cracked jokes, saying that La Salle was a breeding ground of Deacon vocation. The subtext is "Celibacy is too demanding for La Salle boys."
I was a bit crestfallen when I learned that this Symposium was meant for permanent deacons only. I should not have taken part in the first place and I should not volunteer to get Erminia involved playing the organ in the liturgy.
The site, a retreat house run by the St. Paul nuns in Sheung Shui, provides wifi access to the Internet. However, the wifi is plagued with outages most of the time. So, when the problem came up again, I was eager to help solve the problem together with another candidate, Simon Chan who came to provide IT support for the event. In fact, Simon is more knowledgeable. I simply try to justify my presence in this Symposium. To rub salt on my wounds, I was not informed of my room until after the briefing before going to bed.
When I learnt that the lady translator also plays organ and despite the fact that the Vicar General had explicitly told me to stick to the present arrangement, I still tried to persuade her to play the organ in the liturgy as well so that Erminia would not have to travel back and forth, from here to school to home and return here. After the lady had expressed her wish to focus on one job, I gave up. I surrendered and let God take over.
From these bits and pieces, I gradually realize that I have always been trying to take control. I need to make others feel that I am important/indispensable. Forgive me, Lord. I am an unworthy servant. Allow me to learn to serve sincerely and not to be served. Amen.
13 overseas Chinese permanent deacons from Australia, Belgium, Canada and USA came to join this Symposium. One of them is Deacon Peter Fan who is my ex-colleague in La Salle and an alumnus. It is a great pleasure to meet him again after more than three decades. Yesterday he also took part in our Deacon Ordination Mass in which three candidates were ordained. John Lam, another deacon candidate like me and a La Salle old boy, came to the banquet afterwards and I introduced him to Peter. We cracked jokes, saying that La Salle was a breeding ground of Deacon vocation. The subtext is "Celibacy is too demanding for La Salle boys."
I was a bit crestfallen when I learned that this Symposium was meant for permanent deacons only. I should not have taken part in the first place and I should not volunteer to get Erminia involved playing the organ in the liturgy.
The site, a retreat house run by the St. Paul nuns in Sheung Shui, provides wifi access to the Internet. However, the wifi is plagued with outages most of the time. So, when the problem came up again, I was eager to help solve the problem together with another candidate, Simon Chan who came to provide IT support for the event. In fact, Simon is more knowledgeable. I simply try to justify my presence in this Symposium. To rub salt on my wounds, I was not informed of my room until after the briefing before going to bed.
When I learnt that the lady translator also plays organ and despite the fact that the Vicar General had explicitly told me to stick to the present arrangement, I still tried to persuade her to play the organ in the liturgy as well so that Erminia would not have to travel back and forth, from here to school to home and return here. After the lady had expressed her wish to focus on one job, I gave up. I surrendered and let God take over.
From these bits and pieces, I gradually realize that I have always been trying to take control. I need to make others feel that I am important/indispensable. Forgive me, Lord. I am an unworthy servant. Allow me to learn to serve sincerely and not to be served. Amen.
Sunday 10 November 2013
復活的心態
常年期第三十二主日（丙年）
主題：復活的心態
我們在福音中常聽到「法利塞人」，比較少聽到「撒杜塞人」，一不留神以為他們與法利塞人差不多。的確，在政治上，法利塞人和撒杜塞人曾聯手對付耶穌。但實際上，他們是敵對的。
撒杜塞人的由司祭組成的政黨，他們的權勢與聖殿息息相關，亦因此，他們的勢力範圍就局限在耶路撒冷。在信仰上他們祗承認梅瑟五書是經典，不承認先知書和聖詠的啟示權威。在梅瑟五書之中，他們找不到死人復活的記載，所以他們否認復活。
不要以為他們是膿包，看他們的論証手法，便知道他們是思路精密的高級知識份子。首先，他們表面上認同對手的立場，然後推論出對手的論點會得到矛盾的結果，這一招「反証法」是邏輯學上常用的手段，用來處理一些無法直接証明的道理。
撒杜塞人認為人死不能復生。現在不會有復活，將來都不會，永遠都不會。
要証明現在不會有復活並不難，因為從來沒有人親眼見過死人會復活。不過，現在不會並不表示將來不會。要直接証明連將來都不會有復活是非常困難的。於是撒杜塞人巧妙地用反証法証明復活是錯的。
首先，他們設下一個七兄弟按梅瑟訂立的代兄立嗣法律，先後成為同一個女人的丈夫的局面。然後假設有復活，於是在復活之日，就會出現一個女人同時有七個丈夫的姦淫局面。法律是不會互相矛盾的，天主的法律更加不會互相矛盾。十誡不應該與代兄立嗣的法律矛盾。十誡禁止姦淫，復活就會導致姦淫。所以錯不在十誡，錯在有復活。十誡是永恆的，所以，復活是永遠不會有的。撒杜塞人的思路的確厲害。
為甚麽這班司祭不想復活呢？復活有甚麽不好呢？撒杜塞人真心關懷姦淫的問題嗎？絕對不。
司祭素來都是肋未一族的專利，而且還是世襲的。除非發生了一些不幸事件，例如天生殘障令一個人不能當司祭，或者一些特殊事故如天主召收或者是亡國，否則一出世在司祭家族裡，就註定衣食無憂。厄則克耳在亡國之前是司祭，亡國後充軍時蒙召成為先知。若翰洗者的爸爸是司祭，若翰原本可以繼承父業做司祭，結果做了基督的前驅，死在黑落德手上。這兩個是特殊的個別例子，一般的司祭都是京城中的既得利益者，是特權階級。當耶穌清理聖殿的時候，就是向他們借聖殿偷呃拐騙的惡行宣戰，於是損害了他們的利益，開罪了他們。
從第一篇讀經我們可以領會到復活是帶有審判意味的。世間實在有太多的不公義，相信大家近日在新聞都看了不少。連當權者亦加入為有錢人服務的時候，這一切的冤假錯案，就祗有等天主在復活之日為受害人申冤了。
所以，如果心裡沒有復活，既得利益者就可以繼續不公義地享受既得的利益，最緊要「維持穩定，按程序公義辦事，循序漸進改良社會。」他們所信的天主對貪污會隻眼開隻眼閉，對孤兒寡婦，小數族裔會袖手旁觀，就不會平反冤獄。這群撒杜塞人就會天不怕，地不怕，把仁愛和公義拋諸腦後，有風就要使盡艃，為富就可以不仁，不用顧憂「最尾的兩年」。
作為耶穌的門徒，我們相信耶穌為了我們，從死者中復活過來了。那麽，復活對我們每天的生活，有甚麽意義呢？我們如何以一個復活的心態來面對不公義呢？
我們相信復活，表示我們相信天主自會照顧。所以在不斷重複的平淡生活中，我們抱著天主自會照顧的信念，每日以仁愛關顧身邊有需要幫助的弱勢社群，愛人如己，服務在病弱者身上臨現的耶穌君王。
我們相信復活，表示我們相信天主會為受壓迫者申冤。在面對發生在身邊不公義的情況時，不要置身事外，明哲保身。因為天主曾因亞巴郎的求情，會為十個義人而不毀滅索多瑪。耶穌曾應承我們有兩三個人因他的名聚集的時候，他會臨現在我們中間。所以我們懷著復活的希望，相信天主會為受壓迫者申冤的承諾，我們與受壓迫者同行。天主會因我們的臨在，耶穌的臨在而為他們出頭。天主絕對不會等我們出事後才出手。因為天主不是死人的天主，而是活人的天主。
各位兄弟姊妹，記著時時懷著復活的心態，使復活的基督，臨現在我們身上，臨現在不公義的社會裡。天主保祐。
32nd Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: A Resurrection mentality
We often hear about Pharisees in the gospels and very little of the Sadducees. If we are not careful, we may think that they were different names of the same group of people. Indeed, they had joined forces in order to eliminate Jesus. However, they were in fact, antagonistic.
Sadducees were a political group made up of priests. Their influence was coupled with the Temple and thus, their power was confined within Jerusalem. Sadducees held that only the Torah was canonical. They did not acknowledge the revelatory authority of the books of prophets and psalms. Since they could not find anything about resurrection in the Torah, they dismissed the idea of resurrection.
Do not think that they were blockheads. Their dialectics showed that they were intelligentsia of high calibre. At first, they appeared to agree with the opponents’ stance. Then, they demonstrated that such a stance would lead to contradiction. This reductio ad absurdum is a common way to prove some truths which cannot be demonstrated directly.
Sadducees denied resurrection. There was no resurrection here and now, or in the future. There would be no resurrection forever.
To demonstrate that there was no resurrection here and now was not difficult because nobody had witnessed the dead coming back to life. However, that there was no resurrection now cannot guarantee that there would be no resurrection in the future. To demonstrate directly that there would be no resurrection in the future is very difficult. But the Sadducees had found a clever way to prove that the whole idea of resurrection is wrongheaded.
Firstly, they set up a scenario in which seven brothers, following Mosaic levirate marriage law, became husbands of the same woman consecutively (Luke 28:32, Deuteronomy 25:5-6). If there were resurrection, on the day of resurrection, the woman would be the wife of these seven brothers at the same time. A scenario of adultery would result. Laws cannot be self-contradictory. The more so are the laws of God. The Ten Commandments should not contradict with the levirate marriage law. Now, the Ten Commandments forbid adultery. Resurrection would lead to adultery. The fault lies not with the Ten Commandments. It must be the fault of resurrection. Since the Ten Commandments are eternal. Therefore, there would be, for eternity, no resurrection. How impeccable their dialectics were!
Why did these priests not want resurrection? What was so bad about resurrection? Did these Sadducees care about adultery? A categorical no!
Priesthood had always been the exclusive franchise of Levites. Moreover, it was hereditary. Unless some unfortunate impediments happened, such as handicaps rendering a man unable to become a priest, or some special events such as God’s call or exile, a person born into a priestly family would have nothing to worry about for the rest of his life. Ezekiel was a priest before the Babylonian Exile. Later God called him to become a prophet. The father of John the Baptist was a priest. John would have inherited his father’s job to become one. Subsequently, he became the forerunner of Christ and was beheaded by Herod Antipas. These two are exceptional cases. In general, priests were vested interests in Jerusalem. They were a privileged class. When Jesus cleansed the Temple, he was declaring war against their evil deeds of turning the Temple into their money spinner. Jesus antagonized them by ruining their interests.
From the first reading today, we gather that resurrection involves judgment. There are too many injustices in this world. I am sure you have heard enough of news coverage these days. When the government serves the rich, these cases of injustice have to wait until the day of resurrection when God’s justice shall prevail.
Therefore, if there is no resurrection in their hearts, the vested interests would continue to enjoy their interests in an unjust way. For them, “maintaining stability, following procedural justice and gradual piecemeal improvement of the society” are of top priority. Their God would be blind to corruption, would let the orphans, widows and ethnic minorities fend for themselves. His justice would not prevail. These Sadducees had nothing to fear. Charity and justice were not among their vocabulary. They would exploit the disadvantaged to the fullest. They would harden their hearts with their wealth. They did not bother about their last days.
As disciples of Jesus, we believe that Jesus died and came back to life for us. So, what does resurrection mean for our daily life? How shall we confront injustice with a resurrection mentality?
To believe in resurrection means we trust in the providence of God. In our routine boring daily life, we believe in God’s providence and opt for the underprivileged around us. We love our neighbours as ourselves, serving Christ the King present in the sick and the weak.
To believe in resurrection means we trust that God’s justice shall prevail. Confronting injustice, we shall not stay away for safety’s sake. It is because Abraham once bargained with God to make Him spare Sodom if there were ten righteous people. Jesus has also promised us that when two or three of us gathered in his name, he shall be present among us. Therefore, with the hope of resurrection and a strong belief in God’s promise to rectify justice for the underprivileged, we stay with the oppressed. God would deliver them because of our presence, because of Jesus’ presence. God shall not allow us to perish because "he is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Luke 20:38).
Brothers and sister, bear in mind the mentality of resurrection to make the risen Christ present in us, present in the injustice of the society. God bless.
