A Spectrum of Mercy 慈悲的光譜

Twenty Sixth Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: A Spectrum of Mercy 慈悲的光譜

Jesus Christ did not come to abolish the Law or the prophets but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17). Therefore, like all the Jews in all generations, all Christians are also called to sainthood enshrined in the Torah. “Sanctify yourselves, then, and be holy; for I, the Lord, your God am holy.” (Leviticus 20:7) Peter, the Prince of the Apostles also echoes the same reminder. “As He who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct.” (1 Peter 1:15) Is this Christian call to sanctification too demanding for our fragile humanity? But anything less would do injustice to the image of God (Genesis 1:26)! I’m sure with the help of the Holy Spirit, we are able to achieve it.

In order to make this call to sainthood more accessible to the Gentiles, Luke did a wonderful job in the gospel which bears his name. He says, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:36) In fact, the gospel of Luke is a gospel of mercy in which he leaves us such classics as the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son and the Rich Man and Lazarus etc. A spectrum of mercy is portrayed before the eyes of the readers. The parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son are obvious parables of mercy. You may wonder why the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is also a parable of mercy. Let me explain.

Last week, we read of Amos’ criticisms against those who exploit the poor. “The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Never will I forget a thing they have done!” (Amos 8:7) This week, Amos turns to another group of people who don’t look wicked at all --- the rich and the powerful! “Those who lie on beds of ivory, and lounge upon their couches, eating lambs taken from the flock, and calves from the stall; who improvise to the music of the harp, composing on musical instruments like David; who drink wine from bowls, and anoint themselves with the best oils, but are not made ill by the collapse of Joseph.” (6:4-6) You may wonder what the rich and the powerful are guilty of. We don’t need uniformity of life style, say a CEO of an international corporation must eat a $10-meal like a janitor sweeping the street, do we? The rich and the powerful enjoy high living standards which they are able to afford and their luxury sustains the consumption market making the society prosperous. Moreover, they elevate the cultural standard of a country. Hong Kong used to be called a “cultural desert”. Now the situation has improved. More local galleries are set up and more global auctions of artistic artefacts are held annually here in Hong Kong etc.

Furthermore, can we blame the rich and the people in power for being indifferent to “the collapse of Joseph”? That is hard to establish. It is true that in different civilizations, there have been kings who were more interested in cultural matters while their kingdoms collapsed. For example, Nabonidus the Babylonian emperor who was interested in archaeology and religious reforms had his Babylonian Empire conquered by Cyrus the Persian king without putting up a fight. In China, the last emperor of Southern Tang, Li Yu 李煜 is immortalized as the “King of Lyrics for A Thousand Generations”. Alas! Which empire or kingdom on earth is eternal, except the Kingdom of Heaven? On what ground can we blame someone who happened to be the last emperor?

But are the rich and the powerful blameless if they omit to do their duty while they are in possession of more resources on earth? They cannot be blameless! The parable of “The Rich Man and Lazarus” lays the issue squarely before the rich and the powerful! Wait. The parable doesn’t point the finger to the rich man for the death of Lazarus. No. Jesus never passes judgments in His parables which are always invitations for us to rethink our lives. Jesus is not the accuser who accuses us day and night before God (Revelation 12:10). Jesus would not accuse the rich man but Satan would. This parable is definitely not one of justice or fairness. Why?

In this parable, allowing a poor person to die is not a legal issue. No legal system on earth can convict the rich man for negligence leading to the death of Lazarus! To a certain extent, it can be a moral issue because though the rich man did not directly murder Lazarus, most people would feel that it is immoral of him to omit actions within his means and allow a person to die unnecessarily. The case against the rich man becomes stronger because he knew Lazarus (Luke 16:24) and Lazarus was physically near to him, just lying at his door (16:20). Yet, the rich man did nothing to alleviate the plights of Lazarus. It is less immoral than directly killing Lazarus. Nevertheless, it is immoral.
Of course, the rich man is entitled to enjoy whatever he possesses and to dispose of his possessions at his pleasure. We have to respect his right to private property. Moreover, the rich man might counter that Lazarus deserves to suffer because he was lazy and is now punished by God etc. He could have many excuses under his sleeves for not helping Lazarus. We can only protest that it is morally pungent to omit beneficent actions towards Lazarus while you can. Other than that, it is impossible to pass any moral judgment on the rich man.

