服從就是投降嗎？ Is Obedience Surrender?

基督苦難主日，乙年
主題：服從就是投降嗎？

現代社會，強調個人的自主，鼓勵敢言的態度。可是，人從來不可以獨自生存。所以，獨立自主必須與公共利益配合。否則文明的社會，祇會變成是另一個「依法辦事」，弱肉強食的森林了！
天主為甚麼要用釘十字架這樣殘酷痛苦的方法，去拯救罪人呢？雖然保祿輕描淡寫地歌頌耶穌基督的謙卑，「他貶抑自己，聽命至死，且死在十字架上」（斐2:8），但長久以來，這仍然是一個令人困惑的課題。連身為天主子的耶穌基督，在山園祈禱的時候，就這一點，也曾掙扎過：「阿爸！父啊！一切為祢都可能：請給我免去這杯罷！」（谷14:36）。自主與服從的矛盾，沒有比耶穌基督的死更彰顯出來。我們不得不承認，以我們有限的受造物本性，是沒有可能明白當中的奧義。那麼，服從就是最好的辦法嗎？現代人的自主，是沒有價值，並不是一個進步的思想嗎？

有人會說，倘若我們不服從，不與天主合作，我們成為了別人進入天國的絆腳石，阻擋著天主的計劃，令天國不能順利開展。因此，服從是最好的辦法。但是，我要問，倘若我們不運用天主所賜予的理智，盲目服從，我們是否失職呢？福音告訴我們，即使人類是出於自私或者自大，天主也可以運用我們的惡事，來達成祂的旨意。例如奧古斯都凱撒的人口統計（路2:1），在不知不覺中，使救世主出生在白冷，應驗了先知的預言（瑪2:5-6），證明了天主的確是歷史的真正主宰。同樣，倘若群眾沒有期望默西亞驅逐羅馬帝國的統治、猶達斯沒有貪財、猶太權貴沒有嫉妒（若11:50）和比拉多沒有妥協，耶穌基督根本走不上十字架，比拉多也不會與黑落德安提帕和好（路23:12）。可見，天主並不會抹煞個人的自主，而是以高超的智慧，把所有人的所作所為，編織到祂的全盤大計之中。惟有尊重個人的自主，纔有追究倫理責任的可能。倘若張三不由自主地殺死李四，法官祇可以判張三誤殺，而不是謀殺！倘若人類沒有自主的能力，末日的審判就沒有意義了。

心理學家佛羅姆曾寫過一本書，名為《逃避自由》，分析二戰時，為甚麼部份德國納粹軍官，會做出那些滅絕人性的惡行。佛羅姆指出，自由自主可以是很令人不安的一回事。為了消除這份不安，很多人寧願放棄自由自主，臣服於極權之下！放棄了自主的服從，人不但逃避了自主的不安，更逃避了倫理後果。因為對於被迫的行為，人不用傷腦筋考慮行為是否利多於弊，不用理會良心的責備，不用負上倫理上的義務，並減輕了法律上的責任。但這樣做是有代價的，一方面個人會喪失了成長的機會；而另一方面，社會亦會陷入極權統治的境況！
出於自主的服從，是負責任的表現，所以是有價值的，因為你要動腦筋把事情做好。這個「好」不單是功利主義上的好，更要滿足倫理和真理的要求。

教宗方濟各在《以父親的心》宗座牧函中反省了大聖若瑟七個作為父親的特徵時，曾提及聖若瑟是一個「服從的父親」。這標題聽來矛盾，但實際上點出了人生的不少兩難。教宗以《瑪竇福音》記載聖若瑟的四個夢，與及《路加福音》記載他怎樣服從羅馬凱撒的人口統計要求，和猶太習俗的要求生活，指出聖若瑟是一個服從的榜樣。

表面上服從沒有甚麼大不了，事實上自主的服從，是與現實搏鬥，而不是逃避現實！以聖若瑟處理聖母瑪利亞未過門便懷孕的問題為例，倘若聖若瑟按法律做，揭發聖母，讓群眾用石頭砸死她，這是最省力的決定！這樣做，聖若瑟是不自主的服從了法律，他沒有任何道德義務，也沒有甚麼法律責任！他仍然是一個依法辦事的義人，但他缺乏愛心，和法利塞人一樣偽善，一樣冷血！當他出於愛心，「不願公開羞辱她，有意暗暗地休退她」（瑪1:19）時，他加入了自主元素，沒有盲目服從梅瑟法律，卻嘗試以愛德的法律精神，凌駕梅瑟的法律條文，這是一個進步。休妻祇要寫休書便可以，所付出的代價並不大，是一個很理想的選擇。但不知甚麼緣故，聖若瑟的心裡仍有莫名的掙扎！可能他在想，愛德真的是法律的精神嗎？愛德真的可以凌駕法律的條文嗎？當天使藉夢境啟示了天主的旨意，若瑟可以振振有辭地選擇不服從夢境的啟示，因為違反了行之有效的法律！但聖若瑟選擇了服從！教宗方濟各認為，聖若瑟「以服從去突破困局，並同時解救了瑪利亞」。
的確，信仰不是「人民的鴉片」，並不走捷徑去解決問題。因為當聖若瑟自主地服從的時候，他「要睜開雙眼，面對現實，並為它接受個人的責任」！從這一天起，聖若瑟要傾全力地保護這個他不能親近的天主之母和來歷不明的天主子！佛羅姆在《逃避自由》一書指出的，是不健康的不自主服從。聖若瑟所展示的，是「願照你的話成就於我吧！」（路1:38），是「不要照我所願意的，而要照祢所願意的」（谷14:36），是有價值的自主性服從，是基督信仰的服從。自主與服從，沒有矛盾！

各位兄弟姊妹，服從好像是投降，其實並非如此；自主與服從，看來是矛盾的；但耶穌基督、聖母瑪利亞和大聖若瑟，聖家三口，給我們展示了自主的服從，是帶給世界救贖，帶給世界希望的行動。願聖神助祐我們，明辨天父的旨意，並自主地服從，讓天國可以臨現人間。
天主保祐！
2018年講道
圖片鳴謝：nationalshrine.org, fineartamerica.com

---

Passion Sunday, Year B
Theme: Is Obedience Surrender?

