Let me state my beliefs.
First of all, I believe in a God of freedom. God is free in doing whatever emerges in His mind. When God created men in His image, God took a certain risk but it was worthwhile. Man is like God in many ways, e.g. his creativity and his freedom. Freedom is important in at least two ways. One, with freedom, man is able to fully develop his potentials. Two, man is responsible for the choices he freely makes. Therefore, a political system that promotes or permits freedom is beneficial for men. Democracy is not a perfect political system. It has its flaws but it is relatively better than other repressive totalitarian systems.
Secondly, I believe in a God who cares about His creatures, especially mankind. The God I believe in actively involves Himself in human history. God is the true master behind human history. It is His intention to help the poor and the oppressed and God is powerful enough to transform evil and sufferings into blessings. Without His permission, nothing can happen.
Thirdly, I do not fancy that the Communists would permit democracy for the political reform in Hong Kong, viz. allowing universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive. How can you expect democracy from the Communists when they lack democracy. It is something alien and they fear that their grip on power would be destroyed by democracy. The Communists would never let go of their power because they do not have confidence in the people they rule and they would not have any chance to make money when their power is gone. When there is no democracy, there is no balance and check on their tendency to abuse power for corruption.
After stating my basic beliefs, I would like to make the following observations.
First of all, the organizers of OC are academics. They are too idealistic and inexperienced in organizing people. Their logistic is poor. My ex-engineer brother teases them that these organizers have only told the protesters to bring along rain coat, water, digestives and goggles but have not arranged temporary toilet facilities for the protesters! Some people accused them of naivety. Their political reform proposal has been "hijacked" by radical democrats etc. Now, they were forced to start OC prematurely. The students told the OC organizers that they had given them a hope. Now that the students were provoked to turn their class boycott into something more radical. Where are you adults? What have you done to fight for a true universal suffrage etc. This movement was doomed to fail from the very beginning. Once started, it would soon be out of their control.
Secondly, many adults blame the organizers for exploiting the young people, making them as their front-line soldiers while they remain safely in their comfort zone. I think this accusation is unfair to our younger generation. I think the new DSE syllabus is good in that it provides Liberal Studies to train our students to build up their independent thinking and presentation skills. Our last batch of AL students felt threatened by their juniors who had studied Liberal Studies. When students from the old syllabus met their S.6 counterparts, they found that their juniors were more outspoken and confident. From this. I conclude that our young people can be more mature and independent in their thoughts than some of our adults. Thank you, Liberal Studies.
Thirdly, I would rather blame the government for such an eventuality. To handle such a volatile situation, the police should dissipate the emotion of the crowd, channel it elsewhere instead of blocking it and provoking it. They are playing with fire!
Which of the two sons did the will of the father? (Matthew 21:31) Who are the hypocrites and who have repented?
Dear Lord, send Your Archangels to protect the people and shine Your glory upon us. Amen.
Sunday 28 September 2014
Sunday 21 September 2014
Is God being unfair (II)?
Three years ago, September 18, it was also the 25th Ordinary Sunday, Year A. I wrote a blog entitled "Is God being unfair?" Today, I thank God for allowing me to write again on the same topic. So, I entitled it "Is God being unfair (II)?" and renamed the previous one "Is God being unfair (I)?".
It is a grace of God that I can continue to reason and write because no matter how talented one is (I am not), one's health can only go in one direction. When I was younger, I was aggressive. I wanted to win. I wanted to get things done brilliantly. At this moment, I have lost that kind of passion. It no longer matters whether I win or not win. I am entering the rank of senior citizens.
In the parable, God seems to be guilty of creating in the first batch of workers a reasonable expectation which turned out to be unreasonable. I would defend God, arguing that this expectation came from a shaky moral principle. From another perspective, God wants to cure them of a utilitarian mentality which is very prevalent nowadays in Hong Kong --- people deserve to be rewarded more when they work more. Many Hong Kong citizens condemn newly arrived Chinese immigrants for collecting Comprehensive Social Security Allowance. They argue that these immigrants have not contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. Therefore, these immigrants do not deserve the benefits. Moreover, they will drain away our precious resources etc. Unfortunately, many people buy this idea because they see their "benefits" being rubbed. They see the immigrants as rivals rather than family members. Aren't we all Chinese? No. mainlanders are Communists! My overseas readers will be amazed by the in-fighting among us Chinese. No wonder Chinese have been colonized for more than two hundred years.