It is a spiritual issue, an issue on mercy. Why is an issue of mercy a spiritual issue? It is because for the moment we are living in the universe of Luke. “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (6:37) For us Gentiles, being merciful leads us to sainthood. Then, why is this parable a parable of mercy and not a parable of justice? Take a look at the choice of characters. There is no God, neither a king nor a master. Instead we have Abraham! Remember the Magnificat? The Blessed Virgin Mary says, “… remembering His mercy, according to His promise to … Abraham and to his descendants forever.” (1:54-55) God is honouring His promise in this parable by showing mercy. Now, let’s continue with our meditation.
Which of the two do we feel pitiful, the rich man or Lazarus? Naturally, most people would feel sorry for Lazarus. But think again. Lazarus ends up in consolation while the rich man in torment (16:25). Don’t you feel sorry for the rich man? Naturally, we would say he deserves the torment and justice has prevailed etc. Wait, are we making use of one of the rich man’s excuses that Lazarus deserves to suffer? No wonder Jesus reminds us not to judge (Matthew 7:1). Can we suspend our judgment and try again? Whom deserves mercy, the rich man or Lazarus? Let me assure you. Both of them deserve!

The rich man is rich in materials which take away too much of his attention so that he has no room to establish quality relations with God and with men. That probably explains the “great chasm” which nobody is able to cross to the other side (Luke 16:26), probably not even God. But isn’t God almighty? What can stop God from crossing it?
Yes, God is almighty and no because God would not contradict Himself. He created us in His image. Thus, we inherited His freedom which He should respect. He would be happy to see us return to Him but He should never force us to repent. Furthermore, to guarantee that He would not overstep, God established covenants with humanity to restrain Himself. Therefore, we cannot blame God for our damnation. It is the choices which we have made throughout our lives that build up or dismantle the chasm between us and God, between us and our neighbour. Unlike the parable of Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25, nobody sent the rich man to the netherworld in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus! He found himself there after he was buried (16:22-23).

God has been waiting patiently for the rich man to repent. He is merciful in sending Lazarus, meaning “God helps” to offer the rich man opportunities to repent; and is ready to forgive the moment he repents. Pay attention to the fact that Lazarus never utters a single word in the parable. His plights speak volume! Had the rich man been merciful and compassionate for the plights of Lazarus and had acted to alleviate them, the chasm would not have been too deep to cross! Thus, it is a spiritual issue all along. Now would you still feel that the rich man deserves to suffer? If you would, perhaps you should read the story of Jonah again. Or would you feel compassionate for the rich man because of the burden he bore throughout his life, struggling to survive among the thorns?

Brethren! Luke has portrayed for us a spectrum of mercy. At one end, there is a Good Samaritan who goes all the way to show mercy to an enemy who is a brother in his eyes. It is a mercy shown among equals. At the opposite end, there is a rich man who allows a brother to die like an alien, rejecting God’s gift of mercy. It is still a mercy shown among equals. The Prodigal Son is in the middle. The father has to show his mercy to both sons. It is a mercy shown from above.
Brethren! I am confident in the apostle’s word that Jesus intercedes for us at the right hand of God (Romans 8:34). The merciful Lord will go all the way out to deliver the rich man in His mercy in an ineffable way that we are unable to understand. Amen.
2019 Reflection
Picture Credit: jesusfilm.org

We Are Stewards Only 我們祇不過是管家

Twenty Fifth Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: We Are Stewards Only 我們祇不過是管家

No employers would tolerate employees who embezzle. Supervisors expect their subordinates to be honest, hardworking and obedient. Honesty and loyalty can be said to be some kind of universal values shared among peoples. As for Chinese, Confucianism also teaches likewise. For example, Zengzi says, “I daily examine myself on three points: whether, in transacting business for others, I may have been not faithful … 吾日三省吾身：為人謀而不忠乎？”(Analects, Xue Er) Therefore, readers would be surprised to hear in the parable that “the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.” (Luke 16:8) For decades since 1960’s, biblical scholars have had a hard time trying to come up with a reasonable explanation. Finally in 2000, Landry & May were able to interpret the steward’s action as creating a 3-win situation for the master, the steward as well as the debtors. At long last, the puzzle was cracked. In 2007, I delivered a valedictory speech “Traces of God’s revelation in Chinese culture【在中國文化中尋找天主啟示的一鱗半爪】” at the Hong Kong Catholic Biblical Institute graduation ceremony and speculated that God must have left some clues of divine revelation for the Chinese people. Indeed, there are if you’re able to read Chinese classics from a Christian perspective! Had those western scholars known some Chinese stories, they would have cracked the puzzle of the master commending the dishonest steward in no time! God’s wisdom is truly unfathomable and scholars have never been able to exhaust new discoveries. That makes Jesus’ teachings timeless.