主題：復活的心態
我們在福音中常聽到「法利塞人」，比較少聽到「撒杜塞人」，一不留神以為他們與法利塞人差不多。的確，在政治上，法利塞人和撒杜塞人曾聯手對付耶穌。但實際上，他們是敵對的。
撒杜塞人的由司祭組成的政黨，他們的權勢與聖殿息息相關，亦因此，他們的勢力範圍就局限在耶路撒冷。在信仰上他們祗承認梅瑟五書是經典，不承認先知書和聖詠的啟示權威。在梅瑟五書之中，他們找不到死人復活的記載，所以他們否認復活。
不要以為他們是膿包，看他們的論証手法，便知道他們是思路精密的高級知識份子。首先，他們表面上認同對手的立場，然後推論出對手的論點會得到矛盾的結果，這一招「反証法」是邏輯學上常用的手段，用來處理一些無法直接証明的道理。
撒杜塞人認為人死不能復生。現在不會有復活，將來都不會，永遠都不會。
要証明現在不會有復活並不難，因為從來沒有人親眼見過死人會復活。不過，現在不會並不表示將來不會。要直接証明連將來都不會有復活是非常困難的。於是撒杜塞人巧妙地用反証法証明復活是錯的。
首先，他們設下一個七兄弟按梅瑟訂立的代兄立嗣法律，先後成為同一個女人的丈夫的局面。然後假設有復活，於是在復活之日，就會出現一個女人同時有七個丈夫的姦淫局面。法律是不會互相矛盾的，天主的法律更加不會互相矛盾。十誡不應該與代兄立嗣的法律矛盾。十誡禁止姦淫，復活就會導致姦淫。所以錯不在十誡，錯在有復活。十誡是永恆的，所以，復活是永遠不會有的。撒杜塞人的思路的確厲害。
為甚麽這班司祭不想復活呢？復活有甚麽不好呢？撒杜塞人真心關懷姦淫的問題嗎？絕對不。
司祭素來都是肋未一族的專利，而且還是世襲的。除非發生了一些不幸事件，例如天生殘障令一個人不能當司祭，或者一些特殊事故如天主召收或者是亡國，否則一出世在司祭家族裡，就註定衣食無憂。厄則克耳在亡國之前是司祭，亡國後充軍時蒙召成為先知。若翰洗者的爸爸是司祭，若翰原本可以繼承父業做司祭，結果做了基督的前驅，死在黑落德手上。這兩個是特殊的個別例子，一般的司祭都是京城中的既得利益者，是特權階級。當耶穌清理聖殿的時候，就是向他們借聖殿偷呃拐騙的惡行宣戰，於是損害了他們的利益，開罪了他們。
從第一篇讀經我們可以領會到復活是帶有審判意味的。世間實在有太多的不公義，相信大家近日在新聞都看了不少。連當權者亦加入為有錢人服務的時候，這一切的冤假錯案，就祗有等天主在復活之日為受害人申冤了。
所以，如果心裡沒有復活，既得利益者就可以繼續不公義地享受既得的利益，最緊要「維持穩定，按程序公義辦事，循序漸進改良社會。」他們所信的天主對貪污會隻眼開隻眼閉，對孤兒寡婦，小數族裔會袖手旁觀，就不會平反冤獄。這群撒杜塞人就會天不怕，地不怕，把仁愛和公義拋諸腦後，有風就要使盡艃，為富就可以不仁，不用顧憂「最尾的兩年」。
作為耶穌的門徒，我們相信耶穌為了我們，從死者中復活過來了。那麽，復活對我們每天的生活，有甚麽意義呢？我們如何以一個復活的心態來面對不公義呢？
我們相信復活，表示我們相信天主自會照顧。所以在不斷重複的平淡生活中，我們抱著天主自會照顧的信念，每日以仁愛關顧身邊有需要幫助的弱勢社群，愛人如己，服務在病弱者身上臨現的耶穌君王。
我們相信復活，表示我們相信天主會為受壓迫者申冤。在面對發生在身邊不公義的情況時，不要置身事外，明哲保身。因為天主曾因亞巴郎的求情，會為十個義人而不毀滅索多瑪。耶穌曾應承我們有兩三個人因他的名聚集的時候，他會臨現在我們中間。所以我們懷著復活的希望，相信天主會為受壓迫者申冤的承諾，我們與受壓迫者同行。天主會因我們的臨在，耶穌的臨在而為他們出頭。天主絕對不會等我們出事後才出手。因為天主不是死人的天主，而是活人的天主。
各位兄弟姊妹，記著時時懷著復活的心態，使復活的基督，臨現在我們身上，臨現在不公義的社會裡。天主保祐。
32nd Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: A Resurrection mentality
We often hear about Pharisees in the gospels and very little of the Sadducees. If we are not careful, we may think that they were different names of the same group of people. Indeed, they had joined forces in order to eliminate Jesus. However, they were in fact, antagonistic.
Sadducees were a political group made up of priests. Their influence was coupled with the Temple and thus, their power was confined within Jerusalem. Sadducees held that only the Torah was canonical. They did not acknowledge the revelatory authority of the books of prophets and psalms. Since they could not find anything about resurrection in the Torah, they dismissed the idea of resurrection.
Do not think that they were blockheads. Their dialectics showed that they were intelligentsia of high calibre. At first, they appeared to agree with the opponents’ stance. Then, they demonstrated that such a stance would lead to contradiction. This reductio ad absurdum is a common way to prove some truths which cannot be demonstrated directly.
Sadducees denied resurrection. There was no resurrection here and now, or in the future. There would be no resurrection forever.
To demonstrate that there was no resurrection here and now was not difficult because nobody had witnessed the dead coming back to life. However, that there was no resurrection now cannot guarantee that there would be no resurrection in the future. To demonstrate directly that there would be no resurrection in the future is very difficult. But the Sadducees had found a clever way to prove that the whole idea of resurrection is wrongheaded.
Firstly, they set up a scenario in which seven brothers, following Mosaic levirate marriage law, became husbands of the same woman consecutively (Luke 28:32, Deuteronomy 25:5-6). If there were resurrection, on the day of resurrection, the woman would be the wife of these seven brothers at the same time. A scenario of adultery would result. Laws cannot be self-contradictory. The more so are the laws of God. The Ten Commandments should not contradict with the levirate marriage law. Now, the Ten Commandments forbid adultery. Resurrection would lead to adultery. The fault lies not with the Ten Commandments. It must be the fault of resurrection. Since the Ten Commandments are eternal. Therefore, there would be, for eternity, no resurrection. How impeccable their dialectics were!
Why did these priests not want resurrection? What was so bad about resurrection? Did these Sadducees care about adultery? A categorical no!
Priesthood had always been the exclusive franchise of Levites. Moreover, it was hereditary. Unless some unfortunate impediments happened, such as handicaps rendering a man unable to become a priest, or some special events such as God’s call or exile, a person born into a priestly family would have nothing to worry about for the rest of his life. Ezekiel was a priest before the Babylonian Exile. Later God called him to become a prophet. The father of John the Baptist was a priest. John would have inherited his father’s job to become one. Subsequently, he became the forerunner of Christ and was beheaded by Herod Antipas. These two are exceptional cases. In general, priests were vested interests in Jerusalem. They were a privileged class. When Jesus cleansed the Temple, he was declaring war against their evil deeds of turning the Temple into their money spinner. Jesus antagonized them by ruining their interests.
From the first reading today, we gather that resurrection involves judgment. There are too many injustices in this world. I am sure you have heard enough of news coverage these days. When the government serves the rich, these cases of injustice have to wait until the day of resurrection when God’s justice shall prevail.
Therefore, if there is no resurrection in their hearts, the vested interests would continue to enjoy their interests in an unjust way. For them, “maintaining stability, following procedural justice and gradual piecemeal improvement of the society” are of top priority. Their God would be blind to corruption, would let the orphans, widows and ethnic minorities fend for themselves. His justice would not prevail. These Sadducees had nothing to fear. Charity and justice were not among their vocabulary. They would exploit the disadvantaged to the fullest. They would harden their hearts with their wealth. They did not bother about their last days.
As disciples of Jesus, we believe that Jesus died and came back to life for us. So, what does resurrection mean for our daily life? How shall we confront injustice with a resurrection mentality?
To believe in resurrection means we trust in the providence of God. In our routine boring daily life, we believe in God’s providence and opt for the underprivileged around us. We love our neighbours as ourselves, serving Christ the King present in the sick and the weak.
To believe in resurrection means we trust that God’s justice shall prevail. Confronting injustice, we shall not stay away for safety’s sake. It is because Abraham once bargained with God to make Him spare Sodom if there were ten righteous people. Jesus has also promised us that when two or three of us gathered in his name, he shall be present among us. Therefore, with the hope of resurrection and a strong belief in God’s promise to rectify justice for the underprivileged, we stay with the oppressed. God would deliver them because of our presence, because of Jesus’ presence. God shall not allow us to perish because "he is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Luke 20:38).
Brothers and sister, bear in mind the mentality of resurrection to make the risen Christ present in us, present in the injustice of the society. God bless.
Sunday 3 November 2013
To make good use of things
The story of Zacchaeus is my favourite because, like him, I am small of stature (Luke 19:3). Moreover, what he did reminds me of the teachings of an ancient Chinese philosopher, Xunzi 荀子.
"吾嘗終日而思矣，不如須臾之所學也;吾嘗跂而望矣，不如登高之博見也。登高而招，臂非加長也，而見者遠；順風而呼，聲非加疾也，而聞者彰。假輿馬者，非利足也，而致千里。假舟楫者，非能水也，而絕江河。君子生非異也，善假於物也。
I tried meditating all day. It is not as fruitful as a moment's learning. I tried standing on my heels to look. It is not as far-sighted as climbing up a tree. I wave on high. My arm is not lengthened and yet it can be seen afar. I yell in the wind. My voice is not sped but hearers are more impressed. Riders of chariots do not have faster legs and reach thousands of miles. Sailors of boats do not swim and ferry beyond rivers. A gentleman is not born distinguished. Rather he makes good use of things." (Xunzi, chapter 1, paragraph 3)
Though a despised tax collector, Zacchaeus was the embodiment of the teaching of Xunzi and a model Christian aspirant. He wanted to know Jesus and he made good use of things in order to reach Jesus.
In order to see Jesus, Zacchaeus "ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree συκομωραίαν to see him: for he was to pass that way" (19:4)
What kind of a plant is a sycomore? Well, as long as it is tall enough and strong enough, it serves Zacchaeus' purpose of seeing Jesus. Here, we need a certain wisdom and knowledge to help us distinguish between what is helpful and what is harmful for our spiritual life. Making a lot of money is surely admirable. However, will it set our sight on high to reach God? A comfortable life is surely desirable. However, can it strengthen us and sustain us long enough to wait for the coming of Christ? We also need a certain fortitude to pull ourselves off from our comfort zone, to face off teases from the world. These qualities: wisdom, knowledge and fortitude are gifts of the Holy Spirit which we cannot earn. They are God's graces.
The sycomore tree was free of charge. It was there, cultivated by other people, provided by God. What Zacchaeus made use of next was his hard earned money (half of of his goods he gave to the poor. what he had cheated, he restored fourfold). Now, he truly made good use of things to earn him eternal life (19:8-9). God has done his part. It is our turn to respond.
Dear Lord, may we make good use of things you provided us to serve and glorify you. Amen.
"吾嘗終日而思矣，不如須臾之所學也;吾嘗跂而望矣，不如登高之博見也。登高而招，臂非加長也，而見者遠；順風而呼，聲非加疾也，而聞者彰。假輿馬者，非利足也，而致千里。假舟楫者，非能水也，而絕江河。君子生非異也，善假於物也。
I tried meditating all day. It is not as fruitful as a moment's learning. I tried standing on my heels to look. It is not as far-sighted as climbing up a tree. I wave on high. My arm is not lengthened and yet it can be seen afar. I yell in the wind. My voice is not sped but hearers are more impressed. Riders of chariots do not have faster legs and reach thousands of miles. Sailors of boats do not swim and ferry beyond rivers. A gentleman is not born distinguished. Rather he makes good use of things." (Xunzi, chapter 1, paragraph 3)
Though a despised tax collector, Zacchaeus was the embodiment of the teaching of Xunzi and a model Christian aspirant. He wanted to know Jesus and he made good use of things in order to reach Jesus.