To illustrate the teaching of the poverty beatitude (Matthew 5:3), Jesus teaches us to pray to the Heavenly Father for our daily bread (6:11). Yes, daily. We trust that God will provide. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow (6:34). There is no need to ask for a week's bread or a month's in advance. They will not be fresh anymore! In Jesus' time, a denarius is the wage of a day's labour, enough to feed a family. When the first batch of workers grumbled and wanted more, perhaps they wanted to save an extra denarius for tomorrow. That seems reasonable for most Hong Kong people. But perhaps they did not want to work the next day. Or they wanted a more secured retirement etc. In short, they felt insecure. They did not have faith in the owner, in God. In such case, nothing in the world would ever make them feel safe. God's providence is enough or rather more than enough to meet our needs because God is generous.
Some people were born lucky. They were talented and raised in well-off families with lucrative networks in the society. These people became successful early in their lives. People they met were less competent and less successful. Some might even losers throughout their lives. I am not suggesting categorizing people into different classes. Nor do I want to put the blame on the society for crimes people commit. Everybody is an image of God and like God we are free agents. We are free to make choices and we have to bear the consequences of our choices. This is our responsibility.
Since we live in a society, we expect fairness. We want a fair share of resources and opportunities. We don't want to be deprived of what is due us. Here lies the gap between God and men. God's righteousness is not man's justice. Righteousness for God is His salvation (various passages from Psalms and Isaiah). If God does not save us, it is for Him unrighteousness. For men, we want a fair share of rewards. So, God and man are speaking different languages here. So, when God calls us "friend" (Matthew 20:13), does God mean "friend" as we mean? Among the people called "friend" by God in Matthew, we have this unreasonable worker, an improperly prepared guest at the King's banquet (22:12) and lastly Judas (26:50).
What can we say? I am sure God wants to befriend us and to love us. Somehow, some people are more attracted by Him, some not. Some answer God's call early in their lives, some as late as at their last hour. This parable tells us not to be jealous of Jesus' generosity to one of the thieves who confessed Jesus' kingship while the other one cursed Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). The thief who cursed Jesus perhaps was harbouring an unreasonable expectation on Jesus like the first batch of workers. Therefore, the moral of this parable perhaps is to warn us of unreasonable expectations on God's reward. Trust Jesus. God will provide.
Dear Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Amen.
It is a grace of God that I can continue to reason and write because no matter how talented one is (I am not), one's health can only go in one direction. When I was younger, I was aggressive. I wanted to win. I wanted to get things done brilliantly. At this moment, I have lost that kind of passion. It no longer matters whether I win or not win. I am entering the rank of senior citizens.
In the parable, God seems to be guilty of creating in the first batch of workers a reasonable expectation which turned out to be unreasonable. I would defend God, arguing that this expectation came from a shaky moral principle. From another perspective, God wants to cure them of a utilitarian mentality which is very prevalent nowadays in Hong Kong --- people deserve to be rewarded more when they work more. Many Hong Kong citizens condemn newly arrived Chinese immigrants for collecting Comprehensive Social Security Allowance. They argue that these immigrants have not contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. Therefore, these immigrants do not deserve the benefits. Moreover, they will drain away our precious resources etc. Unfortunately, many people buy this idea because they see their "benefits" being rubbed. They see the immigrants as rivals rather than family members. Aren't we all Chinese? No. mainlanders are Communists! My overseas readers will be amazed by the in-fighting among us Chinese. No wonder Chinese have been colonized for more than two hundred years.
To illustrate the teaching of the poverty beatitude (Matthew 5:3), Jesus teaches us to pray to the Heavenly Father for our daily bread (6:11). Yes, daily. We trust that God will provide. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow (6:34). There is no need to ask for a week's bread or a month's in advance. They will not be fresh anymore! In Jesus' time, a denarius is the wage of a day's labour, enough to feed a family. When the first batch of workers grumbled and wanted more, perhaps they wanted to save an extra denarius for tomorrow. That seems reasonable for most Hong Kong people. But perhaps they did not want to work the next day. Or they wanted a more secured retirement etc. In short, they felt insecure. They did not have faith in the owner, in God. In such case, nothing in the world would ever make them feel safe. God's providence is enough or rather more than enough to meet our needs because God is generous.