Jesus did not propose any new teachings. Like what He claims, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17), Jesus restored the spirit of the Law which had been forgotten by the contemporary teachers of the law. For example, immediately following the parable today, Jesus continues, “If, therefore, you are not trustworthy with dishonest wealth, who will trust you with true wealth? If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours?” (Luke 16:11-12) In fact, it is not some new teachings, but a reiteration of what is taught in the Torah. Let me explain.

Let’s contemplate the last verse, “If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours?” (16:12). If something is ours, why would we have to wait for it to be given us? Alas! Modern people have taken the “right to private property” for granted. We believe that the money we earn, the house we purchased and other assets etc. are exclusively ours to dispose. In fact, it is one of the foundation pillars of democracy. The Bible endorses it because men were made in the image of God who commanded humanity to manage the universe in His stead (Genesis 1:26). Furthermore, He commanded men to care for and develop the earth (2:15). In order to fully develop this image, access to resources must be guaranteed. The right to private property is such a guarantee. However, there is a danger of going to the extreme. It is easy for us to mistaken this right to private property to be absolute and exclusive. No. God created the universe not just for me alone. It is for the common use for all of us. Therefore, there carries a responsibility when we make use of the resources we horde! Bear this in mind. We are only stewards of the resources which do not belong exclusively to us. We’re allowed to make use of them for our growth and development. Yet, others are also entitled to using them for their growth and development too!

Why then the wait? I speculate that we have already been given them. Yet we need time to learn to manage them properly. Why do we need management training of what have already given us? Well, it is because what belong to us is something bigger than what we already have in possession. The good Lord says, “The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones.” (Luke 16:10) What are those “small matters” and “great matters”. I suspect that it is something to do with eternal life. I’m of the opinion that they are one and the same but at different stages. Compared with eternity, matters in the temporal world at present are truly small. So, if we unable to manage our resources on earth properly, it is very unlikely that we’ll be able to manage well in eternal life! Moreover, we don’t simply manage our own resources which are close to us. All of us are interconnected and our actions will inevitably ripple through a literal world-wide-web of relations affecting others far and near. Therefore, being aware that we are always managing resources which belong to others, we are at the same time, training ourselves in the management of what belong to us. Thus, if we failed to handle others’ resources properly, would we be able to handle ours successfully (Luke 16:12)? Very unlikely. Therefore, Jesus was reiterating no more than the stewardship teachings in Genesis mentioned above.

To dive deeper, we understand that all that we have come from God. Not only do we manage resources not belong to us but belong to others, we’re actually managing the resources of God. Therefore, most of the time, we are allowed to manage wealth which is not ours. When we are in possession of wealth which is not legally or hereditarily ours, we are in possession of “unrighteous/dishonest wealth” aren’t we? Only that which belongs to us is “true wealth” which is already given us like uncut gems, waiting for us to polish until they shine forth their radiance in eternity in Christ. That polishing is the managing of “what belongs to another” we meditated above. If we don’t manage well, the uncut gems will remain uncut and will never be able to shine forth their radiance. Then it is not meaningful to claim ownership of the gems (16:11)!

Then, how do we manage the resources at our disposal in an effective manner? This is the crux of the parable today.
Brethren! Jesus Christ can be seen as a Christian financial investment consultant. He teaches us how to transfer our worldly wealth to heaven, making a fortune: “I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” (16:9) Which means, you spend your money on helping the poor and needy who are unable to repay you. Out of His righteousness, God will repay you in their stead! Then your wealth in eternity will be true and satisfying.
Moreover, Jesus Christ the master is truly merciful. He commended the steward for his prudent handling of dishonest wealth instead of highlighting his embezzlement! His wealth and mercy are truly infinite! St. Paul’s exhortation is appropriate here. “For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love” (Galatians 5:13). So, we should not take advantage of the Lord’s wealth and mercy to mismanage the treasures He has reserved for us.
God bless!

---

2019 Reflection
Picture Credit: sohu.com

Pray For the Abolition of the Death Penalty

Pray For the Abolition of the Death Penalty

Deacon Alex Kwok

The God we believe in is a God of life. In His unfathomable wisdom and love, He created us in His own image and put us in a universe suitable for our existence with a Big Bang. At the moment, our scientists and cosmologists are still struggling to understand its mechanisms and new discoveries keep flooding in. These discoveries manifest the intellectual faculty of our souls which are beautiful. With the advancements of information technology and artificial intelligence in recent years, morality is becoming our last stance to differentiate what is human and what is non-human. Regrettably our morality is lagging far behind our sciences and technologies. For example, the Ten Commandments forbid us from stealing and upholds the right to private property. Yet today we can easily download any movie from the Internet without paying one cent simply with a click without any remorse!