In order to see Jesus, Zacchaeus "ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree συκομωραίαν to see him: for he was to pass that way" (19:4)
What kind of a plant is a sycomore? Well, as long as it is tall enough and strong enough, it serves Zacchaeus' purpose of seeing Jesus. Here, we need a certain wisdom and knowledge to help us distinguish between what is helpful and what is harmful for our spiritual life. Making a lot of money is surely admirable. However, will it set our sight on high to reach God? A comfortable life is surely desirable. However, can it strengthen us and sustain us long enough to wait for the coming of Christ? We also need a certain fortitude to pull ourselves off from our comfort zone, to face off teases from the world. These qualities: wisdom, knowledge and fortitude are gifts of the Holy Spirit which we cannot earn. They are God's graces.
The sycomore tree was free of charge. It was there, cultivated by other people, provided by God. What Zacchaeus made use of next was his hard earned money (half of of his goods he gave to the poor. what he had cheated, he restored fourfold). Now, he truly made good use of things to earn him eternal life (19:8-9). God has done his part. It is our turn to respond.
Dear Lord, may we make good use of things you provided us to serve and glorify you. Amen.
Sunday 27 October 2013
God's righteousness is His salvation
"For my thoughts are not your thought, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord" (Isaiah 55:8)
This is particularly true when we talk about justice. God's justice is not human justice.
Within our limitations as human beings, we think of justice as "getting even". When God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites as a guideline to their life, God simply told them what to do and what not to do. God did not intend to help them get even. In order to deal with practical daily life situations, the Israelites expanded them into 613 laws. Many of them deal with restitution and restrained retaliation. For example, the famous "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" (Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21) Getting even does not come from the Ten Commandments. This concept is of human origin.
Nowadays, the concept of justice is popularized by Michael Sandel's online lecture series and an accompanying book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Justice has become the moral principle per se, the right thing to do, over and above the benevolence and harm principles.
What does God think about justice? He only gave the Ten Commandments, the kind of right things He expects us to do. Philosophers try to dig up the underlying principles and justice, meaning "getting even", emerges. However, is "getting even" the intention of God when He gave the Ten Commandments? A categorical no.
"The Lord hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen.
He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God." (Psalm 98:2-3, KJV)
From the parallelism of the text, we learn that God's righteousness/justice is his salvation. His salvation is his mercy and his truth. For God, righteousness/justice means salvation, mercy and truth. The Lord God is one. There is no other deity besides Him. Therefore, the idea of getting even is meaningless to God. For God, liberating the oppressed, restoring the dignity of the poor, elevating the lowly and defeating the rich and arrogant etc. show His righteousness. This perspective will help us understand better why, in Jesus' parable, after praying in the Temple, the tax collector was justified while the Pharisee was not (Luke 18:14).
In his prayer, the tax collector confessed that he was a sinner. He acknowledged that he was in need of God's forgiveness and salvation. Therefore, he was forgiven and justified. On the other hand, the arrogant Pharisee showed off his piety and did not see his need of salvation. Therefore, he did not give God an opportunity to save him.
Deacon Tsang spoke well in his homily. The gospel is silent in the details about the tax collector. The Pharisee boasted that he had not committed any extortion, unjust practices and adultery etc. However, he might be blind towards other offences against his neighbour. The Pharisee boasted of his piety. That does not mean the tax collector was not pious. Perhaps all Jews practised a similar piety: fast every week and offer tithes. I am sure the Pharisee did more than other Jews did. It is only that the tax collector did not mention his piety in his prayer. The tax collector focused on his sinfulness, his need of God's salvation. Indeed, God sees us doing our piety. There is no need to remind God of our piety. The Pharisee failed to score this point. Now I know that God intends all men to be saved. Yet some perfect model believers reject salvation.
What a reversal of fortune, a theme running throughout the gospel of Luke!
Dear Lord, remove arrogance from my heart so that I will not be blind to my unworthiness. Amen.
Sunday 20 October 2013
Sanctified by truth
The Catholic Church in Hong Kong celebrates Mission Sunday today. The gospel we read today is taken from the last few lines of the long prayer of Jesus in the Last Supper as recorded in John. So, these few lines are expected to be heavyweight in theology and spirituality.
“Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)
The word “truth” appears 27 times in John. It begins with “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (1:14) and ends with Pilate’s question “What is truth?” (18:38) The Logos is full of glory, grace and truth. Yet, men do not see his glory and consequently do not know the truth. This is exemplified by Pilate’s question. In an incident before the Last Supper, Jesus mentioned the importance of the truth, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (8:32)
Within the Last Supper, the word “truth” appears 9 times. It begins with the famous “I am the way, the truth and the life” (14:6) and finishes with “that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” (17:19)
From all these sayings, we may draw a tentative conclusion that this knowledge, this truth is essential for our salvation. But what kind of knowledge is it? From the experience of John, it is the Logos, i.e. the Word, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Knowing Jesus is knowing the truth because he claims to be the truth. He is truth personified. And the truth shall make us free, shall enable us to attain salvation. Jesus did it through his death on the cross and the subsequent resurrection. The key to salvation is to build up a close relationship with God. We do this through Jesus Christ.
How do we know Jesus? One of the ways is to study the gospel and meditate its messages. In meditation, we come face to face with the Word and merge with him. We lose our words and we are filled with the Word. I know not how to express any more.
Sweet Lord, purify me for I am a sinner, your unworthy servant. Amen.
Sunday 13 October 2013
感恩增強信德
常年期第廿八主日（丙年）
主題：「在一切事上懷著感恩之心，向天主祈求。」(斐4:6)
今天想同大家講述聖經故事的背景，使大家更能體會箇中的意義。
在舊約的君王時代，撒羅滿的兒子繼位，他沒有父親的智慧，沒有能力團結十二支派，結果國家分裂為南北兩國，國力因而大大削弱，於是鄰國對北部的以色列，虎視眈眈。加上國內上下拜偶像成風，人心變得腐敗，國運岌岌可危。天主曾派厄里亞先知掃蕩歪風。厄里叟是厄里亞的接班人，繼續厄里亞的使命。【讀經一】提到的納阿曼是敘利亞的將軍，今次來以色列求醫，背後隱藏了很大的政治危機。如果醫治失敗，便會成為敘利亞起兵侵略以色列的藉口。結果，天主治好納阿曼，一個侵略者反而成為了一個皈依者。雖然以色列暫時渡過一個政治危機，但是他們仍沒有汲取教訓，依然故我拜偶像，最後亡國在亞述人手上。亞述人為了無後顧之憂，將大部份的以色列人充軍亞述，再遷徙其他部族入住以色列的地區，沖淡剩下來的以色列人的血統。這些混血兒，就成為了撒瑪黎雅人。在後來的猶太人眼中，撒瑪黎雅人就是雜種，所以被猶太人歧視。
福音中這十個痲瘋病人，他們之中有一個是被歧視的撒瑪黎雅人。為甚麽這個撒瑪黎雅人可以同歧視他的猶太人一起呢？古代的人怕被痲瘋病傳染，而且又是沒有醫治方法的，因此，痲瘋病人必須受隔離，被趕出鄉鎮之外，自生自滅。所謂同是天涯淪落人，惟有彼此扶持，纔會增加生存的機會。於是他們放下彼此之間的互相敵視，共渡難關。原來苦難是有令人共融合一的能力。一個人孤獨地承擔痛苦是很最痛苦的。耶穌在十字架上就親身體驗過。所以他最能明白我們的痛苦。在團體中，大家彼此扶持，所受的苦就可以忍受的。倘若與能體諒我們的耶穌一起，我們所受的苦就變得輕鬆了。這就是得救的意思。
讓我們再深入默想這個神蹟。十個受惠於神蹟的痲瘋病人，祗有一個回頭光榮天主，感謝耶穌。祗有這個痲瘋病人獲得真正的救恩。
神蹟與得救是兩回事。神蹟可以是得救的第一步，神蹟可以幫助人進一步獲得天主的救恩。天主出於對受苦的人的憐憫，便應允他們的哀求，打破大自然的規律，消除了他們所受的苦。福音中記載了一些醫治的神蹟、驅魔的神蹟、平息風浪及增餅的神蹟，全部都是天主出於慈愛，為了解除當事人所處的困境。
耶穌曾治好很多人，以後他們會再病；用五餅二魚解決5000人的饑餓問題，這些人以後再會饑餓；耶穌曾復活過三個人，他日他們依然會死去。因此，神蹟祗可以解救人一時的困境，並不會一勞永逸。想一勞永逸，就必須把握時機，與天主建立持久的關係。有神蹟固然好，但有沒有神蹟祗屬次要。與天主建立持久的關係纔是關鍵所在。十個痲瘋病人中，祗有一個掌握到關鍵，回頭與天主建立持久的關係，祗有這個外人、這個撒瑪黎雅人、這個納阿曼得救。
為甚麽其他九個痲瘋病人不回來歸光榮於天主，並感謝耶穌呢？
其中一個可能的原因是他們太開心、太得意忘形，趕快到司祭面前驗身，証明自己真的痊癒了。猶太人的司祭，不像今天的神父，可以在堂區很容易找到。猶太司祭祗在聖殿工作，而聖殿祗有一座在耶路撒冷。找司祭驗身並不是跑到街上找醫生寫醫生信告假那樣簡單。而是長途跋涉由加里肋亞的某處，行約150公里的路程到耶路撒冷。這些痲瘋病人須要準備行裝，行兩三天纔可到達耶路撒冷。
原來，我們也像那九個痲瘋病人一樣，很容易不分輕重，把大部份的精力花在次要的事物上，本末倒置。例如我們為了使妻子過比較舒適的生活，於是努力賺錢，結果失去了健康和親子的時間，得不償失。學生為了公開試考取好成績，放學後再去補習，結果筋疲力盡，影響到正式課程的學習與公開試的成績，結果又是得不償失。同樣，著眼在神蹟而忘記了改善與天主的關係，是本末倒置。
這幾個主日福音的主題，都是環繞著「信德」。今天的福音告訴大家，我們的信德並非建基在神蹟之上，而是建基於與天主的關係之上。天主既然有恩於我們，感恩便是理所當然的。保祿宗徒也曾教導斐理伯教會的教友在一切事上，懷著感恩之心，向天主獻上祈禱。
為甚麽感恩是如此重要呢？在上星期的福音，門徒請耶穌增加他們的信德。十個痲瘋病人對耶穌豈沒有信德呢？沒有信德就不會向耶穌求助了。但祗有一個痲瘋病人懷有感恩之心。原來增加信德的秘訣就在於有感恩的心。在某情度上，有感恩的心就表示自己的不足，承認需要別人的幫助，是謙遜之德，是抗衡驕傲的美德，可以令人得救。從另一個角度看，有感恩的心促進了人與天主的關係，當然會令人得救。其餘九個痲瘋病人的信德，祗停留在皮毛的階段，祗可以解決他們目前的困苦，不足以幫助他們達到永生。
做人何嘗不是一樣呢？做子女的對父母給予的愛護以為是理所當然，而不去感恩，試問今天的親子關係又怎會好，將來又如果為自己建立一個幸福的家庭呢？做父母的以為子女孝順是理所當然的，而不去感恩，珍惜，試問老來，當你的記憶漸漸消失的時候，你祗剩下怨忿的記憶，你的日子將要怎樣過呢？
各位兄弟姊妹，記著時時懷有感恩的心，向天主獻上祈禱。天主保祐。
28th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Thanksgiving in everything (Philippians 4:6)
Today, I would like to speak a little bit about the background of the Bible stories so that we may understand the messages better.
In the Kingdom era of the Old Testament after the death of King Solomon, Rehoboam, his son did not possess the wisdom to hold the 12 tribes together. The Kingdom of Israel was split into two, thus reducing its strength. The neighbouring countries began to poach on the northern Kingdom of Israel. Meanwhile, idolatry was widespread in the kingdom. The hearts of the people became corrupt. The fate of the kingdom was hanging on a thread. God had sent Elijah to eradicate the corrosion. Elisha carried on the baton of Elijah. Naaman was a Syrian captain of the army. His coming to Israel to seek therapy created a political crisis. Had the cure failed, it would have become an excuse to invade Israel. In the end, God cured Naaman of his leprosy. An invader became a convert. Though Israel had weathered through a political crisis, she did not learn the lesson and continued her idolatry. At last, she was conquered by Assyria. To ensure no possibility of rebellion, the Assyrians exiled most of the Israelites and resettled other tribes into the land of Israel so as to thin out their blood. These hybrids became Samaritans. In the eyes of the Jews, Samaritans were impure and were despised.