Some people were born lucky. They were talented and raised in well-off families with lucrative networks in the society. These people became successful early in their lives. People they met were less competent and less successful. Some might even losers throughout their lives. I am not suggesting categorizing people into different classes. Nor do I want to put the blame on the society for crimes people commit. Everybody is an image of God and like God we are free agents. We are free to make choices and we have to bear the consequences of our choices. This is our responsibility.
Since we live in a society, we expect fairness. We want a fair share of resources and opportunities. We don't want to be deprived of what is due us. Here lies the gap between God and men. God's righteousness is not man's justice. Righteousness for God is His salvation (various passages from Psalms and Isaiah). If God does not save us, it is for Him unrighteousness. For men, we want a fair share of rewards. So, God and man are speaking different languages here. So, when God calls us "friend" (Matthew 20:13), does God mean "friend" as we mean? Among the people called "friend" by God in Matthew, we have this unreasonable worker, an improperly prepared guest at the King's banquet (22:12) and lastly Judas (26:50).
What can we say? I am sure God wants to befriend us and to love us. Somehow, some people are more attracted by Him, some not. Some answer God's call early in their lives, some as late as at their last hour. This parable tells us not to be jealous of Jesus' generosity to one of the thieves who confessed Jesus' kingship while the other one cursed Jesus (Luke 23:39-43). The thief who cursed Jesus perhaps was harbouring an unreasonable expectation on Jesus like the first batch of workers. Therefore, the moral of this parable perhaps is to warn us of unreasonable expectations on God's reward. Trust Jesus. God will provide.
Dear Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom. Amen.
Sunday 14 September 2014
光榮十字架與政改 To carry one’s own cross in the daily life
光榮十字聖架慶節
主題：在生活中背負自己的十字架
二千年前，聖保祿宗徒面對一個嚴峻的問題，而他的問題也是歷代基督徒要回答的問題：就是「基督徒憑甚麽可以令羅馬帝國的統治者，或者是當代的統治者，相信天主是存在的，天主是全能的，天主是美善的，天主特別對人類是慈愛的呢？」保祿是猶太人，猶太人深信梅瑟頒布的誡命是從天主來的，所以是最偉大的，最幫助他們得救的，最能指導他們如何過日常生活的。可是，保祿所愛護的誡命可以說服統治者嗎？如果這些誡命真是有效，猶太人為甚麽會亡國，會淪為羅馬殖民地呢？
你知道聖保祿的答案嗎？他的答案竟然是十字架。注意，在二千年前的羅馬帝國，十字架不單是令人聞風喪膽的死刑，而且還是對死囚極盡凌辱的能事。所以，用十字架令世人相信天主的全能，天主的慈愛，的確是匪夷所思。今天正值光榮十字架慶節，就讓我們默想十字架的奧妙。