The Ten Commandments also upholds the sacredness and dignity of human life and forbids the killing of innocent persons. Wait a minute! Who allows you to qualify this Commandment with the word “innocent”? Who decides who is innocent and who is not? Only the author of life may decide, not you, not me, nor any chief justice in courts! Our technologies of killing have been refining throughout the ages whereas our appetite for revenge remains unchanged. The death penalty has become less bloody and less brutal these days but still it terminates life. We justify the killing by declaring the defendant guilty of crimes so serious that only death is the most suitable retribution.

“An eye for an eye” is the rationale behind sentencing a murderer/treasonist to death. Yet death penalty is a retribution and not a restitution because the death of the murderer/treasonist compensates nothing and restores nothing. It is unable to bring the victim(s) back to life. In case of serial killers, the death of one killer is not in proportion to the deaths of tens of victims. Worse still, if the electrocuted “murderer” is later found to be innocent when the true “murderer” turns himself in, it is impossible to undo the miscarriage of justice! In case of a treasonist, had the administration been impeccable, the treasonist would have had no opportunity to incite rebellions/riots. So, instead of putting up a patriotic show, would it not be better for the administration to spend more resources and to focus more on improving the governance of the country?

God is the author of life which is a gift to all humanity, whether one is innocent or guilty, intelligent or stupid, dissident or loyalist etc. Only the giver of life can withdraw the gift of life. When we decide to kill legally, whether it be abortion, euthanasia and even death penalty, we are denying God’s majesty and declare that God is wrong in allowing those people to continue living. In short, we play God! It is a sin as ancient as Cain’s refusal to be the keeper of his brother Abel. It shows that we have made very little progress in our morality. No wonder it takes God the Son to incarnate and to die a bloody and shameful death on the cross for us in order to redeem us.

Brethren! Let’s pray together with Pope Francis for the abolition of the death penalty in each and every country on earth. Let us acknowledge the majesty of the author of life, the sacredness and dignity of human persons and stop abusing our authority to eliminate unlikable people. Remember, whether you like them or not, they are also images of God.
God bless!

The Prodigal Son Is NOT The Lost Son 誰是真正的蕩子？

Twenty Fourth Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: The Prodigal Son Is NOT The Lost Son 誰是真正的蕩子

We have been talking about God’s mercy all the time. But what exactly is God’s mercy? How does God express His mercy in the Bible? In the Old Testament, God seems to be extremely cruel. He ordered the Israelites to commit genocide, (e.g. 1 Samuel 15)! In the New Testament, God did not kill as ferociously as He did in the Old Testament. Still He sent worms to eat up Herod Agrippa because Agrippa did not ascribe the honour to God (Acts 12:23). Is the Old Testament God really an evil demigod not the one and the same merciful Father of Jesus Christ? It’s regrettable that many readers have the appetite for bloody events and ignore less spectacular ones. Perhaps it is high time we enumerated some of those merciful and yet uneventful incidents of God.

Firstly, when our First Parents disobeyed God and had eaten the Forbidden Fruit, logically God punished them. And yet before He banished them from Eden, God made them and clothed them with garments of skin (Genesis 3:21). Not only do garments keep warmth but they also give dignity! Being naked is shameful in all ages and places. Secondly, though God had warned that on the day Adam ate the Forbidden Fruit he would die (2:17), eventually Adam died at a ripe old age of nine hundred and thirty, the 4^th longest lifespan in the Bible (5:5). Thirdly, Cain killed Abel and became a fugitive on earth. God put a mark on him to protect him so that nobody would kill him at sight (4:15). Lastly, allow me to skip and fast forward to the notorious King Ahab (1 Kings 16:30-34). When prophet Elijah condemned him (21:17-26), Ahab tore his own garments and repented. God spared him (21:29)!