Among the ten lepers in the gospel, one was a despised Samaritan. Why was this Samaritan able to live among the Jews who despised him? In ancient time, leprosy was contagious and there was no cure. Therefore, lepers were quarantined and chased out of the villages and towns to fend for themselves. Being wretched drifters, these lepers stayed together to improve their chances of survival. They had to put down their mutual hostility to weather through. Suffering has the power to build up solidarity. The greatest pain is to suffer alone. Jesus knew it well when he was abandoned on the cross. Therefore, he understands thoroughly our sufferings. With the support in a community, sufferings are bearable. If we suffer with Christ who understands us, our sufferings will become light. This is the meaning of salvation.
Let us meditate deeper into the miracle. Among the ten cured lepers, only one returned to glorify God and thank Jesus. Only one leper truly received salvation.
Miracle and salvation are two different things. Miracles can be the stepping stone to salvation. They help people further receive God’s salvation. Out of His compassion, God hear the plights and breach the laws of nature to eliminate the sufferings of those who call upon Him. There are cure miracles, exorcisms, calming of the waves and multiplication of loaves. God performs all these miracles out of His compassion to relieve the sufferings of the people. Jesus cured many who were sick and they would be sick again. Jesus fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish. These people would be hungry the day after. Jesus raised 3 people from the dead and they would die again the other day. Therefore, miracles can relieve the current sufferings but they are not once and for all. In order to have a permanent effect, we should take the opportunity to build up a lasting relationship with God. It is good to have miracles but they are only secondary. Building up a lasting relationship with God is the key of salvation. Among the ten lepers, only one held this key. He returned to build up a lasting relationship with God. Only this foreigner, this Samaritan, this Naaman received salvation.
Why didn’t the nine other lepers return to glorify God and thank Jesus?
One possible reason was that they were too excited to be cured and hurried to see the priests to examine them, to certify them purified. Unlike Catholic priests today who are easily available in the parishes, Jewish priests worked in the Temple and there was only one Temple in Jerusalem. To look for a priest to examine your leprosy was not like going down the street to ask a physician to write you a medical certificate. It took them about 150 km to walk all the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. These lepers needed to pack themselves to walk at least three days to reach Jerusalem.
Like the nine lepers, we can easily make mistakes in prioritizing our life. We spend most of our time and energy on secondary matters, turning our life on its head. For example, in order to provide our wife and children with a more comfortable life, we work hard to earn money so much so that we lose our health and quality time with our children. The loss outweighs the gain. Students who want to achieve high scores in public exams attend tuition classes after school. In the end, they are exhausted and their normal studies and exam scores are affected. Once again, the loss outweighs the gain. In the same way, focusing on miracles and neglecting the improvement of relationship with God is turning our salvation on its head.
Faith is a theme running through the gospel readings in these few weeks. Today, the gospel tells us that our faith is not built upon miracles, but on our relationship with God. God delivers us. Being grateful to God is right and fitting. St. Paul wrote to the Philippians that “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God.” (Galatians 4:6).
Why is thanksgiving so important? In the gospel reading last week, the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith (Luke 17:5). Didn’t the 10 lepers have faith in Jesus? If they hadn’t had faith, how would they have asked Jesus for help? But only one of them was grateful. Indeed, the key to increase faith is to have a grateful heart. To a certain extent, being grateful admits our inadequacy, acknowledging that we are in need of others’ help. This is the virtue of humility which counters the capital sin of pride and facilitates our salvation. Looking from another perspective, having a grateful heart improves our relationship with God and certainly brings us salvation. The faith of the nine other lepers remains on a superficial level. It could only solve their problems at hand and was insufficient to bring them salvation.
The same is true in our daily life. If children take their parents’ love for granted without gratitude, how can their relationship with parents be good? How can they build up happy families of their own in the future? Parents take the filial piety from their children for granted, without gratitude. When they grow old, their memories are failing. When only bitter and resentful memories remain, how shall they spend their remaining days?
Brothers and sister, keep in mind to be always thankful when you offer up your prayers to God.
God bless.
主題：「在一切事上懷著感恩之心，向天主祈求。」(斐4:6)
今天想同大家講述聖經故事的背景，使大家更能體會箇中的意義。
在舊約的君王時代，撒羅滿的兒子繼位，他沒有父親的智慧，沒有能力團結十二支派，結果國家分裂為南北兩國，國力因而大大削弱，於是鄰國對北部的以色列，虎視眈眈。加上國內上下拜偶像成風，人心變得腐敗，國運岌岌可危。天主曾派厄里亞先知掃蕩歪風。厄里叟是厄里亞的接班人，繼續厄里亞的使命。【讀經一】提到的納阿曼是敘利亞的將軍，今次來以色列求醫，背後隱藏了很大的政治危機。如果醫治失敗，便會成為敘利亞起兵侵略以色列的藉口。結果，天主治好納阿曼，一個侵略者反而成為了一個皈依者。雖然以色列暫時渡過一個政治危機，但是他們仍沒有汲取教訓，依然故我拜偶像，最後亡國在亞述人手上。亞述人為了無後顧之憂，將大部份的以色列人充軍亞述，再遷徙其他部族入住以色列的地區，沖淡剩下來的以色列人的血統。這些混血兒，就成為了撒瑪黎雅人。在後來的猶太人眼中，撒瑪黎雅人就是雜種，所以被猶太人歧視。
福音中這十個痲瘋病人，他們之中有一個是被歧視的撒瑪黎雅人。為甚麽這個撒瑪黎雅人可以同歧視他的猶太人一起呢？古代的人怕被痲瘋病傳染，而且又是沒有醫治方法的，因此，痲瘋病人必須受隔離，被趕出鄉鎮之外，自生自滅。所謂同是天涯淪落人，惟有彼此扶持，纔會增加生存的機會。於是他們放下彼此之間的互相敵視，共渡難關。原來苦難是有令人共融合一的能力。一個人孤獨地承擔痛苦是很最痛苦的。耶穌在十字架上就親身體驗過。所以他最能明白我們的痛苦。在團體中，大家彼此扶持，所受的苦就可以忍受的。倘若與能體諒我們的耶穌一起，我們所受的苦就變得輕鬆了。這就是得救的意思。
讓我們再深入默想這個神蹟。十個受惠於神蹟的痲瘋病人，祗有一個回頭光榮天主，感謝耶穌。祗有這個痲瘋病人獲得真正的救恩。
神蹟與得救是兩回事。神蹟可以是得救的第一步，神蹟可以幫助人進一步獲得天主的救恩。天主出於對受苦的人的憐憫，便應允他們的哀求，打破大自然的規律，消除了他們所受的苦。福音中記載了一些醫治的神蹟、驅魔的神蹟、平息風浪及增餅的神蹟，全部都是天主出於慈愛，為了解除當事人所處的困境。
耶穌曾治好很多人，以後他們會再病；用五餅二魚解決5000人的饑餓問題，這些人以後再會饑餓；耶穌曾復活過三個人，他日他們依然會死去。因此，神蹟祗可以解救人一時的困境，並不會一勞永逸。想一勞永逸，就必須把握時機，與天主建立持久的關係。有神蹟固然好，但有沒有神蹟祗屬次要。與天主建立持久的關係纔是關鍵所在。十個痲瘋病人中，祗有一個掌握到關鍵，回頭與天主建立持久的關係，祗有這個外人、這個撒瑪黎雅人、這個納阿曼得救。
為甚麽其他九個痲瘋病人不回來歸光榮於天主，並感謝耶穌呢？
其中一個可能的原因是他們太開心、太得意忘形，趕快到司祭面前驗身，証明自己真的痊癒了。猶太人的司祭，不像今天的神父，可以在堂區很容易找到。猶太司祭祗在聖殿工作，而聖殿祗有一座在耶路撒冷。找司祭驗身並不是跑到街上找醫生寫醫生信告假那樣簡單。而是長途跋涉由加里肋亞的某處，行約150公里的路程到耶路撒冷。這些痲瘋病人須要準備行裝，行兩三天纔可到達耶路撒冷。
原來，我們也像那九個痲瘋病人一樣，很容易不分輕重，把大部份的精力花在次要的事物上，本末倒置。例如我們為了使妻子過比較舒適的生活，於是努力賺錢，結果失去了健康和親子的時間，得不償失。學生為了公開試考取好成績，放學後再去補習，結果筋疲力盡，影響到正式課程的學習與公開試的成績，結果又是得不償失。同樣，著眼在神蹟而忘記了改善與天主的關係，是本末倒置。
這幾個主日福音的主題，都是環繞著「信德」。今天的福音告訴大家，我們的信德並非建基在神蹟之上，而是建基於與天主的關係之上。天主既然有恩於我們，感恩便是理所當然的。保祿宗徒也曾教導斐理伯教會的教友在一切事上，懷著感恩之心，向天主獻上祈禱。
為甚麽感恩是如此重要呢？在上星期的福音，門徒請耶穌增加他們的信德。十個痲瘋病人對耶穌豈沒有信德呢？沒有信德就不會向耶穌求助了。但祗有一個痲瘋病人懷有感恩之心。原來增加信德的秘訣就在於有感恩的心。在某情度上，有感恩的心就表示自己的不足，承認需要別人的幫助，是謙遜之德，是抗衡驕傲的美德，可以令人得救。從另一個角度看，有感恩的心促進了人與天主的關係，當然會令人得救。其餘九個痲瘋病人的信德，祗停留在皮毛的階段，祗可以解決他們目前的困苦，不足以幫助他們達到永生。
做人何嘗不是一樣呢？做子女的對父母給予的愛護以為是理所當然，而不去感恩，試問今天的親子關係又怎會好，將來又如果為自己建立一個幸福的家庭呢？做父母的以為子女孝順是理所當然的，而不去感恩，珍惜，試問老來，當你的記憶漸漸消失的時候，你祗剩下怨忿的記憶，你的日子將要怎樣過呢？
各位兄弟姊妹，記著時時懷有感恩的心，向天主獻上祈禱。天主保祐。
28th Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Thanksgiving in everything (Philippians 4:6)
Today, I would like to speak a little bit about the background of the Bible stories so that we may understand the messages better.
In the Kingdom era of the Old Testament after the death of King Solomon, Rehoboam, his son did not possess the wisdom to hold the 12 tribes together. The Kingdom of Israel was split into two, thus reducing its strength. The neighbouring countries began to poach on the northern Kingdom of Israel. Meanwhile, idolatry was widespread in the kingdom. The hearts of the people became corrupt. The fate of the kingdom was hanging on a thread. God had sent Elijah to eradicate the corrosion. Elisha carried on the baton of Elijah. Naaman was a Syrian captain of the army. His coming to Israel to seek therapy created a political crisis. Had the cure failed, it would have become an excuse to invade Israel. In the end, God cured Naaman of his leprosy. An invader became a convert. Though Israel had weathered through a political crisis, she did not learn the lesson and continued her idolatry. At last, she was conquered by Assyria. To ensure no possibility of rebellion, the Assyrians exiled most of the Israelites and resettled other tribes into the land of Israel so as to thin out their blood. These hybrids became Samaritans. In the eyes of the Jews, Samaritans were impure and were despised.
Among the ten lepers in the gospel, one was a despised Samaritan. Why was this Samaritan able to live among the Jews who despised him? In ancient time, leprosy was contagious and there was no cure. Therefore, lepers were quarantined and chased out of the villages and towns to fend for themselves. Being wretched drifters, these lepers stayed together to improve their chances of survival. They had to put down their mutual hostility to weather through. Suffering has the power to build up solidarity. The greatest pain is to suffer alone. Jesus knew it well when he was abandoned on the cross. Therefore, he understands thoroughly our sufferings. With the support in a community, sufferings are bearable. If we suffer with Christ who understands us, our sufferings will become light. This is the meaning of salvation.
Let us meditate deeper into the miracle. Among the ten cured lepers, only one returned to glorify God and thank Jesus. Only one leper truly received salvation.