【創世紀】用一個神話故事，表達人類生存的矛盾和罪惡的本質。人是按天主的肖像所造，具有天主的潛質。所以，人不甘心屈就在「受造物界」之中，不甘心祗是當大自然的管家(創1：26)。人類渴望與天主平起平坐，自己做天主。這就是人類生存的矛盾。【創世紀】再用「食禁果」的故事，說明罪惡的本質。罪不但令人懷疑天主對我們的慈愛，破壞了人與天主的關係，更進一步破壞人與人，人與大自然的和諧關係。原本是相稱的助手，反而成為推卸責任的替死鬼。罪惡帶來了痛苦，人要勞苦到汗流浹背纔有飯吃，女人和丈夫不能夠和諧地生活；而天主亦在迫不得已的情況下，引入死亡，暫時限制著罪惡的擴散。一個天主看了認為好的世界，一夜之間被罪惡污染成荊棘遍地的煉獄（創3）。但為長遠計，天主要想辦法徹底地消滅罪惡。天主是不會輕易放棄擁有祂的肖像的人類的。祂會不惜任何代價去拯救人類。這一個也就是天主的死穴，就是聖保祿後來所說的天主的愚妄、天主的懦弱。
罪惡的破壞力既有兩個向度，一個天主與人上下的向度，一個人與人橫面的向度；所以天主就決定以十字架，一個既縱且橫，令人聞風喪膽的刑具，來消滅罪惡，並償還一切罪債。其實十字架本身並沒有甚麽了不起的威力。配戴十字架並不能為你辟邪，不能為你擋刦，不能為你消災解難。十字架的威力來自天主的慈愛，來自釘在它上的耶穌基督。天主親身降生成人，為人頂罪，死在十字架上，償還一切罪債。再由死者中復活，徹底消滅死亡，賜予我們永生。今天第二篇讀經是聖保祿所寫的一首讚美耶穌基督的詩歌。當人類驕傲地想變成天主的時候，天主反而謙遜地空虛自己，取了奴僕的形體變成人。當人類不服從天主的命令時，耶穌反而服從至死，且死在十字架上。人類失敗之處，耶穌以人的身份幫助我們完成了（斐2：6-8）。
聖保祿很清楚明白宣講被釘的基督的困難。他曾經說過十字架為猶太人是絆腳石，為外邦人是愚妄。但他相信在聽眾之中總有蒙召的人。而為蒙召的人，十字架上的基督顯示了天主的德能，天主的智慧。聖保祿很肯定地說天主的愚妄總比人明智，天主的懦弱也總比人堅強（格前1：23-25）。
環看今天有關政改的爭論，基督徒逼不得已，不能置身事外，不能緘默。表面上，基督徒與當權者周旋，強弱懸殊，根本沒有招架之力。當雙方都抱著不是你死便是我亡，不能輸的心態，試問又怎會有好的結果呢？基督徒好像忘記了天主是歷史的主宰，是天主令埃及的法魯王心硬，令埃及的戰車在紅海全軍覆沒。我們忘記了耶穌基督與當權者周旋的榜樣，忘記了天主的愚妄，忘記了天主的懦弱，忘記了耶穌愛仇人的教訓，忘記了那些奉承主子的政客也有天主的肖像。
宣講是容易的，實踐纔顯出真功夫。宣講十字架的道理有怎麽難，難就難在實踐十字架的道理。耶穌曾教訓門徒說：「誰若願意跟隨我，該棄絕自己，背著自己的十字架，跟隨我。」（谷8：34）你和我有各自的十字架，各有各與天主、與人的關係上的困難。我們會因事業上的挫折、疾病和種種不幸怨限天主，懷疑天主；我會因人與人之間的恩恩怨怨而忿恨、執著、鬱鬱不得志。耶穌教我們用神貧、哀慟，溫良、飢渴慕義（即渴求天主的救恩）作為待人接物的態度；以憐憫（即寬恕仇人）、心裡潔淨（即目標專一，不會看風駛艃，知不可為而為）、締造和平（即修和），最後為義而忍受迫害作為在世建設天國的奮鬥目標，生活出基督徒作為地上的鹽與世界之光的使命呢。耶穌應許我們獲得天國，獲得天主的安慰，承受土地，獲得天主的憐憫寬恕，享見天主，成為天主的子女。我們輸得起嗎？我們可以接受政改失敗嗎？我們可以放下執著，設身處地體會當權者內心的恐懼嗎？
今天我們慶祝光榮十字架，因為它戰勝了人間的罪惡。讓十字架的道理，真福八端的生活取向，幫助我們認清在政改問題上、醫療、住屋、全民退保等民生問題上、社會公義問題上、國際販賣人口、恐怖主義等問題上，天主的旨意是甚麽。讓我們謙遜地服從天父的聖意。亞孟。天主保佑。
Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Theme: To carry one’s own cross in the daily life
Two thousand years ago, St. Paul had to handle a challenging problem which Christians of all generations likewise have to answer, “With what can Christians make the rulers of the state believe that God exists, that God is almighty and good and that God is merciful to mankind in particular?” Paul was a Jew and Jews believed that the commandments they lived by were given by God, were the best and helped them attain salvation and guided them in their daily life. However, would these commandments convince the state rulers? Obviously not. Had these commandments been effective, the Jews would not have been conquered and Judaea had become a Roman colony.
Do you know the solution of Paul? The Cross! Notice that 2000 years ago, crucifixion was not only a torture that scared people to death, the cross was also a public display of shame on the part of the condemned. So, making use of the cross to convince people of the omnipotence and mercy of God was mind-boggling. Today is the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. Let us meditate the mystery of the cross.