These are just a few examples in which God shows mercy towards individuals. What about the whole city or nation? Yes, we read of how the Israelites butchered the whole city of Ai (Joshua 8) and how Saul lost favour in God’s sight for failing to exterminate the Amalekites. In the latter case, God left no room for interpretation. His instruction was crystal clear, "Now attack Amalek and destroy completely all that he has. Do not spare them, man, woman, infant or suckling, or or sheep, camel or ass." (1 Samuel 15:3). This is clearly genocide. But let’s read the instructions God gave Joshua. God says, "I have delivered Jericho, its king, and its warriors into your power …" (Joshua 6:2). What does "have delivered … into your power" mean? Then we hear Joshua giving his interpretation to the Israelites, "The city and all that is in it shall be given in anathema to Yahweh ...be careful not to touch anything, big or small since everything shall be consecrated in anathema; do not take anything for yourself lest the curse be upon the camp of Israel and bring trouble into it. All the gold, silver, copper … are to be consecrated to Yahweh and shall go into the treasury of Yahweh." (6:17-19) Then "They seized Jericho. And with sword in hand, they killed all the men and women, both young and old, as well as the oxen, sheep and asses, and they gave these as anathema or, rather, sacrificed them to God." (6:21)
I can’t help but wonder whether God had really asked for such a sacrifice! Was Joshua over eager to show the Lord his loyalty? Or did Joshua, as a strategist, want to ensure that Jericho would never be able to rise again and to strike back? A similar over-eagerness happened in the story of Elijah. After winning the competition against 450 false prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, thus proving to the Israelites that Yahweh was the one true God, Elijah incited the Israelites, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Let none of them escape!" (1 Kings 18:40) But we’re unable to find even "I have given the false prophets into your hand"! Would it be possible that a handful of false prophets of Baal repented after seeing the miracle? It was unbecoming for God to kill the righteous with the wicked (Genesis 18:25). Who then gave Elijah the authority to kill the wicked together with the repentant, thus the righteous? Ai suffered the same fate. God told Joshua, "I have delivered the king of Ai into your power, with his people, city, and land. Do to Ai and its king what you did to Jericho and its king --- except that you may take its spoil and livestock as plunder…" (8:1-2). Does this show God’s approval of Joshua’s interpretation for annihilating Jericho? Of course, I dare not to speculate that the Israelites justified their genocides in the name of God. After all, God doesn’t need me to defend His actions, does He?

However, we should not ignore the stories that God had allowed Abraham to intercede for Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:23-32) as well as Moses’ intercession for the Israelites who had grown impatient and made a golden calf while Moses was negotiating the Covenant with God for forty days and nights on Mount Sinai (Exodus 32:7-14). Abraham’s intercession failed because he was not confident enough to demand more. Had Abraham played safe and had set the number below five, Sodom in which Lot’s family lived would have been spared! Perhaps Moses had learnt from the "failure" of Abraham. Today, we read of his story in which Moses interceded for all, both the innocent as well as the guilty! Subsequently, Moses succeeded in saving 600,000 while he ordered the execution of 3,000 idolaters (32:28).

This story is thought provoking in another aspect which is worth meditating.
God told Moses, Go down at once because your people, whom you brought out of Egypt, have acted corruptly." (32:7) Wait! "your people", i.e. "Moses’ people"? When did the Israelites become Moses’ people? When God called Moses in the burning bush, God said, "I have witnessed the affliction of my people in Egypt and have heard their cry against their taskmasters …" (3:7). Later, through Moses and Aaron God told Pharaoh, "… Let my people go that they may hold a feast for me in the wilderness." (5:1) God instructed Moses to say to the Israelites, "I am the Lord … I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God…" (6:6-7) All along, no less than 17 times from chapter 3 to chapter 12, did God call the Israelites His own people. Why the sudden change?
A similar tone can be detected in the following stories. When God asked Adam why he had eaten the Forbidden Fruit, Adam replied, "The woman whom you put here with me …" (Genesis 3:12). When God asked Cain the whereabouts of Abel, Cain retorted, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (4:9) In the parable of the Prodigal Son we read today, the elder brother complained in the face of the father saying, "All these years I served you … but when your son returns …" (Luke 15:29-30) In the cases quoted above, the speakers seem to abdicate all responsibilities and even to sever all relationships. They put the blame onto the others, or declared that it was none of their business.

Now, was God so angry that He intended to abdicate all responsibilities and sever all relationships with the Israelites? Or since the Sinai Covenant had not yet been rectified, the Israelites were not yet God’s people? No, we cannot argue in this manner because God is timeless and eternal. Once He has spoken, it will be done regardless of the costs. Moses served the ball tactfully back to God’s court. "Why, O Lord, should your anger burn against your people, whom …" (Exodus 32:11) Then Moses appealed to the faithfulness of God, "Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Israel …" (32:13). But does God need our reminders? No, I think God was actually playing the devil’s advocate in this case. When He revealed Himself in the burning bush to commission Moses to liberate the Israelites in Egypt, Moses declined five times until God imposed His will on him (4:14-17)! At that time, Moses the fugitive Egyptian prince was unable to relate to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt with whom he had lost touch for forty years. On Mount Sinai, God wanted to strengthen his relationship with the Israelites and his identification as the Hebrew Liberator. He was to be the keeper of his brothers, his people!