Modern society stresses autonomy and encourages assertiveness. But man is unable to exist alone. Thus, independence and autonomy must work hand in hand with the common good. Otherwise, a civilized society would only be another “might is right” jungle ruled by legal technicalities!
Why did God make use of such a cruel and painful crucifixion to redeem sinners? Although Paul has written a hymn singing praises to the humility of Jesus Christ, “He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:8), this remains a perplexing topic. Even the Son of God, Jesus Christ Himself has struggled over this during the Agony in the garden, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me.” (Mark 14:36) The contradiction between autonomy and obedience has never been more manifested than in the death of Jesus Christ. We cannot but acknowledge that with our finite creature nature, it is impossible for us to understand the mystery. Then, is obedience the best policy? Is the autonomy advocated in modern times worthless, not a progressive idea?

Some people may argue that if we don’t obey and don’t cooperate with God, we’ll become an obstacle to other people who want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, blocking God’s plan and hindering the expansion of the Kingdom. Therefore, obedience is the best policy. But I would ask, if we don’t make good use of the rationality given by God and obey blindly, aren’t we doing our jobs properly? The gospels tell us that even if men act out of selfishness or vanity, God is able to make use of our wickedness to do His will. For example, the census of Augustus Caesar (Luke 2:1) unintentionally made the Saviour be born in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling the prophecy (Matthew 2:5-6), showing that God is truly lording over human history. Similarly, had the Jews not anticipated the Messiah to expel Roman Imperialism, had Judas not been greedy, Jewish authority not been jealous (John 11:50) and Pilate not compromised, Jesus Christ would not have been able to go to the cross, Pilate and Herod would not have reconciled (Luke 23:12). Thus, God would never deny our autonomy. Instead, with unfathomable wisdom, He would weave all our actions and deeds into His grand plan. Only when personal autonomy is respected could it be possible to talk about moral accountability. Had Mr. X killed Mr. Y not out of autonomy, the judge would not have returned a murder verdict, but manslaughter! Had human beings lost their autonomy, the Last Judgment would have been meaningless.

Erich Fromm has written a book called “Escape from Freedom” to explore why Nazi commanders during World War II had committed such atrocities. Fromm opines that freedom and autonomy can be unsettling. In order to eliminate this anxiety, many people would rather abandon this freedom and autonomy and surrender to totalitarianism! Surrendering one’s autonomy, not only would men escape from the anxiety of autonomy, but also moral consequences. Since actions are carried out under duress, men don’t have to rack up their brains to do cost benefit analysis. They may ignore their conscience, don’t have to bear any moral obligation and their legal liabilities diminished. However, there is a price to pay. On one hand, personal growth disappears and on the other, the society will collapse into a totalitarian state! Obedience out of autonomy manifests a sense of responsibility. Thus it is worthy because you need to rack up your brain to get things done well. This goodness is not only a utilitarian goodness, but it must also meet the demands of morality and truth.

In his apostolic letter “Padris Corde”, Pope Francis reflects on the seven characteristics of the fatherhood of St. Joseph. He mentions that St. Joseph is “An Obedient Father” which sounds paradoxical. However, it points out many dilemmas in life. The Pope makes use of the four dreams in the gospel of Matthew and the demands of Roman census as well as the Jewish customs mentioned in the gospel of Luke to show that St. Joseph is an exemplar of obedience.
Superficially, obedience is no big deal but in fact, obedience out of autonomy is to engage with reality and not to escape from it! Take the example of how St. Joseph handled the problem of the BVM getting mysteriously pregnant before marriage. Had St. Joseph obeyed the Law, exposed the Virgin to shame so that the crowd might stone her to death, it would have been the most efficient decision. In this way, St. Joseph obeyed the Law, not out of autonomy. He incurred no moral obligation or legal responsibility! He remained a just man ruled by law. But he had no love. He would be as hypocritical and cold-blooded as the Pharisees! When he, out of love, “yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly” (Matthew 1:19) there was an element of autonomy. He did not follow the Mosaic laws blindly but attempted to override the letters of the law with the spirit of the law which is charity. This is a step forward. A Jew only needed to write a divorce letter to divorce his wife. It was not costly and thus a very ideal choice. But for some unknown reasons, there were inexplicable struggles in his hear! Perhaps he doubted if charity was really the spirit of the law, if charity could really override the letters of the law. When an angel revealed God’s will to him in a dream, Joseph had all the reasons not to obey the revelation in a dream because it went against the law which had been effective! However, St. Joseph chose to obey! Pope Francis says, “Obedience made it possible for him to surmount his difficulties and spare Mary.”
Indeed, religion is not the opium of the people. It is not a shortcut to solve problems. It is because when St. Joseph obeys out of autonomy he “confronted reality with open eyes and accepted personal responsibility for it”! From that day on, St. Joseph had to commit totally to the protection of the Mother of God whom he could not touch and the Son of God who came out of thin air! The obedience mentioned in Fromm’s book is an unhealthy obedience lacking autonomy. What St. Joseph manifests is the “May it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38), the “But not what I will but what you will” (Mark 14:36). It is a valuable obedience out of autonomy, the Christian obedience. Autonomy and obedience is not contradictory!

Brethren! Obedience looks like a surrender but in fact, it is not. Autonomy and obedience look contradictory but Jesus Christ, the BVM and St. Joseph, viz. the Holy Family has shown us that obedience out of autonomy brings redemption to the world. It is an action that gives the world hope. May the Holy Spirit help us discern the Father’s will. Let us obey out of autonomy to actualize the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.
God bless!