It all began with the myth of the Creation of mankind in Genesis. The myth expresses the existential contradictions of mankind and the nature of sins. According to Genesis, man was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26). Man has God’s potentials. Therefore, man was reluctant to remain in the realm of creatures. Man felt unfulfilled to be the steward of the universe only. Man desired to be equal to God, to take the place of God. These are the existential contradictions of human existence. Genesis 3 continues to tell the myth of the Forbidden Fruit to articulate the nature of sins. Sins cast a shadow of doubt over God’s love for mankind, thus soured the relationship between God and men. Furthermore, sins destroyed the harmonious relations among men and between man and the universe. The fit helper God made for man had turned into a scapegoat for blame. Sins brought in sufferings. Man had to labour until his face sweat before he could eat. Woman and her husband could not lead a harmonious life. God had no choice but to bring in death to contain the spread of sins. A world which God had seen to be good turned into a hell of thorns overnight. In the long run, God had to think of a way to destroy evil completely. God would not easily abandon mankind who possess His image. God would redeem mankind at all costs. This is the Achilles’ heel of God. This is also what subsequently Paul called the foolishness of God, the weakness of God.
The destructiveness of sins has two dimensions, a vertical one between God and men and a horizontal one between man and his fellow men. Therefore, God decided to use a dreadful cross, which is made of a vertical as well as a horizontal bars, to destroy evil and to repay all its prices. As a matter of fact, the cross has no miraculous power in itself. Wearing it would not ward off demons, nor unlucky events. The power of the cross comes from the love of God, from Jesus Christ who was crucified on it. God incarnated to become a man, to die for mankind on the cross to repay all the prices. Then he came back to life to annihilate death completely and to give us eternal life. The second reading today is a hymn St. Paul wrote in praise of Jesus Christ. When man arrogantly wanted to play God, God humbly emptied Himself, took the image of a slave to become man. When man disobeyed God, Jesus obeyed unto death, even death on a cross. What man has failed, Jesus accomplishes as a man (Philippians 2:6-8).
St. Paul understood clearly the difficulty of proclaiming the crucified Christ. Once he said that to the Jews, the crucified Christ is a stumbling block and to Gentiles, a folly. But he believed that among his audience, there had to be someone called and elected. For the called, the crucified Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. St. Paul firmly believed that the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1Corinthians 1:23-25)
Take a look at the political reform controversy today. Reluctantly Christians could not stay out of the issue, could not remain reticent. On the surface, Christians are on the losing side of the engagement with the rulers of the state. They do not have the power and the resources. But when both sides are locked into a mortal combat with a mind that refuses to lose, what good can come out? Christians, have you forgotten that your God is the master of human history? It was He who hardened Pharaoh’s heart and consequently annihilated all his chariots in the Red Sea. Have you forgotten how Jesus engaged with the Jewish and Roman authorities during his Passion, forgotten the foolishness and weakness of God, forgotten Jesus’ teaching to love your enemies and forgotten the image of God in those political shoe-shiners?
Words are easier said than done. Living the truth is what makes a Christian true. Proclamation of the truth of the cross is not difficult. What is difficult is to put it into practice. Jesus said to his disciple, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Mark 8:34) You and me have our own crosses, all kind of difficulties in the relations with God and with men. We would doubt God, curse God for frustrations in career, for sicknesses and all sorts of misfortunes. We would be angry, would refuse to let go and would lose hope in all sorts of inter-personal estrangements. Jesus taught us to be poor in spirit, be mournful, be meek and hungry for God’s justice, i.e. God’s salvation, as our attitudes in inter-personal interactions; to show mercy, (i.e. to forgive your enemy), to be pure in heart, (i.e. will not be easily swayed by circumstances and give up, to persist despite slim chances), to make peace (i.e. to reconcile), and at last to be persecuted for building the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, to live up the Christians mission as the salt on earth and the light of the world. Jesus has promised us the Kingdom of Heaven, the consolation from God, the inheritance of land, the forgiveness of God, the beatific vision of God and sonship of God. Can we afford to lose? Can we accept the failure of political reform? Can we put down our insistence and put ourselves in the shoes of state rulers to feel their fears?