Indeed, we have been wrong in calling the 3^rd parable the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Read this parable in the context of all three parables, we see that the lost sheep does not know the way home. It needs the good shepherd to leave 99 sheep behind to seek it. The lost coin, though it was still inside the house, needs the woman to clean up the house to seek it. But in the 3^rd parable, the younger son was able to remember his father and to return home on his own initiative, albeit a rather low motive! Thus, the younger son is NOT the lost son. Then who was the lost son? The elder brother was! Though he was living in the house, he was unconnected with the father. Like Abraham, he did not have the faith/confidence to demand even a young goat, not to mention a fattened calf (Luke 15:29-30)! God’s mercy is brilliantly illustrated in the father’s words, "My son, you are here with me always, everything I have is yours" (15:31).

Brethren, how paradoxical that we always complain God for not hearing our demands/prayers when God makes it clear that we have the whole known universe at our disposal! We should be grateful because the Son of God goes all the way out the seek us. We were baptized and partake in His threefold ministry of king, priest and prophet. Let us rejoice with heavenly angels for our being lost and found. Let us put our faith in the mercy of the Father and go out to seek other lost sheep, lost coins and lost sons with Christ.
God bless!
2019 Reflections
Picture Credit: wikipedia

Second Attempt to Harmonize the Contradiction再試調和矛盾

Twenty Third Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: Second Attempt to Harmonize the Contradiction再試調和矛盾

The previous meditation attempted to harmonize the contradiction between total renunciation in discipleship and filial piety through Chinese classics. That is just one among many approaches. Some homilies bypass Luke 14:26 altogether and focus more on discipleship while others would dodge the contradiction by appealing to the language aspect. They point out that the Hebrew language lacks comparison constructs. When Israelites wanted to express the idea of “loving A more than loving B”, they would say “loving A and hating B”. So, Jesus did not tell us to hate our family members but to love them less in comparison to our love of Jesus! While this approach is correct, probably it might not be applicable in this verse because it is not a comparison at all! On a second thought, I intent to take yet another approach.

I always advise people not to read bible texts out of context. Yet, I might have made the very same mistake when I attempted to focus on one single verse alone. Indeed, Jesus was teaching about total renunciation for the sake of discipleship. Not only should disciples renounce familial relationships, but they should also renounce their lives. This is “his own cross” which every disciple should carry in order to come after Jesus (14:27). Suddenly, Jesus turns “utilitarian” and tells potential followers to calculate the costs to follow Him. If it is beyond their resources, think again and try something else! Now, I have not only one but two issues here! Firstly, how do I fit hating family members into the context of calculating costs? Secondly, does Jesus buy utilitarianism? I have touched upon this topic in another post. So, I will simply focus on the first.

Hatred is a strong feeling which is the very opposite of love. Unlike anger, rage or wrath which are more or less impulsive, temporary and shallower, hatred is relatively more permanent and therefore deeper! When rationality is involved and is unable to neutralize the hatred, violent actions become premeditated. No wonder hatred is not among the seven capital vices but wrath is. Regrettably, we’re witnessing more and more hate-speeches and hate-crimes nowadays.
Psychologically speaking, angry people hurt both ways. Their victims suffer physically and possibly even psychologically traumatized. But so are the angry people physiologically themselves. Their pulses race and their adrenaline level rises. Their internal harmony is disrupted and there is a physiological price to pay when one vents his anger towards his victims! When anger becomes internalized into hatred, the physiological damages would go deeper and more permanent!

Family members are supposed to be one’s loved ones. It hurts deeper when one is offended by loved ones! Similarly, it is more painful to hate family members than insignificant others. Therefore, hating all family members is as costly if not costlier than building a tower or even going to war! Reading Luke 14:26 in this perspective does not need to modify the ordinary meaning of the word “hate” and fits into the context of cost calculation. Indeed, how often do people build towers or go to wars? Not always. Similarly, we don’t hate family members all the time. It is amazing to discover that the hint has always been there in the Old Testament. Now, I may quote Ecclesiastes 3:8 in full, “A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace”!

Jesus’ calling disciples is both an invitation and a challenge. He challenges us to go to war against God! Yes, the mightier king who has double your troops in hand. What an understatement! In the end, we should find peace with Him before the Last Judgment. Jesus challenges humanity to build the Babel Tower and in the end, infusing us with the Holy Spirit, we speak the universal language of love. He challenges us to forsake all familial relationships in great pains and in the end build a universal family for all humanity!