憐愛猶達斯 Have Compassion On Judas

四旬期第五主日，乙年
主題：憐愛猶達斯

這段沒有公開彌撒的日子，有很多慣常的工作都不能做，都生疏了，例如在彌撒中襄禮、講道和歌詠。於是趁不用在講壇上講道，每主日彌撒讀經的反省，可以毫無顧忌地試探神學的底線，可以想多一點福音的教訓與社會時事的關係…
甚麼是我的信仰呢？

第一，天主憐憫罪人，祂派遣聖子救贖世界，並沒有走捷徑，而是用釘十字架的方式。「當我從地上被舉起來時，便要吸引眾人來歸向我。」（若12:32）耶穌基督不但為了我這個罪人釘十字架，為我所關心愛護的人，也為傷害我的人和我不喜歡的人釘十字架。因此，我不能排斥那些我不喜歡的人，包括我的仇人。
第二，耶穌基督不單死在十字架上，祂以言以行，示範了祂的教訓。祂的教訓就是「你們該彼此相愛，如同我愛了你們。」（13:34）所以祂愛那個想盡辦法置祂於死地的大司祭、那些與他作對的法利塞人、宗教權貴、政治權貴…還包括猶達斯。作為耶穌基督的門徒，我也要愛那些對我不利的人。

耶穌憐愛罪人的例子俯拾皆是，例如在十字架上，祂求天父寬恕殺害祂的人（路23:34）。至於猶達斯，耶穌怎樣具體地憐愛他呢？
今天讀的福音章節的前段，講述耶穌復活拉匝祿之後，在伯達尼的晚宴上，拉匝祿的姊妹瑪利亞用香液敷抹耶穌的腳，並用自己的頭髮擦乾（若12:3）。看見這個情景，猶達斯表示不滿，覺得不如賣了香液，把所得的錢賙濟窮人（12:5）。可惜在若望的筆下，猶達斯「是個賊，掌管錢囊，常偷取其中所存放的」（12:6）。死無對證，我們不能排除若望的描述，感情用事，影響了描述的客觀性。但毫無疑問，他這樣寫，完全可以代表當時所有信徒對猶達斯的印象。與現代人不同，在當時，同情一個賣主求榮的叛徒，是一件不可想像的事！

但耶穌的反應呢？耶穌素來知道人心裡想甚麼（2:25），祂怎會不知道猶達斯的虛偽呢？但耶穌並沒有直斥其非，因為這樣做反而會激發猶達斯出賣他的決心。所以耶穌選擇婉轉地提醒猶達斯，「至於我，你們卻不常有」（12:8）。祂不說「你」，而是說「你們」，絕無針對性。耶穌既為瑪利亞辯護，又維護著猶達斯的自尊心。祂對所有的人，展示了「真福八端」中溫良的態度。
此外，按瑪竇福音的記載，耶穌在被捕的一刻，還稱呼猶達斯為朋友，對他說：「朋友，你來做的事，就做吧！」（瑪26:50）真奇怪，猶達斯還有甚麼事未做呢？他已口親耶穌，不是已經完成了任務嗎（26:48-49）？的確，出賣的任務是完成了，但猶達斯還沒有做的事，餘下兩件：退還三十塊銀錢，然後自殺！耶穌的話，好像鼓勵自己的隊員分頭行事，無論如何，也要徹底地完成來到世上的任務一樣！

可是，耶穌怎可以鼓勵他人自殺呢？豈不違反基本的倫理立場嗎？耶穌基督是天主子，雖然祂的行為是殉道的行為，與自殺無異，但祂死了可以復活。祂是生命的主宰，對於自己的生命，祂「有權捨掉它，也有權再取回它來」（若10:18）。但猶達斯不是天主子，沒有能力自我復活。鼓勵他去徹底完成任務，並不保證他「有權」復活。這「鼓勵」若不是為了一個高超的目的，不能滿足道德的要求，所以用「鼓勵」來理解這句經文，是有問題的！

且慢，耶穌基督的教訓，不是鼓勵我們「捨生取義」嗎？「愛惜自己性命的，必要喪失性命；在現世憎恨自己性命的，必要保存性命入於永生」（12:25）以功利主義的角度作長遠想，犧牲小我，完成大我是值得的。在造福大多數人的前題下，自殺是符合倫理的要求。可是，這祇是功利主義的立場，並不保證真的是符合倫理或真理的要求！而且，耶穌基督行事的模式，並不著意效益最大化。例如，倘若祂選擇過了安息日纔治病，如枯手人、胎生瞎子，既能解困，又避免了法利塞人的指摘，可謂兩全其美！但耶穌並沒有這樣做，可見耶穌不是功利主義者！不應採用功利主義解釋上述經文。

我們讀經不可以斷章取義。在之前的章節，耶穌談到「一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死了，仍祇是一粒；如果死了，纔結出許多子粒來。」（12:24）同樣，倘若以功利主義解釋，以一粒麥子比較許多子粒，恐怕又失去了耶穌基督的本意了。不如這樣考慮吧：「結出許多子粒」是潛質，祇有通過死亡，纔有機會發揮出來。沒有惡劣的環境，沒有失敗/死亡的磨練，這些潛質是發揮不來的。這就是「生於憂患，死於安樂」的正解。
我們很容易以「對比」的方式來解釋12章25節。但大家有沒有留意到「愛惜自己性命的」一句，並沒有冠之以「在現世」？所以前句後句是不對稱，不足以對比的。「愛惜自己性命的」是通用的，不但指現世，甚至包括永生！這樣的話，「必要喪失性命」不是結果，而是獲取永生的步驟！

那句「在現世憎恨自己生命的」，是否包括那些受情緒困擾而自殘的人呢？如果包括，那麼自殘，甚至自殺的人，可以「保存性命入於永生」嗎？
且讓我們退一步想。在正常的情況下，有誰願意自殘自殺呢？「因為從來沒有人恨過自己的肉身，反而培養撫育它」（弗5:29）誠然，很多時候，肉身是親近主的障礙，基督徒更情願出離肉身，與主同住（格後5:6-8）。但保祿對肉身的態度，絕對不是消極的，因為憑肉身，可以獲得工作的效果，對其他信徒是重要的（斐1:22-24）；肉身的受苦，甚至「補充基督的苦難所欠缺的」（哥1:24）。可見，這「在現世憎恨自己生命的」對基督徒的教訓，並不指需要心理輔導的自殘自殺，而是出於愛德的殉道精神！

各位兄弟姊妹，不要判斷猶達斯，也不必為猶達斯辯護，這樣做違反了與宗徒們的共融。若要辯護，主基督已經做了，不需要我們出手。倘若可以，學習怎樣憐愛猶達斯吧。
天主保祐！
2018年講道
圖片鳴謝：fineartamerica.com

---

Fifth Lent Sunday, Year B
Theme: Have Compassion On Judas

During these days without public masses, many of my routines have turned rusty, for example, assisting mass, delivering homilies and singing hymns etc. Taking the opportunity of not needing to deliver homilies on the pulpit, I may be able to test theological baselines and comment more on social issues in my weekly reflections on Sunday readings …
What do I believe in?