Miracle and salvation are two different things. Miracles can be the stepping stone to salvation. They help people further receive God’s salvation. Out of His compassion, God hear the plights and breach the laws of nature to eliminate the sufferings of those who call upon Him. There are cure miracles, exorcisms, calming of the waves and multiplication of loaves. God performs all these miracles out of His compassion to relieve the sufferings of the people. Jesus cured many who were sick and they would be sick again. Jesus fed 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish. These people would be hungry the day after. Jesus raised 3 people from the dead and they would die again the other day. Therefore, miracles can relieve the current sufferings but they are not once and for all. In order to have a permanent effect, we should take the opportunity to build up a lasting relationship with God. It is good to have miracles but they are only secondary. Building up a lasting relationship with God is the key of salvation. Among the ten lepers, only one held this key. He returned to build up a lasting relationship with God. Only this foreigner, this Samaritan, this Naaman received salvation.
Why didn’t the nine other lepers return to glorify God and thank Jesus?
One possible reason was that they were too excited to be cured and hurried to see the priests to examine them, to certify them purified. Unlike Catholic priests today who are easily available in the parishes, Jewish priests worked in the Temple and there was only one Temple in Jerusalem. To look for a priest to examine your leprosy was not like going down the street to ask a physician to write you a medical certificate. It took them about 150 km to walk all the way from Galilee to Jerusalem. These lepers needed to pack themselves to walk at least three days to reach Jerusalem.
Like the nine lepers, we can easily make mistakes in prioritizing our life. We spend most of our time and energy on secondary matters, turning our life on its head. For example, in order to provide our wife and children with a more comfortable life, we work hard to earn money so much so that we lose our health and quality time with our children. The loss outweighs the gain. Students who want to achieve high scores in public exams attend tuition classes after school. In the end, they are exhausted and their normal studies and exam scores are affected. Once again, the loss outweighs the gain. In the same way, focusing on miracles and neglecting the improvement of relationship with God is turning our salvation on its head.
Faith is a theme running through the gospel readings in these few weeks. Today, the gospel tells us that our faith is not built upon miracles, but on our relationship with God. God delivers us. Being grateful to God is right and fitting. St. Paul wrote to the Philippians that “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God.” (Galatians 4:6).
Why is thanksgiving so important? In the gospel reading last week, the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith (Luke 17:5). Didn’t the 10 lepers have faith in Jesus? If they hadn’t had faith, how would they have asked Jesus for help? But only one of them was grateful. Indeed, the key to increase faith is to have a grateful heart. To a certain extent, being grateful admits our inadequacy, acknowledging that we are in need of others’ help. This is the virtue of humility which counters the capital sin of pride and facilitates our salvation. Looking from another perspective, having a grateful heart improves our relationship with God and certainly brings us salvation. The faith of the nine other lepers remains on a superficial level. It could only solve their problems at hand and was insufficient to bring them salvation.
The same is true in our daily life. If children take their parents’ love for granted without gratitude, how can their relationship with parents be good? How can they build up happy families of their own in the future? Parents take the filial piety from their children for granted, without gratitude. When they grow old, their memories are failing. When only bitter and resentful memories remain, how shall they spend their remaining days?
Brothers and sister, keep in mind to be always thankful when you offer up your prayers to God.
God bless.
Sunday 6 October 2013
Faith as a grain of mustard seed
The Synoptic Gospels mention "mustard seed" in only 5 occasions. All three report the parable of the mustard seed which says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed which begins small but will develop into a great tree (Matthew 13:31-32, Mark 4:31-32, Luke 13:19). The remaining two mention the power of faith. If you have the faith as a grain of mustard seed, you would be able to uproot a mountain (Matthew 17:20) or a sycamine tree (Luke 17:6). Naturally, you may ask what Jesus had actually said, mountain or tree, or both.
The Synoptic Gospels report similar events but they differ in details. For example, a woman anointed Jesus with expensive ointment in the house of Simon. In Matthew and Mark, the woman anointed Jesus' head and Simon was a leper (Matthew 26, Mark 14). In Luke, the woman was sinful. She anointed Jesus' feet and Simon was a Pharisee (Luke 7) So, what had actually happened? We cannot know for sure. It is totally legitimate to speculate that Jesus had been anointed twice, once on the head and another at the feet. It is also possible that Jesus was anointed only once and Luke modified some details in the story to preach his message.
So, what about this saying about faith as a grain of mustard seed? As I teacher, I myself say the same thing in different occasions and make appropriate adjustments accordingly. Therefore, I speculate that Jesus has mentioned faith as a grain of mustard seed for more than once. There might be a mountain in sight in Matthew and a sycamine tree at the door in Luke. The message is the same. Faith is so powerful that even faith like a grain of mustard seed is enough to move mountains.
When we talk about moving mountains, there is a Chinese legend about a Foolish Old Man who decided to level two huge mountains which his house faced and which caused him inconvenience in moving around. A Wise Old Man came to tease him of the futility of wasting his remaining days of life to do the impossible. The Foolish Old Man refuted him, "Though I die, I have children who will give birth to generations of grandchildren without end. Yet, the mountains would not grow. So, why can't it be levelled?" The Wise Old Man did not know how to answer back. In the end, the Heavenly Lord was moved by his sincerity/faith「帝感其誠」and ordered two demigods to remove the mountains for the Foolish Old Man.《列子‧湯問篇》Ancient Chinese did not have faith in a personal God. However, the moral of this legend is clear. Our faith/sincerity is able to move the divinities in heavens. Miracles are possible when we have faith.
In the gospel reading today, we read of how the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith (Luke 17:5). When we read the whole context, we might find it puzzling. Previously, it seems to be a collection of unrelated sayings. Jesus talked about the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), the unfaithful steward, the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16). Then, Jesus warns against leading others to sin (17:1-2) and forgiving one's brother seven times in a day (17:3-4). Then suddenly, the apostle asked Jesus to increase their faith. In answering them, Jesus told them the power of faith as little as a mustard seed (17:6). After that, Jesus told the parable of "unworthy servant" (17:7-10). Now, what has faith to do with the preceding and subsequent parables and teachings? What doubts were there in the minds of the apostles so that they asked Jesus to increase their faith?
One possible source of doubt was the discrepancy between their Messianic hopes and the teachings of Jesus. Most of them would not expect the Messiah to forgive the sins of the aggressors, nor teach them to forgive their brothers. They would not expect a beggar to receive better treatment than a rich man in the kingdom. How could their future master praise an unfaithful steward? What kind of a new world it would it be, definitely not the one they expect it to be. They felt that they needed more faith if they still wanted to continue following Jesus.
It is good of Jesus to encourage them that faith as little as a grain of mustard seed is enough because like the mustard seed which will grow into a big tree, our faith in Christ will surely increase day by day when we serve Jesus like an unworthy servant (17:7-10). Don't be arrogant. Be humble. We are no more than unworthy servants doing our duties. Without Jesus' backing, we cannot achieve anything. So, put our faith in the Lord and see how things unfold. Then we will be able to repent, to avoid sins, to make the right choices and to forgive. It is puzzling because it sounds circular: we place our faith in the Lord in order to increase our faith! On a second thought, it makes sense. If you bet on a wrong horse, you lose money. If you bet on the right horse, your money will snowball (Matthew 13:12, Mark 4:25, Luke 8:18).
Dear Lord, You alone have the word of eternal life. Who else shall we go? (John 6:68) Amen.
The Synoptic Gospels report similar events but they differ in details. For example, a woman anointed Jesus with expensive ointment in the house of Simon. In Matthew and Mark, the woman anointed Jesus' head and Simon was a leper (Matthew 26, Mark 14). In Luke, the woman was sinful. She anointed Jesus' feet and Simon was a Pharisee (Luke 7) So, what had actually happened? We cannot know for sure. It is totally legitimate to speculate that Jesus had been anointed twice, once on the head and another at the feet. It is also possible that Jesus was anointed only once and Luke modified some details in the story to preach his message.
So, what about this saying about faith as a grain of mustard seed? As I teacher, I myself say the same thing in different occasions and make appropriate adjustments accordingly. Therefore, I speculate that Jesus has mentioned faith as a grain of mustard seed for more than once. There might be a mountain in sight in Matthew and a sycamine tree at the door in Luke. The message is the same. Faith is so powerful that even faith like a grain of mustard seed is enough to move mountains.
When we talk about moving mountains, there is a Chinese legend about a Foolish Old Man who decided to level two huge mountains which his house faced and which caused him inconvenience in moving around. A Wise Old Man came to tease him of the futility of wasting his remaining days of life to do the impossible. The Foolish Old Man refuted him, "Though I die, I have children who will give birth to generations of grandchildren without end. Yet, the mountains would not grow. So, why can't it be levelled?" The Wise Old Man did not know how to answer back. In the end, the Heavenly Lord was moved by his sincerity/faith「帝感其誠」and ordered two demigods to remove the mountains for the Foolish Old Man.《列子‧湯問篇》Ancient Chinese did not have faith in a personal God. However, the moral of this legend is clear. Our faith/sincerity is able to move the divinities in heavens. Miracles are possible when we have faith.
In the gospel reading today, we read of how the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith (Luke 17:5). When we read the whole context, we might find it puzzling. Previously, it seems to be a collection of unrelated sayings. Jesus talked about the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), the unfaithful steward, the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16). Then, Jesus warns against leading others to sin (17:1-2) and forgiving one's brother seven times in a day (17:3-4). Then suddenly, the apostle asked Jesus to increase their faith. In answering them, Jesus told them the power of faith as little as a mustard seed (17:6). After that, Jesus told the parable of "unworthy servant" (17:7-10). Now, what has faith to do with the preceding and subsequent parables and teachings? What doubts were there in the minds of the apostles so that they asked Jesus to increase their faith?
One possible source of doubt was the discrepancy between their Messianic hopes and the teachings of Jesus. Most of them would not expect the Messiah to forgive the sins of the aggressors, nor teach them to forgive their brothers. They would not expect a beggar to receive better treatment than a rich man in the kingdom. How could their future master praise an unfaithful steward? What kind of a new world it would it be, definitely not the one they expect it to be. They felt that they needed more faith if they still wanted to continue following Jesus.
It is good of Jesus to encourage them that faith as little as a grain of mustard seed is enough because like the mustard seed which will grow into a big tree, our faith in Christ will surely increase day by day when we serve Jesus like an unworthy servant (17:7-10). Don't be arrogant. Be humble. We are no more than unworthy servants doing our duties. Without Jesus' backing, we cannot achieve anything. So, put our faith in the Lord and see how things unfold. Then we will be able to repent, to avoid sins, to make the right choices and to forgive. It is puzzling because it sounds circular: we place our faith in the Lord in order to increase our faith! On a second thought, it makes sense. If you bet on a wrong horse, you lose money. If you bet on the right horse, your money will snowball (Matthew 13:12, Mark 4:25, Luke 8:18).
Dear Lord, You alone have the word of eternal life. Who else shall we go? (John 6:68) Amen.
Sunday 29 September 2013
To Opt for the Poor
Reversal of fortunes is one of the themes of Luke. It is beautifully sung within the Magnificat (Luke 1:51-53). It is plaintly narrated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus today (vv 16:19-31).
Fr. Milanese demonstrated once more his profund biblical training. First of all, he drew my attention to the anonymity of the rich man. While the poor beggar had a name, Lazarus, which means "God has helped", the rich man remains nameless. What kind of a world is the gospel talking about? Throughout our history and in our daily life today, only the rich and powerful are known. Today, we know of Li Kar Shing whose name will go down in the history of Hong Kong, if not world history. Who will bother and can afford to remember the poor, which are many? However, in the world of the gospel, the world of eternal life, the rich is nameless. We may draw whatever lesson that fits our purpose from this point. An obvious one is that the Church should opt for the poor. This agrees with the teaching of Matthew 25:40.