We celebrate the Exaltation of the Holy Cross today because it has conquered the evils on earth. Let the truth of the cross, the option of the Beatitudes help us discern the will of God in political reform, in medicine, housing, universal pension, social justice, international human trafficking and terrorism etc. Let us humbly submit to the will of the Father. Amen.
God bless.
Sunday 7 September 2014
Forgiveness within the Church
Before we proceed to deal with the theme of the three readings today, let me settle a curious detail --- the order of the Ten Commandments. Nowadays, the order we know goes like this: ... thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shall not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, thou shalt not covet ... etc. (Exodus 20:13-17, Deuteronomy 5:17-21). Even between Exodus and Deuteronomy, there is a variation between Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:21. Even here, it is difficult to defend the position that Moses wrote the whole of Torah. If he did, he must have been a rather poor proofreader because it is easy to spot inconsistent texts within the Pentateuch.
I have to confess that despise teaching the gospel of Mark for more than 35 years, I allow an instance of inconsistency to tease me right under my nose for so many years without noticing it! I discovered it only last night and it was rather indirect. The offending verse came from Romans 13:9. Suddenly, I noticed that the Pharisaic Paul wrote adultery, kill, steal, false witness and covet. Why? Was there any significance?
Then it dawned to me that there are also similar lists of the Ten Commandments in the gospels (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 and Matthew 19:18). Like Paul who wrote to Gentiles, Mark and Luke began with "adultery". Matthew begins with "kill". The discrepancy can be traced to LXX. In the Greek translation of Exodus and Deuteronomy, "adultery" goes before "kill"! Again, Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, not just in the explanation of Sabbath, but also the order of the commandments. Exodus goes like this: adultery, steal, kill, false witness, covet ...
Deuteronomy: adultery, kill, steal, false witness, covet ...
Therefore, the authors of the New Testament followed the order of Deuteronomy, except for Matthew who wrote for Jewish Christians.
The logical follow-up question to ask is why LXX translated the Ten Commandments in an order different from the Hebrew text such as MT? This is an interesting project which this limited space cannot contain. I had better return to the main theme of the three Sunday readings.
Ezekiel 33:8-9 make it the duty of believers to warn their brothers of God's punishments for the wrong things they are doing. If we evade this duty or tell a white lie out of embarrassment, God will hold us responsible for the blood of our brothers. Our duty is communal, like the duty of a watchman warning the people of the approach of enemies (vv.33:2-6). This is the basis for the teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.
In his homily, Deacon Tsang brought our attention to a similar passage in Luke 17:3-4. The treatments of the issue are totally different. Luke took forgiveness personally while Matthew communally. Matthew's approach is the same as Ezekiel's. It is for the good of the community that we reconcile. Like what Paul teaches in the Romans, love fulfills all commandments. So, it should be out of love that we reconcile. We reconcile for the good of our brothers.
In reality, our brothers may be stubborn and irreconcilable. So, Matthew outlines the procedure of reconciliation. Assuming that you are on the right side and your brother "sins against you". If you are on the wrong side, of course you should be the one to apologize. But I don't think Matthew intends to talk about personal grudges. If it were and you brought the Church in to fight on your side against your brother, it would be an abuse of church authority. You outnumber your brother with the Church. God forbids! Of course, every believer should be a peacemaker, an ambassador of reconciliation and the Church as a whole should also work as a peacemaker and ambassador of reconciliation in the world. There is no doubt about it.
If the whole issue escalates to the Church level, it must be something about faith and morality. The teaching of the Church, the Magisterium has the final say. Does "treating him as a Gentile and tax-collector (v.18:17)" mean excommunication? Not quite. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector before following Jesus and Gentiles were targets of evangelization. Excommunication is out-of-fashion nowadays. We should keep the dialogue open. A day will come for our reconciliation.
Another line of argument against understanding the conflict on the personal level comes from v.18:18. In v.16:19, Simon Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose. Without v.18:18, Peter's personal power is absolute. With v.18:18, the authority to forgive is also shared by the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the whole text on the personal level, Though it is understandable that if I forgive my brother, heaven forgives because God requires us to forgive, it is mind-boggling if I refuse to forgive, I am able to mobilize the heavenly court to bind my brother! How can it be possible? It is impossible, unless it is the Church. Verse 18:20 gives us the answer. Jesus is in our midst when we gather in his name. Then the Church is able to define her articles of faith and morality. A single person cannot form a community, a community of the redeemed, the Church.