First of all, God is merciful towards sinners. He sent His Son to redeem the world, not taking any shortcut but through crucifixion. “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself” (John 12:32). Not only was Jesus Christ crucified for me, a sinner and those I love and care, but He was also crucified for those who do me harm and those I hate. Thus, I can’t reject those I don’t like, including my enemies.
Secondly, not only did Jesus die on the cross, He manifested His teaching through His words and deeds. His teaching is “Love one another as I have loved you” (13:34). Thus, He loved the High Priest who took every opportunity to kill Him, those Pharisees, religious heavyweights and politicians who opposed Him … including Judas. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I have to love those who threaten me.

There are many examples showing Jesus’ compassion on sinners. For example, He begged the Father to forgive those who killed Him (Luke 23:34). As for Judas, how did Jesus show compassion on him?
The passage before the one we read today talks about what happened to Jesus in a banquet at Bethany after raising Lazarus whose sister Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume and dried them with her hair (John 12:3). Seeing this, Judas complained why not selling the perfume and giving the proceeds to the poor (12:5). Unfortunately, John describes Judas as “a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions” (12:6). We have no evidence and cannot exclude the possibility that John’s emotion has coloured the objectivity of his narration. Without doubt, John’s narration represents the impression all contemporary believers had towards Judas. Unlike the modern, it was unthinkable for disciples at that time to sympathize a traitor!

But what was Jesus’ reaction? Jesus understands the human nature well (2:25). How could He fail to know the hypocrisy of Judas? But Jesus did not expose him point-blank because doing so would trigger his determination to betray Him. Thus Jesus chose to mildly remind Judas, “You do not always have me” (12:8). The “you” in Greek is plural, not singular. It was not directed against one person. On one hand, Jesus defended Mary. On the other, He defended Judas’ face. Jesus shows the Beatific meekness to all.
Moreover, according to the Matthean account, the moment Jesus was arrested, He still called Judas friend. Jesus says, “Friend, do what you have come for.” (Matthew 26:50) Isn’t it strange? What had Judas not done? He had already kissed Jesus, finishing his mission (26:48-49)! Indeed, the betrayal mission had done. But two more things needed to be done: to return the 30 silver coins and to commit suicide! Jesus’ words seem to encourage His team member to clean up what they were sent to accomplish on earth!

But how could Jesus encourage people to kill themselves? Doesn’t it go against basic morality? Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Although His martyrdom did not differ much from suicide, He was able to come back to life because He is the Author of Life. As for His own life, He has “power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.” (John 10:18) But Judas is not the Son of God. He does not have the power to take back his life. Encouraging him to thoroughly accomplish his mission does not guarantee that he has the power to resurrect. If this “encouragement” does not fulfil a noble course, it does not meet moral requirements. Thus it is problematic to interpret the text in terms of “encouragement”.

Wait! Doesn’t Jesus’ teaching encourage us to forsake our lives for the sake of righteousness? “Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.” (12:25) From a utilitarianism perspective, in the long run, there is more benefit than cost for altruistic sacrifice for a bigger cause. With the premise of contributing benefit to the majority, suicide (of the minority) meets moral requirements. But meeting the utilitarian requirements does not guarantee that it meets the requirements of morality and truth. Furthermore, the modus operandi of Jesus Christ does not maximize utility. For example, had He chosen to heal after Sabbath, like the man with a withered hand and the born bland, He would have done the best of both worlds, healing the sick without receiving complaints from the Pharisees. Yet, Jesus didn’t. He is not a utilitarian! We should not interpret the text from a utilitarian perspective.

We should also not read text out of context. Before this verse, Jesus says, “Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” (12:24) Again, if we take a utilitarian approach to interpret, comparing one grain with much fruit, I’m afraid we would miss Jesus’ intention. Why don’t we try to think along this line: “produces much fruit” is a potential. Only through death could this potential have the opportunity to manifest. Without adversity, without failures and death, this potential would have no chance to develop/manifest. This should be the proper understanding of “living in adversity and die in comfort”.
We’ll easily take a comparison approach to interpret verse 25 of chapter 12. But have you ever noticed that the “whoever loves his life” does not have the “in this world” tag? The two parts are not symmetric and does not guarantee a meaningful comparison. “Whoever loves his life” is universal. Not only does it refer to life in this world but it even includes eternal life! In this way, “loses it” is not a consequence but the procedure to attain eternal life!

Does the phrase “whoever hates his life in this world” include those who mutilate themselves under mental stresses? If it does, would self-mutilation and even suicide “preserve it for eternal life”?
Let’s take a step back and meditate. Under normal circumstances, who want to mutilate themselves or kill themselves? “For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it” (Ephesians 5:29). To be candid, most of the time, our flesh is an obstacle that prevents us from approaching the Lord. Christians would rather leave the body and go home to the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). But Paul’s attitude towards the body is absolutely not negative at all. Living in the flesh means fruitful labour and more necessary for the benefit of the faithful (Philippians 1:22-24). Sufferings in flesh would be filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. (Colossians 1:24) Thus, for Christians, this “whoever hates his life in this world” does not refer to self-mutilations which need counselling or to suicides but martyrdom out of love!

Brethren! Don’t judge Judas nor to defend him lest you breach the communion with the apostles. Had there been such a need to defend Judas, the Lord would have done it already. It’s none of your business. If you care, learn to have compassion on Judas.
God bless!