Never mind whether Hades is the same as Hell or part of it, the fact that the rich man landed in Hades while Lazarus in Abraham's bosom must be an act of justice on the part of God. Even if we don't want to put God into our equation, "eating the cake we bake" is definitely a reasonable kind of justice. Therefore, we cannot ignore the lesson of justice in this parable. In the Old Testament, the rich was justified to be rich because it was a blessing from God. The poor deserved to suffer. In this parable, the rich man had done nothing terribly evil, no murder, no adultery, no theft nor false witness etc. Moreover, there is still a bit of love in his heart. The rich man still cared about the fate of his brothers (vv 27-28). So, what kind of justice is Luke, or his community, advocating? Loving one's family members is not enough for Luke's community. It is our duty and is a minimum requirement. Love should be more inclusive and not loving the poor is evil. Not caring about the plights of the poor, the rich man develops a hardened heart. He did not even know himself. Taking the cue of burning thirst (v 24), Fr. Milanese suggests that perhaps the torment in Hades is to be a quest of one's true self. Lazarus has found his and rests comfortably in Abraham's bosom. The rich man has never known himself completely because he spent his life enjoying only good things.
In short, for the community of Luke, eternal life is a sort of "mirror image", a reversal of present day fortune. Being rich is not an evil thing as long as you make good use of your riches to help relieve the plights of the poor. The teaching of the gospel does not deny the morality of the Old Testament. No doubt, it is more sympathetic towards the poor and it wants to restore a certain kind of social justice.
Now, I would like to warn of a problem with the Chinese translation of Luke 16:25.
εἶπεν δὲ Ἀβραάμ Τέκνον μνήσθητι ὅτι ἀπέλαβες σὺ τὰ ἀγαθά σου ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου καὶ Λάζαρος ὁμοίως τὰ κακά νῦν δὲ ὅδε παρακαλεῖται σὺ δὲ ὀδυνᾶσαι
But Abraham said, "Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. (RSV)
亞巴郎說：孩子，你應記得你活著的時候，已享盡了你的福，而拉匝祿同樣也受盡了苦。現在，他在這裡受安慰，而你應受苦了。(思高聖經）
The Chinese translation adds an extra nuance into text: you have exhausted your blessings and Lazarus his sufferings. This translates fits well with the Chinese mentality. For example, superstitious Chinese never accept gifts in full, because "accepted in full受盡" sounds identical with "exhausted one's life span夀盡". They will return part of the gift or its equivalence. The way I see it, this translation will encourage charity in a negative manner. When there is a possibility of exhausting blessings, ways must be found to conserve and to increase the existing blessings. Abuse and corruption will result. You may accuse me of "slippery slope" thinking. Still, this is my worry and I am just pointing out the potential dangers.
Dear Lord, who can be truly rich without You? And You like to be found among the poor. Train us to recognize You in the poor we meet. Amen.
Monday 23 September 2013
Luke 16:10-12 is a hard nut to crack
The Unfaithful Steward parable was a hard nut to crack for many biblical scholars until David Landry and Ben May published their article "Honor Restored: New Light on the parable of Prudent Steward (Luke 16:1-8a)" in the Journal of Biblical Literature #119 number 2. These two authors interpreted the steward's action as a win-win situation for all three parties: the master, the debtors and the steward himself. In 2007, I commented in my valedictory speech that had these scholars known some Chinese history, they would not have had to spend nearly 4 decades to solve the puzzle. Today, when I meditated on the parable again, I discovered more puzzles to play with.
Structurally speaking, the parable finishes at 16:8 and 16:9-13 is an interpretation of the parable. However, verses 9-13 seem to be an after thought, an uneasy appendix that tries to build up an argument through association.
"And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.
He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest (unrighteous) in a very little is dishonest (unrighteous) also in much.
If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you the true riches?
And if you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?
No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:9-13)
The word "mammon" is an inclusio device to bracket out the text. The word "dishonest" in verse 10 is actually not a good translation. The Greek original is "unrighteous". So, the word "unrighteous" runs through verses 9 to 11 and "(not) faithful" from verses 10 to 12. That is to say, verses 9 to 12 form a rather coherent unit which is inserted between the end of the parable and verse 13. That explains why verse 13 looks like an odd, out of place appendix rather unrelated to the preceding verses. In fact, as far as the interpretation of the parable is concerned, verse 9 alone is enough. Making good use of the (unrighteous) money you have to help the needy, then, when money is of no more use in your life, i.e. at your death, your charity would win you a seat in heaven. Developing from this interpretation, we may conclude that one may choose either to make use of money to serve God, or to ignore God and become a slave of money. In short, the parable together with its interpretation are coherent even if we remove verses 10 to 12. So, what purpose does the inclusion of verses 10 to 12 serve?
Verse 10 seems to comment on the behaviour of the steward. It seems obvious that if one is (not) trustworthy in small matters, people will (not) trust him in big matters. However, such a reasoning is flawed. First of all, being trustworthy in small matters does not guarantee the same outcome in big matters. The person might not be capable enough to accomplish big things. He might fail you.
Secondly, there are people who do not bother to put up enough efforts to accomplish small things because those things are trivial. Failure to deliver in trivial things is not evident enough that they would fail in big things.
Thirdly, there are people who are not given the opportunity to show their capability so that they cannot be shown to be trustworthy even in small matters.
Lastly, this reasoning suggests that one must undergo tests of faithfulness in a proving ground, like Abraham, before they can be rewarded with God's grace. This reasoning makes theologians feel uneasy because grace is not earned through one's efforts but is given away by God in his pleasure.
The "dishonest (unrighteous)" in verse 10 is narrowed down into "not faithful", the "very little" into "unrighteous mammon" and the "much" into "true riches" in verse 11. In this way, verse 10 is transformed into a religious statement. If you are not faithful in handling money in this life, say not helping the needy, you will not be rewarded eternal life in heaven. This seems to agree with the teaching of Matthew 25. But then, Luke will be contradicting himself in the story of repentant thief who acknowledged Jesus on the cross. As of this writing, I do not have a satisfactory solution to this puzzle.
Verse 12 is puzzling in itself. If something is "your own", why will it be given you? So, it is something not yet of "your own". It will be given later in the future. However, a string is attached. You have to demonstrate that you are faithful in "that which is another's" in order to earn it. The smell of Pelagianism is in the air and makes theologians uneasy. Verses 10 to 12 are a hard nut to crack. Any suggestion?
Sweet Jesus, You humiliate me to teach me humility. I know I am unworthy. May Your faithfulness prevail. Amen.
Sunday 15 September 2013
Do we have enough moral strength to forgive?
The Prodigal Son is one of the most familiar and touching parables we know. New messages keep coming up when we meditate on it. The plot is simple. A father, who represents God and/or Jesus, has two sons. The elder son represents the self-righteous Pharisees and the younger son sinners. Jesus came to save us sinners. Yet, the Pharisees were unhappy because they were brought up into thinking that a righteous Jew should not mix with sinners (Psalm 1:1). Jesus’ mixing with sinners offended them, offended their sensitivity.
The Pharisees were no better than the public sinners of their days. St. Paul, himself a fervent Pharisee, knows it very well. However, their self-righteousness hindered them from recognizing their need of redemption. Jesus did not rub salt on their wounds. He told them three parables, hoping that they would accept God's invitation to repentance. He reassured them that God would be very happy to see sinners repent. Jesus stopped short of telling them directly that they were sinners. He understands human nature very well. He knows that the more you point out one's mistake, the stronger their denials.
Sibling rivalry is a major theme that runs through the Bible. It is also a true reflection of human history. Men fight against each other for the allocation of resources, be they food, water, money, status, power and the favour of the bosses. Luckily, the grace of our God is unlimited. We don't have to fight with each other to obtain it. The only person we need to rival is ourselves. The only obstacle that blocks us from obtaining God's grace is our own arrogance, our own self-righteousness. It is not easy to admit our own faults and weaknesses. We like to play the not-me game to protect our ego. It hurts to admit failures. No. It is not our fault. It is his. If it is not his, it must be the society's fault. It is never ours.
We tend to think that our sins offend God and God alone and therefore we only need to ask God to forgive our sins. Period. If we think in this way, we make use of God to soothe our ego. We can never reconcile with God if we do not reconcile with our brethren. Why? The parable of the Prodigal Son illustrates it well.
The elder son was angry with the apparent favouritism of the father and refused to enter the house. He put the blame on the father. It was the father's fault to raise up such an irresponsible wayward son. When the younger son had suffered enough and returned, the father did not mete out any punishment. On the contrary, the father embraced him and gave him the fattened calf! That was unfair. He was angry with both the father and the younger brother. The elder son even did not bother to ask, like Cain, whether he was his brother's keeper. Was he responsible for the sins of his younger brother?
The problem is very complicated because as an adult, a person is autonomous. He is solely responsible for his own choices and actions. This is true. However, as his brother's keeper, the elder son should at least attempt to talk the younger son out of dividing the family fortune. He has the responsibility to ensure the well-being of his younger brother. Therefore, if we do not reconcile with our brethren, we cannot achieve true reconciliation with God.
Father Martin Ip said very well this morning that many people are victims of structural sins. There are victims who bear the brunt of evil directly. However, even the perpetrators of evil are themselves victims of the situation. Their hands are forced to inflict evils on others. They have no choice. In many such loss-loss situations nowadays, both parties are victims. Usually, we are sympathetic towards the victims. But Jesus is sympathetic towards the perpetrators as well. That is why, Jesus reminds us in the Lord's Prayer that while we ask God to forgive our sins, we should also forgive our brethren. Elsewhere, he taught that we should forgive seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22). Forgiveness relieves us of heavy burdens in our conscience. It brings us true joy and real peace.
Dear Lord, grant us enough wisdom to recognize our own faults, enough courage to confess our weaknesses and enough strength to forgive those who hurt us. Amen.