Dear Jesus, I am sorry for all the controversies and division among us. I am sorry for my arrogance and pride. Forgive me for I have offend my brethren with my arrogance and if I have become the cause of divisions, cut me short. Amen.
I have to confess that despise teaching the gospel of Mark for more than 35 years, I allow an instance of inconsistency to tease me right under my nose for so many years without noticing it! I discovered it only last night and it was rather indirect. The offending verse came from Romans 13:9. Suddenly, I noticed that the Pharisaic Paul wrote adultery, kill, steal, false witness and covet. Why? Was there any significance?
Then it dawned to me that there are also similar lists of the Ten Commandments in the gospels (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20 and Matthew 19:18). Like Paul who wrote to Gentiles, Mark and Luke began with "adultery". Matthew begins with "kill". The discrepancy can be traced to LXX. In the Greek translation of Exodus and Deuteronomy, "adultery" goes before "kill"! Again, Exodus and Deuteronomy differ, not just in the explanation of Sabbath, but also the order of the commandments. Exodus goes like this: adultery, steal, kill, false witness, covet ...
Deuteronomy: adultery, kill, steal, false witness, covet ...
Therefore, the authors of the New Testament followed the order of Deuteronomy, except for Matthew who wrote for Jewish Christians.
The logical follow-up question to ask is why LXX translated the Ten Commandments in an order different from the Hebrew text such as MT? This is an interesting project which this limited space cannot contain. I had better return to the main theme of the three Sunday readings.
Ezekiel 33:8-9 make it the duty of believers to warn their brothers of God's punishments for the wrong things they are doing. If we evade this duty or tell a white lie out of embarrassment, God will hold us responsible for the blood of our brothers. Our duty is communal, like the duty of a watchman warning the people of the approach of enemies (vv.33:2-6). This is the basis for the teaching in Matthew 18:15-17.
In his homily, Deacon Tsang brought our attention to a similar passage in Luke 17:3-4. The treatments of the issue are totally different. Luke took forgiveness personally while Matthew communally. Matthew's approach is the same as Ezekiel's. It is for the good of the community that we reconcile. Like what Paul teaches in the Romans, love fulfills all commandments. So, it should be out of love that we reconcile. We reconcile for the good of our brothers.
In reality, our brothers may be stubborn and irreconcilable. So, Matthew outlines the procedure of reconciliation. Assuming that you are on the right side and your brother "sins against you". If you are on the wrong side, of course you should be the one to apologize. But I don't think Matthew intends to talk about personal grudges. If it were and you brought the Church in to fight on your side against your brother, it would be an abuse of church authority. You outnumber your brother with the Church. God forbids! Of course, every believer should be a peacemaker, an ambassador of reconciliation and the Church as a whole should also work as a peacemaker and ambassador of reconciliation in the world. There is no doubt about it.
If the whole issue escalates to the Church level, it must be something about faith and morality. The teaching of the Church, the Magisterium has the final say. Does "treating him as a Gentile and tax-collector (v.18:17)" mean excommunication? Not quite. Matthew himself had been a tax-collector before following Jesus and Gentiles were targets of evangelization. Excommunication is out-of-fashion nowadays. We should keep the dialogue open. A day will come for our reconciliation.
Another line of argument against understanding the conflict on the personal level comes from v.18:18. In v.16:19, Simon Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose. Without v.18:18, Peter's personal power is absolute. With v.18:18, the authority to forgive is also shared by the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to interpret the whole text on the personal level, Though it is understandable that if I forgive my brother, heaven forgives because God requires us to forgive, it is mind-boggling if I refuse to forgive, I am able to mobilize the heavenly court to bind my brother! How can it be possible? It is impossible, unless it is the Church. Verse 18:20 gives us the answer. Jesus is in our midst when we gather in his name. Then the Church is able to define her articles of faith and morality. A single person cannot form a community, a community of the redeemed, the Church.
Dear Jesus, I am sorry for all the controversies and division among us. I am sorry for my arrogance and pride. Forgive me for I have offend my brethren with my arrogance and if I have become the cause of divisions, cut me short. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)