菁英主義 Elitism

四旬期喜樂主日，乙年
主題：菁英主義

在起初，基督信仰承受著不同的磨難，逐漸壯大起來。教會在享受和平的時候，反而變成腐敗。難道人真是賤骨頭，「生於憂患，死於安樂」嗎？
耶穌基督是猶太人，嚴格地說，第一代信徒全部都是猶太人。（雖然十字架下的羅馬百夫長曾經宣信，但福音沒有他跟隨主耶穌的紀錄。）猶太人相信惟一真神，基督徒卻相信一個木匠是天主子。因此在猶太人眼中，這些猶太人基督徒是分裂猶太教的叛徒，所以歸化前的保祿，熱切地掃蕩基督徒。
另一方面，在羅馬帝國眼中，這些拒絕向羅馬眾神獻祭的基督徒是「無神論者」，是戰敗和疫症的最佳「代罪羔羊」，可以把人民對統治者的忿怒，轉嫁到他們身上！蒙天主的護祐，基督徒以「家庭教會」、「地下教會」的形式，走過艱難的歲月，在君士坦丁凱撒統治時，終於可以享有宗教信仰的自由，不受干擾地公開表達他們的信仰。 基督徒在自由交換經驗的日子，發現了不少基本信條上的分歧。這些神學上分歧的觀點，各有擁護者，足以分裂教會！君士坦丁為了防範未然，在公元325年召開尼西亞大公會議。不錯，教會的大公會議是羅馬帝國的皇帝召開的。所以說「政教分離」的人，是生活在空中樓閣，不在人類的歷史中！當時教會急於處理的神學問題，就是「天主子是否天主」，即「三位一體」的問題！在牧民問題上，要決定「復活節」在哪一天。尚待處理的問題是如何接納教難時背教的信徒及神職人員問題…基督信仰開始系統化了。
不要以為問題可以斬釘截鐵地解決，因為有些分裂的思想，會陰魂不散，在往後的世代，以新的面貎出現！例如「白拉奇主義」。教宗方濟各在2018年發表的《你們要歡喜踴躍》宗座勸諭，便指出它是兩個「導致我們誤入歧途的錯誤成聖觀念」之一。它「以人為中心的內在論，但偽裝為天主教信仰的真理…專制式的菁英主義…」（GE#35）

「自食其力」無疑是一種美德，《箴言》以「腰纏萬貫」勸導人勤勞（箴12:27）；保祿宗徒傳福音時，亦堅持勤勞地操作，免得加重任何信徒的負擔（得前2:9；得後3:8），立下了令人肅然起敬的榜樣，天主肯定欣賞這種勤奮的態度。可是，在有關成義得救方面，人是沒有能力自救的。簡單地說，我們每個人祇有一條生命。試問那些殺死了超過一個人，令超過一個人殘廢的兇手，有甚麼能力償還他們的罪債呢？所以，我們的得救，是出於天主的恩寵，不是出自個人的努力。正如今天的第二篇讀經所說：「因為你們得救是由於恩寵，藉著信德，所以得救並不是出於你們自己，而是天主的恩惠；不是出於功行，免得有人自誇。」（弗2:8-9）可是，人始終念念不忘自己的努力，從興建巴貝耳塔（創11:4）到回頭的蕩子（路15:19），都希望以成就來肯定自己的地位；從禁食的爭論（谷2:18）到法利塞人與稅吏祈禱的比喻（路18:11-12），人始終喜歡以所做到的事，互相比較！因此，「白拉奇主義」便有市場了。在第五世紀，他們相信原罪並沒有完全傷害了人性，即使沒有恩寵，人憑意志和努力，也可以滿足天主要求我們所做的事，而天主絕不會要求我們做不可能的事。是聖奧思定駁斥了「白拉奇主義」的錯謬。但「白拉奇主義」是不會這樣輕易消失的，因為人歡喜互相比較，這就是教宗方濟各提及的「專制式的菁英主義」了。

曾幾何時，禮儀的改革讓信友可以更積極主動起參與彌撒。跟著，有不少的爭論出現了: 舉行彌撒時，應朝向東方，而且祭台上應該放一個十字架、念「天主經」的時候，教友不應模仿神父把雙手攤開、站著手領聖體對聖體不虔誠，對耶穌基督不敬、不應送聖體給離婚教友、應該把同性戀者拒諸門外、教會應該發聲明譴責暴力…這些基督徒「以自身的努力成義，並崇尚人性的意志和個人的能力…偏執法律，迷戀於社會和政治的得益，炫耀禮儀、教義或教會的威望，為管理具體事務的能力而自詡，為自我提升和自我實現的項目而著迷。」（GE#57）連神職人員也不能倖免！「白拉奇主義/菁英主義」並不是教會的專利，社會上、政治上俯拾皆是。上世紀政府公務員是大學畢業的社會精英，將來是「根正苗紅」的愛國人士。

「恩寵」與「善行」之間的爭論，並沒有因保祿和雅各伯的書信得到解決，聖奧思定也未能杜絕「白拉奇主義」，今天仍陰魂不散地，以神職主義、菁英主義、種族主義和白人優越主義等，在教會內和社會上揮之不去。很明顯，各執一端解決不了問題，平衡兩者纔是出路。即使不用雅各伯的名句：「信德沒有行為也是死的」（雅2:26），保祿根本沒有排除善行：「惟有以愛德行事的信德，纔算甚麼。」（迦5:6）很明顯，恩寵與善行，是走天國之路的兩條腿，缺一不可。因此，堅持「惟獨XX」是行不通的。況且，五個「惟獨」，已經不是「獨一無二」，豈不是自打嘴巴嗎？游手好閒，不與天主合作，恩寵祇會白費；沒有真理和愛，善行亦祇會變成「白拉奇主義/菁英主義」！

各位兄弟姊妹，今天是四旬期的「喜樂主日」。在這疫症全球肆虐，世界各地的民主遭受打壓的艱難時刻，有甚麼值得喜樂呢？
天父是慈悲的，祂不願看見罪人喪亡。但祂尊重祂賜給我們的自由意志，不會強迫我們相信耶穌基督，不會要求我們成為精英纔得救，這就是我們值得喜樂的原因之一。當我們相信祂派遣來到世上的聖子，遵行耶穌基督彼此相愛的誡命，守望相助，服務貧困的人，有能力帶給世界小許溫暖，這就是值得喜樂的原因之二。若望說：「審判就在於此：光明來到了世界，世人卻愛黑暗甚於光明…然而履行真理的，卻來就光明，為顯示出他的行為是在天主內完成的。」（若3:19，21）愛德的行為，合符真理，因為天主是愛；我們的善行是在天主內完成的，所以我們不受審判；這就是值得喜樂的原因之三。
喜樂吧，天主保祐！
2018年講道
圖片鳴謝：royalperspectives.com