Sunday 8 September 2013
憎惡父母
常年期第廿三主日（丙年）
主題：知罪蒙恩
聖經中有些章節，驟眼看來非常不近人情，叫人難以接受。尤其是向來強調「孝道」的中國人社會，會對這些令中國人尷尬的章節，避而不談。例如創世紀所記載的造女人，建立婚姻的故事，教人「離開父母，與妻子結合，二人成為一體」的一段，雖然個中有很深刻的道理，不竟是向中國人傳教的一大絆腳石。今天的福音教人做耶穌的門徒，要惱恨自己的父母，解釋起來的確困難重重。所以，我覺得做一個中國天主教徒是一個很大的挑戰，我們生活在兩個偉大的文化之間，我們有責任使耶穌的教訓在中國的文化土壤中，紥根成長，並把它昇華，將它基督化。
解釋任何經文，無論是中國的經典，抑或是聖經，最忌「斷章取義」，按文字的表面意思，望文生義，甚至穿鑿附會。解經須要看上下文的關係，看文字背後的文化背景。聖經的教訓是天主的教訓，是絕對不會互相矛盾的。「十誡」既然命令我們孝敬父母，福音又怎能同時要求我們離棄自己的父母，惱恨自己的父母呢？反過來說，福音既然要求我們惱恨父母，我們又如何既惱恨又孝敬父母呢？所以當中一定有更深層的意義，不可以按字面斷章取義地解釋。
創世紀的人物之中，以雅各伯最有人性。他既信頼天主，又能運用天生的聰明才智克服逆境；既欺騙孿生兄弟的長子名份和祝福，又用二十年的時間賺取本錢與兄弟和解。娶了兩個表妹，並生了十二個兒子，獲得天主的祝福。原來，以色列人的文學作品中，要表達對兩個妻子，子女等親人不同程度的愛護時，除了說「雅各伯愛辣黑耳甚於肋阿」之外，接著又說「肋阿被雅各伯憎惡」。
如果雅各伯真的憎惡肋阿，肋阿又怎樣可以為雅各伯生下六個兒子及一個女兒呢？所以，對親人的所謂「惱恨，憎惡」，是指愛得不夠多，不能與憎恨仇人，憎恨惡事同日而語。所以解經須要掌握經文的文學背景。
另外，「以經解經」亦都是一個可取的辦法。例如瑪竇福音也有與今天的福音同樣的記載，瑪竇的寫法是「誰愛父親或母親超過我，不配是我的；誰愛兒子或女兒子超過我，不配是我的。」（瑪10:37）瑪竇加上了自己的演繹，這樣寫令讀者更容易明白了。
既解決了「惱恨父母」的經文問題，讓我們回頭默想今天福音的教訓。今天的福音之中，最矚目的是三句「不能做我的門徒」。從經文的表面看，耶穌好像開出三個做他門徒的條件，不能滿足其中任何一個條件，都不能做他的門徒。愛親人多過愛耶穌的，不能做門徒；不背起自己的十字架的，不能做門徒；不捨棄一切所有的，不能做門徒。隨後，耶穌說了兩個籌算的比喻，教我們先籌算能否付出代價，才做他的門徒。耶穌真是這樣苛刻嗎？如果真是這樣，當今世上，恐怕祗有孤兒和乞丐纔能做耶穌的門徒了！
所以，讓我們試用「以經解經」的方法，看看耶穌的真正教訓是甚麽。
路加福音第四章記載了耶穌受魔鬼試探後，開始他的傳福音的任務。在安息日，他在會堂宣讀了依撒意亞先知有關默西亞的預言，作為他來到世上的任務的宣言。依撒意亞的預言這樣說：默西亞的任務是「向貧窮人傳報喜訊，向俘虜宣告釋放，向盲者宣告復明，使受壓迫者獲得自由。」當中並沒有一句要求那些窮人愛他多過愛父母，沒有一句要求那些盲人背十字架，沒有一句要求那些俘虜捨棄一切所有的。可見耶穌來到世界拯救世人，並無對人要求任何條件。
其實，當我們認識到自己的缺失，了解到自己的軟弱不足，感受到自己被罪惡奴役，陷於水深火熱，不能自拔的狀態時，我們接受並相信耶穌從天而降，死而復活救贖了我們。這生命是耶穌為我們爭取回來的，我們還有甚麽可以保留呢？以往我們因為罪性，可能出於利害關係去愛我們的親人，如今，我們愛得更真。以往我們會因為挫拆，病苦而盲目地埋怨，如今，我們樂意背起自己的十字架與耶穌一同救贖世界。這種再造之恩，我們就算傾家蕩產，亦難以為報。
可是，為何耶穌開出這三個條件呢？原來，當時耶穌在上耶路撒冷的途中，吸引了大批投機份子，以為耶穌是推翻羅馬帝國統治的「默西亞」，想跟隨耶穌去打天下。所以耶穌開出這三個條件，要他們反省自己是否知罪蒙恩。如果不是知罪蒙恩，而是想投機取巧，渾水摸魚，跟隨耶穌祗會浪費時間，白費心機。
各位，這個星期，讓我們默想，我們知罪嗎？上一次辦告解是幾時呢？我們蒙恩嗎？上一次感謝耶穌賞賜恩寵是幾時呢？我們跟隨耶穌，是否出於知罪蒙恩，抑或是渾水摸魚呢？
天主保祐。
23rd Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Know our sins and receive pardon
Superficially, some biblical passages are unreasonable and difficult to accept, especially for the Chinese communities which emphasize filial piety a lot. They will avoid mentioning some embarrassing passages. For example, in the story of making woman and establishing the institution of marriage, the Bible teaches a man to leave their parents, cleave to his wife and they become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Although the teaching is profound, the passage is a major stumbling block to evangelization among Chinese. Today, the gospel teaches us to hate our parents in order to become Jesus' disciples (Luke 14:26). It is truly difficult to explain. I always feel that it is a big challenge to be a Chinese Catholic. We live within two great cultures. We have the responsibility to make Jesus' teaching "incarnate" and grow in the Chinese soil, to sublime it, Christianize it.
Reading out of context is the most unforgivable mistake in the exegesis of sacred scriptures and Chinese classics. In a proper interpretation of scripture, the location of a piece of text and its relation with the preceding text and the text that follows has to be understood. We need to know the cultural background as well. The teachings of the Bible are the teachings of God. They can never be contradictory. Since the Ten Commandments order us to honour our parents, how can the gospel demands us to leave our parents and hate our parents? On the contrary, since the gospel requires us to hate our parents, how can we hate and honour our parents at the same time? Therefore, there must be some deeper meanings and we should not interpret the passage literally.
Among the personalities in Genesis, Jacob is the most human. He believes in God and makes use of his inborn wits to overcome adversities. He cheated his twin brother Esau of his birthright and blessing and yet, Jacob spent twenty prime years of his life to make enough money to reconcile with Esau. He marries two cousins who gave birth for him 12 sons. Jacob receives many blessings from God. From his story, we learn that Hebrew literature expresses different degrees of love in a peculiar way. Besides saying "Jacob loves Rachel more than Leah", the Bible immediately says that Leah was hated by Jacob (Genesis 29:30-31). Had Jacob truly hated Leah, how would Leah have given birth to six sons and one daughter for Jacob? Therefore "hating family members" means "not loving them enough". It is not the same as hating an enemy or hating evil. We need to understanding the cultural background in doing exegesis.
Furthermore, explaining the scripture with scriptures is also a helpful skill. For example, the gospel of Matthew also carries the same teaching found in today's gospel. Yet, Matthew puts it this way, "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37) Matthew's interpretation makes it easier for the readers to understand Jesus' intended teaching.
After untying the knot of "hating one's parents", let us meditate on the teaching of today's gospel. The most conspicuous elements in the gospel today are the three "whoever … cannot be my disciple." Superficially, Jesus laid down three criteria, failing anyone of which, one cannot be his disciple. Loving one's family members more than Jesus cannot be a disciple; not bearing one's cross cannot be a disciple; not renouncing all one has cannot be a disciple. To substantiate, Jesus told two parables, teaching us to count the cost before becoming his disciple. Were Jesus really so demanding? If he were, I am afraid only orphans and beggars could qualify.
So, let us try to explain the scripture with other scriptures to find out the real teaching of Jesus.
In Luke 4, after the temptation, Jesus began his public ministry. On the Sabbath he read Isaiah's prophecy about the Messiah to declare his Mission Statement on earth. According to the prophecy of Isaiah, the Messiah's mission is "to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to captives and recovering of sight to the blind and to set at liberty those who are oppressed." (Luke 4:18) In his Mission Statement, Jesus does not ask the poor to love him more than their parents, does not require the blind to bear their crosses, nor impose any demand on the captives to renounce all they have. Thus, when Jesus comes to save the world, he does not set up any condition for us to meet.
Indeed, when we know our faults, understand our weakness and inadequacies, feel the bondage of sin and discover that we land in hot troubles from which we cannot extract ourselves, we accept and believe that Jesus came down to die and to rise in order to save us. This life is earned for us by Christ, what else can we reserve for ourselves? In the past, because of our sinfulness and concupiscence, we love our family members out of advantages. Now, we truly love them. In the past, we are easily and blindly frustrated by our failures and sufferings. Now, we are willing to bear our crosses to save the world together with Jesus. We are not able to repay this grace of rebirth even with all our possessions.
But why then did Jesus lay down these three criteria? It was because Jesus was on his final trip to Jerusalem. He had attracted many opportunists who thought that Jesus was the Messiah to overthrow the Roman sovereignty over the Jews. They wanted to follow Jesus to make a fortune. Therefore, Jesus laid down these three criteria, forcing them to rethink whether they knew their sins and whether they were prepared to receive God's grace. If they did not undergo conversion but only wanted to make a fortune, they would be wasting their time and disappointed.
Dear brothers and sisters. This week, let us meditate if we know our sins. When did we last make our confession? Have we received God's grace? When was the last time we thanked Jesus for the grace we received? We are Jesus' disciples. Do we follow him because we know our sins and have received grace or do we follow him to make a fortune?
God bless.
Sunday 1 September 2013
Is humility a hypocrisy?
When a rich man donates money to help the needy anonymously, it is a good action. We admire such an action because there is no ulterior motive. An action must be judged together with the motive in order to determine if the action is good or bad. Therefore, I feel a bit uncomfortable when Jesus teaches us to take the lowest seat in order to be exalted.
"But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, go up higher'; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you." (Luke 14:10).
Taking the lowest seat is being humble, therefore it is laudable. However, Jesus seems to suggest an ulterior motive and thus spoils the whole noble virtue of humility, turning it into hypocrisy!
Before we consider the motive, let us look at the action of taking the lowest seat first. There are actually two possibilities. For simplicity, the gospel mentions only one of them. The host comes over to invite you to a higher place. However, it is possible that you have taken the right seat, the lowest seat! Then, you will stay where you are and go up no higher. Therefore, the prudent choice is to go to the lowest seat, then wait and see.
Now, we may turn to the motive and I suggest the following three, knowing that they are not exhaustive.
If your motive is to avoid embarrassment and take the lowest seat, you are being prudent.
If your motive is to expect exaltation and take the lowest seat, you might be disappointed.
If your motive is to enjoy being invited to the banquet and take the lowest seat, good of you. Being exalted will be a bonus.
Can you come up with any other motives of interest? Anyway, motive seems not to be crucial in this consideration.
Now, how shall we understand Jesus' teaching?
Luke summarizes Jesus' teaching in verse that follows. It deals with motives.
"For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 14:11)
If our motive is to expect exaltation and we take a place of honour (Luke 14:8), in most of the cases, we will be humiliated. Taking a place of honour is thus rather risky.
If our motive is to expect exaltation and we make the prudent choice of taking the lowest seat, we might stay where we are and disappointed. Even if the host comes to move us up a higher place, we might still be disappointed because we might not be satisfied with where we end up. It might not be as high a status as we expect. Therefore, the expectation of being exalted is never a good motive.
On the other hand, if our motive is humility. That is to say, we know our unworthiness and our lowly status. We are already honoured to be invited into the eschatological banquet. We would be very grateful to occupy a place in the heavenly court. What more shall we ask for? The Chair of St. Peter? No, I am not worthy even to receive the Lord into my heart. Any place in heaven will do for me, even the perimeter of the outer court. My heart is contented. There is no room for exaltation for me in my heart. Being invited is more than enough, more than I deserve.
Dear Lord, I am an unworthy servant. Being able to serve You is already an undeserved honour. Help me discharge my duties faithfully and truthfully. Amen.
"But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, go up higher'; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you." (Luke 14:10).
Taking the lowest seat is being humble, therefore it is laudable. However, Jesus seems to suggest an ulterior motive and thus spoils the whole noble virtue of humility, turning it into hypocrisy!
Before we consider the motive, let us look at the action of taking the lowest seat first. There are actually two possibilities. For simplicity, the gospel mentions only one of them. The host comes over to invite you to a higher place. However, it is possible that you have taken the right seat, the lowest seat! Then, you will stay where you are and go up no higher. Therefore, the prudent choice is to go to the lowest seat, then wait and see.
Now, we may turn to the motive and I suggest the following three, knowing that they are not exhaustive.
If your motive is to avoid embarrassment and take the lowest seat, you are being prudent.
If your motive is to expect exaltation and take the lowest seat, you might be disappointed.
If your motive is to enjoy being invited to the banquet and take the lowest seat, good of you. Being exalted will be a bonus.
Can you come up with any other motives of interest? Anyway, motive seems not to be crucial in this consideration.
Now, how shall we understand Jesus' teaching?
Luke summarizes Jesus' teaching in verse that follows. It deals with motives.
"For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 14:11)
If our motive is to expect exaltation and we take a place of honour (Luke 14:8), in most of the cases, we will be humiliated. Taking a place of honour is thus rather risky.
If our motive is to expect exaltation and we make the prudent choice of taking the lowest seat, we might stay where we are and disappointed. Even if the host comes to move us up a higher place, we might still be disappointed because we might not be satisfied with where we end up. It might not be as high a status as we expect. Therefore, the expectation of being exalted is never a good motive.
On the other hand, if our motive is humility. That is to say, we know our unworthiness and our lowly status. We are already honoured to be invited into the eschatological banquet. We would be very grateful to occupy a place in the heavenly court. What more shall we ask for? The Chair of St. Peter? No, I am not worthy even to receive the Lord into my heart. Any place in heaven will do for me, even the perimeter of the outer court. My heart is contented. There is no room for exaltation for me in my heart. Being invited is more than enough, more than I deserve.
Dear Lord, I am an unworthy servant. Being able to serve You is already an undeserved honour. Help me discharge my duties faithfully and truthfully. Amen.
Sunday 25 August 2013
Being kicked out of the Kingdom of God
Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem to accomplish the mission he was sent for. This journey begins in Luke 9:51. Somebody asked Jesus a seemingly stupid question.
"Lord, will those who are saved be few?" (Luke 13:23).
How should Jesus answer? Should Jesus tell him that everybody would be saved, such as 1 Timothy 2:4? Or should Jesus give him an exact number say 144,000 (Revelation 7:4)? These answers would lead to terrible consequences. If everybody would be saved, why bother? Christians would be complacent after baptism. They have acquired an admission ticket. If only a fixed number of people would be saved, a lot of struggles and fightings would result. Moreover, the Christian God is not good enough to believe in. That is the reason why I think the question is stupid.