The term “challenge” is probably a misnomer. It is more appropriate to name it a “revelation” of our inner secrets than a “challenge”. We play God and rebel against Him. We sin and go to war with God. Our pride drives us to build all sorts of towers, making the Creation a wasteland. Probably angels are the onlookers (Luke 14:29). Family is supposed to be the ideal place for growth and development, love and raising children. In reality, familial relationships hurt the most. Paradoxically, this is how humanity mature and grow. Once pains are overcome and love is established, complacency sets in and another round of pains would brew imperceptibly … It demands more efforts and pains to dismantle the existing relationships in order to build a healthier and stronger family bond! Not many people can emotionally afford it …

In view of such harshness, who is able to respond and be saved?

I think many people have overlooked the fact that Jesus is divine. He is able to command inexhaustible resources. For example, He fed 5000 with only five loaves and two fish. Therefore, when we find peace with God, we don’t need to spend our energy doing stupid and unproductive things going against God. With His resources, we’ll be able to build any number of mega-projects we are able to fancy. When we get connected with our Lord Jesus Christ, all our “costs/cross” become nothing because the Good Shepherd would put us, together with our crosses, on His shoulders to carry us home (15:5)!
Brethren! Cheers! Call upon the name of the Lord and He’ll save. Amen.
2022 23^rd Ordinary Sunday
Picture Credit:shutterstock.com

How to Hate Parents & Keep the 10 Commandments 如何憎恨父母而遵守十誡？

Twenty Third Ordinary Sunday, Year C
Theme: How to Hate Parents & Keep the 10 Commandments 如何憎恨父母而遵守十誡？

My parents passed away a few years ago. Like many grown-up children, a sense of regret for not doing enough while parents were still alive always lingers on. I’m not fluent enough to narrate such feelings to relieve my regrets. It is in this mood that I meditate on the theme above.

Among different schools in ancient Chinese philosophies, Confucianism was very fluent in articulating filial piety. By extension, it advocated loyalty to rulers and patriotism. Thus, emperors in ancient China bought the idea and promoted filial piety across the empire. For example, in Han Dynasty, i.e. before the institution of selecting government officials through public examination system, the state appointed people renowned for their filial piety to fill up government posts. In Chinese mentality, filial piety is taken for granted and is not to be challenged. So, when Christian missionaries talked about the Ten Commandments, the Chinese did not find it too foreign to accept. Instead, they would find biblical morality too simplistic and not elaborate enough. On the other hand, missionaries would try to avoid talking about the institution of marriage (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:6-9) and Jesus’ teaching of total renunciation demanded of disciples (Luke 14:26-33). Of course, if we believe in Jesus Christ, we can’t be selective in what we want to believe. At the moment, we might not be able to harmonize those seemingly contradictory teachings. Even if we might never be, we should not give up trying.

In both the Old Testament and the New, we are able to find scores of texts telling us to honour and to obey our parents: Exodus 20:12, Leviticus 20:9, Proverbs 30:17, Sirach 3:14-18, Luke 18:20, Romans 1:28-32, Colossians 3:20 and 1 Timothy 5:1-2 etc. to name just a few. The Torah has laid down the rules. The Lord promises to reward obedient children with longevity, “Honour your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land the Lord your God is giving you” (Exodus 20:12). Those who curse their parents would be banished to hell, “Anyone who curses father or mother shall be put to death” (Leviticus 20:9). Then, how could Jesus require his disciples to hate their parents, “If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26)? Jesus claims that He did not come to abolish the laws but to fulfil them (Matthew 5:17). Then how do Jesus’ disciples hate their parents and at the same time keep the Ten Commandments?

As a Chinese Catholic, I sense that there might be a way out in Confucian teachings on filial piety which have developed into a comprehensive system. It encompasses beyond merely the material level such as supporting the livelihood of aging parents. Showing them care and respecting them cater for their psychological needs as well. Beyond security and love, filial piety also includes maintaining the esteem and fame of parents. Therefore, a person should avoid doing things that scandalize or bring shame & dishonour to parents etc. In short, one must be a virtuous person for the honour of parents! Allow me to quote Zengzi 曾子, a disciple of Confucius renowned for his filial piety, “The body is that which has been transmitted to us by our parents, dare any one allow himself to be irreverent in the employment of their legacy?「身也者，父母之遺體也。行父母之遺體，敢不敬乎」?” (The Book of Rites, Meaning of Offerings禮記．祭義) The Book of Rites is a collection of essays written in 476-221 B.C. Doesn’t it sound like the Theology of Body by St. Pope John Paul II in the 20th century? Zengzi continues to list five manners which go against filial piety: not grave in his privacy, not loyal to his rulers, not reverent in office, not sincere to friends, not brave in battles 「居處不莊，非孝也；事君不忠，非孝也；蒞官不敬，非孝也；朋友不信，非孝也；戰陣無勇，非孝也。」He explains that those manners would bring parents disasters. How dare we not to be reverent 「五者不遂，災及於親，敢不敬乎」?