---

Laetare Sunday, Year B
Theme: Elitism

In the beginning, Christianity grew amid various persecutions. When the Church had a taste of peace, she corrupted. Is humanity so irreparable that it lives in adversity and dies of comfort? Jesus Christ was a Jew. Strictly speaking, all the first generation disciples were Jews. (Although the Roman centurion proclaimed his faith under the cross, we do not find records of his following Jesus in the gospels.) Jews believed in one true God but Christians believed a carpenter to be the Son of God. Thus, in the eyes of Jews, these Jewish Christians were heretics. That was why before his conversion, Saul zealously persecuted Christians.
On the other hand, in the eyes of the Roman Empire, these Christians were atheists because they refused to offer sacrifice to the Roman deities. They were handy scapegoats for defeats and plagues. People in power could easily avert commoners’ anger and frustration towards rulers to Christians! Thanks to God’s protection, Christians were able to weather through those difficulties in the form of domestic churches and underground churches. At last, in the time of Constantine Caesar, Christians were able to enjoy religious freedom, expressing their faith in public without fear.
When they came together to freely exchange their experiences, they discovered many disagreements among basic articles of faith. Each of those divergent theological opinions had their own supporters, numerous enough to split the Church! To nib schism in the bud, Constantine convened the Nicaea Council in 325 A.D. Yes, the ecumenical council was convened by the Roman Emperor. Those who insist on the separation between state and religion are living in castles in the air and not in human history! The urgent theological business to handle is the question whether the Son of God is God, the Trinity problem! On the pastoral side, they needed to decide the date of Easter. Business on the pipeline was how to deal with apostate believers and clergy who wanted to return to the Church … Christianity began to systematize.
Nothing can be more wrong if we think that these controversies could be settled once and for all. Indeed, these heresies keep coming back in subsequent generations in new disguises! For example, Pelagianism. In his apostolic exhortation “Gaudete et Exultate” issued in 2018, Pope Francis pointed out that it is one of the “two false forms of holiness that can lead us astray”. They “reflect an anthropocentric immanentism disguised as Catholic truth … a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism” (GE#35).

“Enjoying what your hands provide” is without any doubt a virtue. The Book of Proverbs uses “splendid wealth” to advocate the virtue of diligence (Proverbs 12:27). Paul insisted on working night and day while at the same time proclaiming the gospel so as not to burden any of the disciples (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). He set up a respectable exemplar. God definitely likes this diligent attitude. However, in matters of justification and salvation, men are unable to save themselves. Simply put, we have only one life. How can a murderer who kills or maims more than one person repay his debts? Thus, our salvation comes from God’s grace, not our own efforts. From the second reading today, we have, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) But how can men forget their labour? From the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:4) to the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:19), men want to affirm their status with their achievements. From the controversy over fasting (Mark 2:18) to the parable of the Pharisee and Publican (Luke 18:11-12), men want to compare their achievements! Thus, Pelagianism has its market. In the fifth century, they believed that the Original Sin had not damaged the human nature. Even without grace, men were able to satisfy God’s demand with their own will and efforts. After all, God would not demand the impossible. St. Augustine refuted Pelagianism. But it refuses to die away easily because men like to compare. This is the authoritarian elitism which Pope Francis mentioned above.

Liturgical reforms aim at encouraging more active participation of the faithful in mass. Then many controversies follow: priests should celebrate masses facing the East and there should be a crucifix on the altar; when saying the Pater Noster in mass, the congregation should not open their arms in the manners of priests; it is impious to receive the Holy Communion in hand and standing, this is not respectful to Jesus Christ; the divorced should be denied the Holy Communion; homosexuals should not be admitted; the Church should condemn violence … These Catholics insist on “justification by their own efforts, the worship of the human will and their own abilities … an obsession with the law, an absorption with social and political advantages, a punctilious concern for the Church’s liturgy, doctrine and prestige, a vanity about the ability to manage practical matters and an excessive concern with programmes of self-help and personal fulfilment.” (GE#57) Even the clergy are not exempted. Pelagianism/Elitism is not the Church’s monopoly. It is not in short supply in the social and political spheres. During the last century, civil servants were elitist graduates. In the future, they will only be patriots of crimson background.

The controversy over grace and good works is not settled by letters from Paul and James. St. Augustine was unable to uproot Pelagianism which persistently emerges again and again within and without the Church in different guises of clericalism, elitism, racism and white supremacy etc. Obviously, taking side is unable to solve the problem. Balancing them is the only exit. Putting aside James’ immortal quote “faith without works is dead” (James 2:16), Paul does not ignore work. Nothing counts, “but only faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). Obviously, grace and works are the two legs we need to walk to heaven. Missing one of them, the journey will fail. Thus, insisting on “Sola xxx” doesn’t work. Moreover, isn’t it contradictory to have five solae, making them not sola together? Being sloth and does not work with God is a waste of grace. Without truth and love, works would become Pelagianism/Elitism!

Brethren! Today is Laetare Sunday. It is indeed a harsh time when the pandemic is still rampant and democracies all over the world are undergoing oppression. What can make us joyful?
The Father is merciful. He does not want to see sinners perish. But He also honours the free will He grants us and would not force us to believe in Jesus Christ. He would save us even if we don’t become elites. This is the first reason to make us joyful. When we believe in the Son He sent, observe the love each other commandment Jesus Christ gave us, become our brothers’ keepers and are able to serve the needy to make this world a little bit warmer. This is the second reason we can be joyful. John says, “And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light … But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.” (John 3:19, 21) Charity agrees with truth because God is love. Our works are done in God and we are not judged. This is the third reason why should be joyful.
Therefore, rejoice! God bless!