However, we should not be discouraged from asking questions, no matter how stupid they seem. It is because learning to ask the right question will help us discover the truth. Jesus is a great teacher. He is able to make use of even stupid questions to show us the right way. He makes use of the opportunity opened up by stupid questions to tell us the truth. So, ask questions to clarify our doubts and misunderstandings!
When Jesus finished his Galilean ministry and began to turn to Jerusalem, his followers were afraid (Mark 10:32). Indeed, the person who raised the question did not want a number. He was worried and wanted some reassurance from Jesus. So, instead of giving them a definite answer, Jesus described how one could be saved.
"Strive to enter by the narrow door." (Luke 13:24)
Many scholars have offered many different interpretations on the meaning of "the narrow door". Fr. Milanese gave us a few such interpretations during his homily today. Some suggest that the narrow door refers to the front door of a sheepfold, the proper entry into the fold. In the gospel of John, Jesus said he is the door of the sheep (John 10:7). This makes sense because Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). So Jesus is actually saying that believing in him is the way to salvation.
Some suggest that only children can pass through a narrow door. So, this verse is another expression of Jesus' advice to receive the kingdom of God like a child (Mark 10:15) etc. These are very good interpretations because they agree with the teachings in other gospels. This is the meaning of analogy of faith.
Jesus concludes his teaching with a paradox.
"And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." (Luke 13:30)
This saying appears in all three Synoptic gospels. Therefore, this must be an authentic saying of Jesus. Traditionally, we interpret this saying to mean that since the Jews, to whom God had first revealed, rejected Jesus, they would come last in salvation whereas the Gentiles would take the place of the Jews in the kingdom of God. This interpretation has been popular because of an anti-Jewish mentality built up with the rise and acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire down through the ages. Christians feel comfortable and perhaps are happy with this interpretation. But such an interpretation is flawed.
First of all, they cannot ignore the Patriarchs and the prophets. Jesus explicitly names them in the kingdom of God.
"There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out." (Luke 13:28)
Worse still, those "you" will be "thrust out". It means they were once "in the kingdom of God"! Otherwise, how could they be kicked out? This understanding is supported by an earlier verse. They claimed that they ate and drank with Jesus Christ who had taught in their streets (Luke 13:26). What are they if not Christians who take part in their liturgy! Though they were baptized and have become Christians and obtained an admission ticket to the kingdom of God, they will be kicked out because they are "iniquity workers" (Luke 13:27). Christians, you cannot afford to be complacent!
Moreover, who will take their places in the kingdom of God?
"And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God." (Luke 13:29)
I would say, they are Buddhists, Confucians, Jews, Muslims and Shintoists etc. They are believers of other religions and even atheists who are "men of good will". They may not know or confess Christ but they lead their life according to their conscience which only God can judge.
Christians, can you afford to be complacent?
Dear Lord, allow me to work hard to enter by the narrow door. Amen.
"Lord, will those who are saved be few?" (Luke 13:23).
How should Jesus answer? Should Jesus tell him that everybody would be saved, such as 1 Timothy 2:4? Or should Jesus give him an exact number say 144,000 (Revelation 7:4)? These answers would lead to terrible consequences. If everybody would be saved, why bother? Christians would be complacent after baptism. They have acquired an admission ticket. If only a fixed number of people would be saved, a lot of struggles and fightings would result. Moreover, the Christian God is not good enough to believe in. That is the reason why I think the question is stupid.
However, we should not be discouraged from asking questions, no matter how stupid they seem. It is because learning to ask the right question will help us discover the truth. Jesus is a great teacher. He is able to make use of even stupid questions to show us the right way. He makes use of the opportunity opened up by stupid questions to tell us the truth. So, ask questions to clarify our doubts and misunderstandings!
When Jesus finished his Galilean ministry and began to turn to Jerusalem, his followers were afraid (Mark 10:32). Indeed, the person who raised the question did not want a number. He was worried and wanted some reassurance from Jesus. So, instead of giving them a definite answer, Jesus described how one could be saved.
"Strive to enter by the narrow door." (Luke 13:24)
Many scholars have offered many different interpretations on the meaning of "the narrow door". Fr. Milanese gave us a few such interpretations during his homily today. Some suggest that the narrow door refers to the front door of a sheepfold, the proper entry into the fold. In the gospel of John, Jesus said he is the door of the sheep (John 10:7). This makes sense because Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). So Jesus is actually saying that believing in him is the way to salvation.
Some suggest that only children can pass through a narrow door. So, this verse is another expression of Jesus' advice to receive the kingdom of God like a child (Mark 10:15) etc. These are very good interpretations because they agree with the teachings in other gospels. This is the meaning of analogy of faith.
Jesus concludes his teaching with a paradox.
"And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." (Luke 13:30)
This saying appears in all three Synoptic gospels. Therefore, this must be an authentic saying of Jesus. Traditionally, we interpret this saying to mean that since the Jews, to whom God had first revealed, rejected Jesus, they would come last in salvation whereas the Gentiles would take the place of the Jews in the kingdom of God. This interpretation has been popular because of an anti-Jewish mentality built up with the rise and acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire down through the ages. Christians feel comfortable and perhaps are happy with this interpretation. But such an interpretation is flawed.
First of all, they cannot ignore the Patriarchs and the prophets. Jesus explicitly names them in the kingdom of God.
"There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out." (Luke 13:28)
Worse still, those "you" will be "thrust out". It means they were once "in the kingdom of God"! Otherwise, how could they be kicked out? This understanding is supported by an earlier verse. They claimed that they ate and drank with Jesus Christ who had taught in their streets (Luke 13:26). What are they if not Christians who take part in their liturgy! Though they were baptized and have become Christians and obtained an admission ticket to the kingdom of God, they will be kicked out because they are "iniquity workers" (Luke 13:27). Christians, you cannot afford to be complacent!
Moreover, who will take their places in the kingdom of God?
"And men will come from east and west, and from north and south, and sit at table in the kingdom of God." (Luke 13:29)
I would say, they are Buddhists, Confucians, Jews, Muslims and Shintoists etc. They are believers of other religions and even atheists who are "men of good will". They may not know or confess Christ but they lead their life according to their conscience which only God can judge.
Christians, can you afford to be complacent?
Dear Lord, allow me to work hard to enter by the narrow door. Amen.
Sunday 18 August 2013
The Challenges of Gospel Messages
Unlike the propaganda of most human organizations, be they democratic or totalitarian governments, the canonical gospels are candid. While propaganda paints a rosy picture of the organizations concerned, some gospel messages can be disturbing. Today, we have a dose of it.
Indeed, most of the teachings of Jesus are very revolutionary. After two thousand years of evangelization, we have taken some of them for granted. For example, in ancient times, an action, say killing a person, in itself was enough to mete out the capital punishment. Today we pay more attention to the motives of the killing and make a difference between murder and homicide. Thanks to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5-7. We are more civilized and humane.
However, some teachings of Jesus definitely take longer time to, or even will never, be accepted. For example, in one of the parables, the master of the vineyard pays the same amount of wages no matter how short the labourers have worked in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15). Superficially, the action of the owner violates a basic principle of justice. Moreover, it is impracticable. Many biblical scholars have "satisfactorily" explained the meanings of this parable. However, most of them can only "explain" it away on the spiritual plane and never in the economic realm of our daily life in reality. Therefore, I am afraid this teaching of Jesus can never be whole-heartedly accepted by people. At most, they will pay lip-service to the wisdom of this spiritual truth. But this truth will not be able to "imbue" into their daily life and cannot be put into practice in our economic life today.
The reading today is challenging indeed. The first verse is a bit unexpected but is still acceptable. Jesus talks about his desire to cast "fire" upon the earth (Luke 12:49). It is acceptable because we know that by "fire", Jesus means the Holy Spirit. Indeed, on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues of fire on the 120 disciples (Acts 2:3). We can still swallow the next verse on "baptism" when we understand it to mean his Passion and Death. Remember in early days and even today, baptism takes the form of submersion in water. It signifies death and burial of the old self. When the baptized emerges from the water, it symbolizes vividly his resurrection. So, there is a "death" element in Christian baptism. So far so good.
The next three verses are really disturbing, unsettling and unforgivable.
"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three;
they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53)
Isn't the gospel message a message of love and peace? How can Jesus openly incite divisive actions among his followers? It is unforgivable because it attacks the basic building blocks of a society, the family.
If we draw such a conclusion, we have committed the mistake of reading the passage out of context. In order to have a proper understanding of this pericope, we need to read, at least, the whole Luke 12. Jesus wants to tell his disciples to stay alert. Don't be so naive as to think that people will welcome the gospel automatically. The gospel messages are revolutionary and will meet oppositions and even repressions from the traditional and deep-seated mentality. This is inevitable because the social institutions such as family, economy, culture and politics have proved to be workable for our lives for so long. People are blind to their weaknesses and even structural evils. The truth which Jesus teaches will inevitably clash with them and results in division.
Indeed, we are blind to many other divisive evils against the family institution nowadays. Think about the long working hours of parents. Think of the soaring divorce rate as a consequence. Who is truly divisive when God commands you to rest on Sabbath, when Jesus forbids divorce or when economic progresses today demand you to work overtime? I would say the gospel is telling the truth and is candid.
Dear Lord, help us face the truth squarely and kindle in us the same desires of Yours in our hearts. Amen.
Indeed, most of the teachings of Jesus are very revolutionary. After two thousand years of evangelization, we have taken some of them for granted. For example, in ancient times, an action, say killing a person, in itself was enough to mete out the capital punishment. Today we pay more attention to the motives of the killing and make a difference between murder and homicide. Thanks to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5-7. We are more civilized and humane.
However, some teachings of Jesus definitely take longer time to, or even will never, be accepted. For example, in one of the parables, the master of the vineyard pays the same amount of wages no matter how short the labourers have worked in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-15). Superficially, the action of the owner violates a basic principle of justice. Moreover, it is impracticable. Many biblical scholars have "satisfactorily" explained the meanings of this parable. However, most of them can only "explain" it away on the spiritual plane and never in the economic realm of our daily life in reality. Therefore, I am afraid this teaching of Jesus can never be whole-heartedly accepted by people. At most, they will pay lip-service to the wisdom of this spiritual truth. But this truth will not be able to "imbue" into their daily life and cannot be put into practice in our economic life today.
The reading today is challenging indeed. The first verse is a bit unexpected but is still acceptable. Jesus talks about his desire to cast "fire" upon the earth (Luke 12:49). It is acceptable because we know that by "fire", Jesus means the Holy Spirit. Indeed, on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues of fire on the 120 disciples (Acts 2:3). We can still swallow the next verse on "baptism" when we understand it to mean his Passion and Death. Remember in early days and even today, baptism takes the form of submersion in water. It signifies death and burial of the old self. When the baptized emerges from the water, it symbolizes vividly his resurrection. So, there is a "death" element in Christian baptism. So far so good.
The next three verses are really disturbing, unsettling and unforgivable.
"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three;
they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53)
Isn't the gospel message a message of love and peace? How can Jesus openly incite divisive actions among his followers? It is unforgivable because it attacks the basic building blocks of a society, the family.
If we draw such a conclusion, we have committed the mistake of reading the passage out of context. In order to have a proper understanding of this pericope, we need to read, at least, the whole Luke 12. Jesus wants to tell his disciples to stay alert. Don't be so naive as to think that people will welcome the gospel automatically. The gospel messages are revolutionary and will meet oppositions and even repressions from the traditional and deep-seated mentality. This is inevitable because the social institutions such as family, economy, culture and politics have proved to be workable for our lives for so long. People are blind to their weaknesses and even structural evils. The truth which Jesus teaches will inevitably clash with them and results in division.
Indeed, we are blind to many other divisive evils against the family institution nowadays. Think about the long working hours of parents. Think of the soaring divorce rate as a consequence. Who is truly divisive when God commands you to rest on Sabbath, when Jesus forbids divorce or when economic progresses today demand you to work overtime? I would say the gospel is telling the truth and is candid.
Dear Lord, help us face the truth squarely and kindle in us the same desires of Yours in our hearts. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)