On the negative side, if parents are doing wrong, children should politely dissuade them so that parents wouldn’t become unrighteous. To quote Confucius, “… And the father who had a son that would remonstrate with him would not sink into the gulf of unrighteous deeds. Therefore when a case of unrighteous conduct is concerned, a son must by no means keep from remonstrating with his father … how can obedience to the orders of a father be accounted filial piety「父有爭子，則身不陷於不義，故當不義則爭之…從父之命，又焉得為孝乎」” (Classic of Filial Piety孝經).

So, contrary to the assumptions of most of the missionaries, there exists an entry point which enables us to harmony Jesus’ teaching on total renunciation with filial piety. The key to untie the knot is righteousness. But bear in mind that in Confucianism, righteousness is not something impersonal and impartial. Familial relationships are taken into consideration. For example, “The Duke of She informed Confucius, saying, ‘Among us here are those who may be styled upright in their conduct: if their fathers have stolen a sheep, they will bear witness to the fact.’ Confucius said, ‘Among us in our part of the country, those who are upright are different from this. The father conceals the misconduct of the son, and the son conceals the misconduct of the father. Uprightness is to be found in this「葉公語孔子曰：『吾黨有直躬者，其父攘羊，而子證之。』孔子曰：『吾之直者異於是。父為子隱，子為父隱，直在其中矣』」” (Analects, Zi Lu論語．子路)

Familial relationships are the fabrics of a society. Confucius gave them heavier weight during moral deliberations. But nothing surpasses loyalty to the emperor. There were several often quoted historical incidents in which for the well-being of the state or the integrity of the clan「上為國計，下全宗族」, brothers killed their siblings and a father did not spare his son. These incidents are: viz. Duke Dan executed his brother Guanshu in the Rebellion of the Three Guards 「三監之亂，周公誅殺管叔」; Zhou Yu州吁 of Wei衛 usurped the throne. Shi Hou 石厚befriended Zhou Yu. Shi Jing 石碏the father Shi Hou was a loyal official. He sought the help of Chen 陳state to kill Zhou Yu and did not spare Shi Hou, his son 「石碏戮子」；Duke Huan of Lu 魯桓公had four sons. The eldest son of the first wife succeeded and became Duke Zhuang魯莊公, while the other three brothers, Meng Qingfu 孟慶父(the eldest son of the second wife), Ji You 季友(the second son of the first wife) and Shu Ya叔牙 (the second son of the second wife) became chief officers of Lu. Before Duke Zhuang died, he intended the son of his second wife to succeed. Shu Ya suggested Meng Qingfu instead. Ji You poisoned Shu Ya in Duke Zhuang’ name and after some more incidents, Meng Qingfu hanged himself「季友鴆兄…慶父自縊」. Historians interpreted the intention of Ji You as trying to prevent the children of the second wife from usurping the throne. Thus I suppose in the Chinese mentality, for the sake of higher causes such as loyalty to rulers and patriotism, it is acceptable for Chinese to put aside familial relationships between husband and wife, parents and children and among siblings.

Brethren! The contradiction is a very thorny one. I don’t think I have satisfactorily settled it once and for all. Though Jesus likes to impress His audience with hyperboles, (for example the miraculous seeds in the Sower Parable which yield a hundredfold) we are unable to dismiss this one as one such hyperbole. Time is the issue. Jesus is the embodiment of the Word of God (John 1:1) and He claims to be the Truth (14:6). He does not qualify His teachings in terms of time because God is eternal and timeless! But while we are living on earth, we act within the time dimension. Therefore, contradiction arises when we have to love and hate our family members at the same time! Perhaps, we should seek help from the Wisdom Literature. “There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under heavens … A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8)

Therefore, I would boldly speculate that the norm of Christian actions is charity. Thus Jesus expects us to obey the Ten Commandments as well as His new commandment (John 13:34). Most of the time we and our parents, siblings, spouses and children etc. should be loving each other as He has loved us. But when it comes to higher causes, viz. to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, we need to set the priority right. Perhaps it is here that Confucianism will be able to lend us a helping hand in deciding what the right thing to do is. At the end of the day, a Catholic has to ask himself how seriously he accepts Jesus Christ as his King (Matthew 25:31-32), how obedient he is to His commission to evangelize the world (28:19-20) and how deep his love is for the salvation of his parents, siblings, spouses and children.
May the Holy Spirit help us discern and strengthen us. Amen!
God bless!
2019 Reflection
Picture Credit: https://www.zhdate.com/tw/news_history/445470.html
English translations of Chinese classics are taken from Chinese Text Project @ https://ctext.org