國民身份的認同 National Identity

四旬期第三主日，乙年
主題：國民身份的認同

很不幸，天主教徒擁有「雙重國籍」：天國國籍和本土國籍。倘若他們生活在以某些狹隘的意識型態主導的國家，遭受政治迫害是在所難免的，因為「忠臣不事二主」。天主教徒在世上的生活，的確充滿張力，因為耶穌基督很清楚地教訓同樣的道理（瑪6:24）。遲早，「他或是依附這一個而輕忽那一個。」雖然儒家思想素來給人保守的印象，但不容忽視當中「耗盡自己，捨生取義」的殉道精神！在今天的福音中，耶穌基督清理聖殿，清楚地展示了祂作為一個猶太人，為了愛國而耗盡自我的情操（若2:17；詠69:10）！

在萬民中，亞巴郎回應了天主的召叫，並成功通過考驗，成為了「萬民/信德之父」（羅4:17-18），救世主出自他的後裔！當以色列一家在埃及經歷四百年，由七十多口繁衍成六十多萬人離開時，是一盤散沙。於是天主在西乃山與以色列人立約，以「十誡」把他們團結成為一個民族！這個民族信奉同一真神，一個有尊威，不容侮辱的神。信奉祂的是一個擁有尊嚴和自由，可以休息的民族，這不就是十誡頭三誡的意義嗎？可惜這個天主的特選民族，敵不過四周外族的誘惑，反過來渴望擺脫造就他們的天主，建立自己的國家！達味的遠見，撒羅滿的功勲，建造了金碧輝煌的聖殿，成為經濟、文化、政治及宗教中心，團結了十二支派，一再強化以色列人是天主選民的認同。建築在耶路撒冷的聖殿，便成為了「全國上下一心」的標記。
歷史就是這樣坦白，再次記載了「謀事在人，成事在天」的道理（詠127:1）！撒羅滿死後，他的兒子並沒有父親的管治才幹，結果以色列國分裂為二。聖殿在南國的猶大，北國以色列於是另起爐灶，竟然愚蠢地打造兩頭金牛，命令人民崇拜，不必南下前往聖殿（列上12:28），斷絕了將來再次統一以色列的機會！結果北國首先被亞述帝國滅亡，後來猶大亦不敵強大的巴比倫帝國，難逃亡國的命運。猶大國人民還是天主的選民嗎？這是一個極嚴重的身份危機！為了保持這個尊貴的身份，在充軍巴比倫期間，猶大國民除了拒絕與外族通婚外，他們還編纂了經典，保存了自己的精神面貎。即使沒有聖殿崇拜，一個圍繞著經師教訓的猶太教出現了！但天主有祂的計劃，祂並沒有忘記對猶大列祖列宗的許諾，沒有離棄自己親手拯救的選民。五十年後，波斯帝國解放了他們，並資助他們重建耶路撒冷聖殿，一再說明「若不是上主興工建屋，建築的人是徒然勞苦」（詠127:1）的道理！

聖殿的確是天主送給選民的一個標記，它不但標記著天主臨在人間（132:14），金碧輝煌的建築更標誌著天主子民對天國的嚮往，在萬民前引以為傲的成就，有點像中國人對「萬里長城」的情懷。大黑落德是羅馬帝國的傀儡，他為了討好猶太人，便重修在波斯帝國時建築的第二座聖殿，並持續擴建了四周的建築（若2:20）。這樣龐大而重要的建築物，必須有組織的管理，但有了組織，便會有濫權的機會（2:16；耶7:11）。倘若你是個得過且過的人，對於發生在聖殿的貪污腐敗，你可能敢怒而不敢言，採取多一事不如少一事，息事寧人的態度。但對於那些熱愛聖殿，熱愛自己國民身份的愛國者，又怎忍心看見這些不公義的事，發生在神聖莊嚴的聖殿呢？但耶穌基督是「愛國」的嗎？愛國就可以運用暴力嗎？耶穌基督行使「暴力」，過份了嗎？

身為天主子的耶穌基督，十二歲跟父母前往耶路撒冷朝聖，在聖殿裡找到天父（路2:49）。以後每年前往聖殿朝聖，不但親近天父，更強化了對天主子身份體會。固然，天主並不需要一座聖殿（依66:1），無論為了甚麼目的，需要聖殿的是人類。耶穌基督藉清理聖殿的機會，教訓一端非常重要的道理，祂的身體，纔是世上最尊貴的聖殿（若2:19，21-22）。原來世上的聖殿，是天主子身體的象徵。如今司祭們管理不善，使聖殿變成了商場，祇履行到經濟目的，而忽略了其他更重要的功能。所以天主子清理聖殿，是出於撥亂反正，是「自衛」的行為。因此，天主子行使合理的「暴力」，並沒有傷及無辜，是恰當的！

今天，很多人對教會的管理階層不滿，對教會在社會運動中的表現失望。有識之士口誅筆伐，其他不滿者無聲地離開教會。「愛耶穌，但不愛教會」成了他們的口號。
姑且不談保祿宗徒所說，「教會是基督奧體」的大道理。上述人士的口號，反映出那些嚷著因為失望而離開教會的人，沒有聽從耶穌基督的教訓，枉作祂的門徒。耶穌基督在《山中聖訓》說：「你們若祇愛那愛你們的人，你們還有甚麼賞報呢？稅吏不是也這樣作嗎？」（瑪5:46；路6:32）對於可愛的人，愛他們沒有難度。但作為天主教徒，既然有愛心愛痲瘋病人、愛滋病人、垂死的人和囚犯等，為甚麼不能愛政見不同的教會中人呢？其次，他們的信心很薄弱，看不見天父以慈悲的手，掌控一切。他們沒有耐性等待耶穌基督清理聖殿！在歷史上，耶穌基督確實曾啟示不少聖人，例如聖方濟各，回狂瀾於既倒，扶教會於將墜。我並沒有收到清理教會的啟示，你有嗎？

各位兄弟姊妹，耶穌基督不會對教會的腐敗，坐視不理。我們愛慕的是天主，祂對於殘害義人的惡行，必定會心急如焚。但我們不要犯厄里亞的毛病，以為天下間祇剩下他一人，沒有背棄天主的盟約（列上19:14），殊不知還有七千個從未向巴耳屈過膝的以色列人（19:18）！天主必會啟示特選的人物，為祂清理門戶。宗徒的忠告，是有用的。「在知識上加節制，在節制上加忍耐，在忍耐上加虔敬…的確，這樣你們便更有把握，進入我們的主和救主耶穌基督永遠的國。」（伯後1:6-11）同時，讓我們的善行，使那些愚蒙無知的人，閉口無言。（伯前2:15）
天主保祐！
2018年講道
圖片鳴謝：pinterest.com

---

Third Lent Sunday, Year B
Theme: National Identity

Unfortunately, Catholics have dual citizenship: citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven and citizens on a country on earth. If they are living in countries with intolerant ideologies, political persecutions are inevitable because a servant cannot serve two masters. Life of Catholics on earth is full of tension because Jesus Christ teaches the same truth (Matthew 6:24). Sooner or later, “He will be devoted to one and despise the other.” Although Confucianism gives people a conservative impression, its martyrdom spirit, viz., “Forsake/consume one’s life for justice’s sake” cannot be ignored. In today’s gospel, we read of Jesus’ cleansing the Temple which shows vividly how patriotic Jesus is as a Jew (John 2:17, Psalms 69:10)!

Among all peoples, Abraham responded to God’s call and passed the test to become the “Father of many nations” (Romans 4:17-18). The Saviour of the world came from his offspring. When the Israelites left Egypt after growing from 70 to 600,000, they were disorganized like grains of sand. Thus, God established a covenant with them on Mount Sinai, making using of the Ten Commandments to make them into a people. This people believed in one true God, a majestic God whom nobody is able to slight. The people who worship Him are a dignified people free to rest. Are these not the first three Commandments of the Ten? Regrettably, this Chosen People of God was unable to resist the temptation of the aliens around them. They desired to free themselves from the God who made them in order to establish their own empire! The far sight of King David and the accomplishments of King Solomon built a magnificent Temple to become an economic, cultural, political and religious centre. Moreover, it united the twelve tribes and strengthened the Israelites’ identity as the Chosen People of God. The Jerusalem Temple became a symbol of national unity.
History is simply candid. Times and again it demonstrates the truth that whatever men design, God is in full control (Psalms 127:1)! After the death of Solomon, his son lacked the capability to rule and the kingdom was divided into two. The Temple was in the south. Thus, the Northern Kingdom of Israel had to set up an alternative cultic centre. But through sheer stupidity, they built two golden calves and told the people to worship instead of going to the Jerusalem Temple (1 Kings 12:28), thus killing the possibility of future reunification! Consequently, the Northern Kingdom was conquered by the Assyrian Empire. Later, Judah was unable to resist the invasion of the Babylonian Empire. They suffered the same fate and were conquered. Were people of Judah Chosen People of God anymore? This was a grave identity crisis. In order to maintain this noble identity during the Babylonian Captivity, on top of refusal to mixed marriage, people of Judah collected and arranged scriptures in order to sustain their spiritual outlook. Despite the lack of Temple worship, a Rabbinic Judaism arose! But God has His own plan. He did not forget the promises He made to the Patriarchs and did not abandon the Chosen People He delivered with His powerful arm. Five decades later, the Persian Empire liberated the Jews and even subsidized them to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. It speaks loudly and clearly the truth that “Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain who build.” (Psalms 127:1)

The Temple was truly a sign God gave His Chosen People. Not only did it symbolize the presence of the Lord among men (132:14), its magnificent structure showed God’s people’s desire towards the Kingdom of Heaven. It was also an achievement to be proud of in front of all nations, something similar to the Great Wall for the Chinese. Herod the Great was a Roman puppet. In order to please the Jews, he started rebuilding the second Temple built during the Persian Empire and continued building extensions around it (John 2:20). Such a colossal structure required organized management. Where there is organization, there would be abuses of power (2:16, Jeremiah 7:11). If you are an easy going person seeing corruption in Temple management, perhaps you want to keep your fury to yourself and take a pacifist approach, reducing as much conflict as possible. But for those who are zealous about the Temple, patriots who take their national identity seriously, how can they not be provoked seeing injustice done in this sacred and solemn Temple? But was Jesus patriotic? Does patriotism justify violence? Did Jesus cross the line when He resorted to violence?

At twelve, Jesus Christ the Son of God, followed His parents to go on pilgrimage to the Jerusalem Temple where He found the Father (Luke 2:49). In subsequent pilgrimages to the Temple, not only did He come closer to the Father, but He experienced more deeply His identity as the Son of God. Of course, God does not need a Temple (Isaiah 66:1), only men need it for whatever reasons. In this cleansing of the Temple, Jesus Christ teaches us a very important doctrine: His body is the noblest Temple on earth (John 2:19, 21-22). In fact, the Temple on earth is a symbol of the body of the Son of God. Now that the priests had mismanaged the Temple, making it a marketplace which only fulfils the economic purpose and ignores the other more important functions, the Son of God cleanses the Temple, turning it back to the proper course is an act of “self-defence”. Thus it is appropriate for the Son of God to deploy reasonable “violence” which does not physically hurt anybody.

Today, many people complain about the management of the Church. Many are disappointed by the inactions of the Church during the recent social movement. Learned people voice their anger while others leave the Church in silence. “I love Jesus but not the Church” becomes their war-cry. Let’s put aside Paul’s grand theology of the Mystical Body of Christ for a moment. The slogan chanted by the people mentioned above only shows that they do not observe the teaching of Jesus Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?” (Matthew 5:46, Luke 6:32) It is easy to love those lovable. But Catholics who are able to love lepers, AIDS patients, the dying and the imprisoned, why can’t they love those who hold different political views in the Church? Secondly, their faith is weak in not seeing the merciful hand of the Father taking charge. They can’t wait seeing Jesus Christ cleansing the Temple! Throughout history, Jesus Christ has called many saints, e.g. St. Francis of Assisi, to rebuild the collapsing Church. I haven’t received the revelation to cleanse the Church. Have you?

Brethren! Jesus Christ would not allow the Church to rot and do nothing. The God we love is consumed by zeal when evil is done to the righteous. But don’t make the mistake committed by Elijah who thought that he was the only person that had not forsaken God’s covenant (1 King 19:14), not knowing that God had spared seven thousand in Israel, every knee that had not bent to Baal (19:18)! God will reveal to specially chosen people to cleanse His Church. The advice of the apostle is appropriate. “Supplement your … knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion … For in this way, entry into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will be richly provided for you.” (2 Peter 1:6-11) At the same time, let us do good to silence the ignorance of foolish people. (1 Peter 2:15)
God bless!