We have multiple ten's today. It is the tenth day of the tenth month in the year 2010. Moreover, in the Gospel reading, we hear the story of ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). Coincident?
Fr. Milanese brought our attention to the theme of "faith" which runs through the gospel readings of these two weeks. Last week, the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith. Then Jesus told them the teaching of "worthy servants". We are stewards of God. We should put our faith in Him and be humble when we have done our duties.
This week, Jesus healed 10 lepers and only one, who was a Samaritan, returned to glorify God. The rest perhaps followed the customs to be examined by priests, cleansed and offered the sacrifices demanded (Leviticus 14:1-32). They performed the rituals required but they did not return to thank God. Of course, we cannot conclude with certainty that they were not grateful to God.
And Jesus said to the Samaritan leper, "Rise and go your way, your faith has made you well." (Luke 17:19).
Fr. Milanese explained that lepers were regarded as sinners in ancient time. When lepers were cleansed, their sins were forgiven. He extended Jesus' teaching. Not only does the forgiveness of sins require repentance, but it also requires faith and gratitude. Faith had healed the leper and it was gratitude that gave him (and us) new life.
In the gospel of Luke, the formula "your faith has saved you / made you well" appears four times: the sinful woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears (Luke 7:36-50), the bleeding woman (Luke 8:43-48), this Samaritan leper (Luke 17:11-19) and the blind man of Jericho (Luke 18:35-43). In each case, the person involved was a representation of sinners directly or indirectly. In each case, we may detect a sense of gratitude in the person involved and in each case, the person started a new life. Therefore, these stories are about the sacrament of repentance.
These few days, I ran into trouble again with my boss. He is incredibly inflexible though he always tells students to "Strive for excellence, Think out of the box, Christ as model". He is not able to practise what he preaches. He really thinks out of (from) the box! The story is a long one.
When I first arrived at Shung Tak, I was honoured to be able to participate in the team to appeal for the EMI status of Shung Tak. After winning the appeal, the RS department came into a dilemma. As an EMI school, all our subjects, except for the Chinese subjects, must use English as the MOI, unless that subject had obtained the approval from the SMC to use Chinese.
The panel head, Ms. Rose Lee, was an ex-nun majoring in the teaching of Chinese Language. Two years later, our students would sit for the new 2000 RS syllabus. In previous years, Shung Tak students only had to study one Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. They had done it well in English. However, the new syllabus consisted of a section on Personal and Social Issues. Fearing that our students would not be able to compete with candidates from elite schools, Rose succeeded in persuading the Principal and the SMC to use Chinese as the MOI. Moreover, the Diocese had always been advocating switching to the use of mother tongue in teaching, despite the fact that many Diocesan schools had already plunged in their banding as a result. These two reasons sealed the fate of the RS HKCEE results for the next ten years. We have never scored the average passing rate of the territory! There are many factors contributing to such a poor performance. It may not prove the failure of the Diocesan mother tongue policy. However, if people insist on burying their heads in the sand to look for the benefit of using the mother tongue for the evangelization in a Band One English school, they had better ask the boss to submit the number of students baptized/confirmed in the last ten years, or do an opinion poll on the religious atmosphere of the school.
It is natural for the school to ask Catholic teachers to teach RS. However, the situation in Shung Tak is special in her own way. Most of the Catholics are English teachers (six), except for Agnes (Chinese). Adrian (RS) and Dennis (Chinese) joined us last year. This year, Joe Cheung (Maths & Science) joins. If we look at the number of Catholics qualified to teach RS, there are only five. Brenda, Donna and me are English teachers. Adrian can teach in English and Agnes not.
Another factor to consider is the language proficiency of the students. They are Band One students and should have no problem in taking RS, examination or non-examination syllabii, in English. Why should we deprive them of the opportunity? Were Shung Tak a Band Three school, I have no qualms about using Chinese in RS lessons.
I see the NSS syllabus as an opportunity for Shung Tak to switch back to the use of English in the teaching of Ethics and Religious Studies. In a briefing session for S3 parents, I explained the benefits of choosing English as the MOI for the NSS ERS syllabus. In the same session, the school told the parents that LS would be done in Chinese. Some parents objected. The boss yielded to the requests of the LS teachers to use Chinese and to fend off the complaints from the parents, the boss gained the approval from the SMC to approve the use of Chinese in LS, bundling ERS and ERE with it, quoting again the same reason for using Chinese in RS ten years ago. Enough is enough. My students and I had suffered for more than 10 years my teaching RS in Chinese. (10 again?) Therefore, I refused to teach the NSS ERS elective. The school employs Adrian to take it up.
This year, I am assigned to teach Ethics and Religious Education from S5 to S7. Of course, I do it in English. At the end of September, my boss discovered that I was not doing it in Chinese. He put pressure on Adrian. I would not yield. He patiently tried to persuade me to follow the policy approved by the SMC. I shall not.
My boss will talk to the Supervisor tomorrow. I would like to see how Sr. Michelle would handle it. Cannot there be flexibility in this MOI policy? After all, we teach ERE in Chinese from S1 to S4. Who can complain that we are not following the MOI policy? Only my boss!
Dear Lord, Your compassion and flexibility towards sinners had landed You on the cross. In this MOI issue, if I have defied the Diocesan mother tongue policy, You know that I follow my conscience. I pray for Adrian that he would not get caught in our cross fire. Amen.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Sunday, 3 October 2010
We are Unworthy Servants
My Xanga account is closed and I cannot edit or add any blog entries though the entries are still available for public view. I will continue posting weekly Sunday commentaries here.
The Deacons shared their feelings on this passage last Sunday.
Deacon Lee first compared these servants with the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son. In his own eyes, the elder brother thought highly of his own service. Therefore, he demanded reward. This was a mistake. He had done what was his duty (Luke 17:10).
Deacon Tse asked who the "master" was. Was he the clients we served?
Deacon Chow brought our attention to the structure of the story. It began with the disciples asking Jesus to increase their faith (Luke 17:5). Then, Jesus told them the power of faith even as meagre as a grain of mustard seed (Luke 17:6). Suddenly, Jesus changed the topic to talk about the master and servants. What is the relationship between "faith" and the "master", the "unworthy servants" or even the "master-servant" relation?
Cosmas Kwong attempted to relate the "worthlessness" of the servants with "faith". Since we are unworthy, we must acknowledge our limitations. Therefore, we need to put our faith in God.
Louis Wong reminded us of the teaching of St. Paul.
he (Jesus) said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)
For when we are weak, unworthy, the power of Christ is manifested.
Deacon Ng brought our focus back to "faith". He asked how much we believe in ourselves, how much we believe in God.
I love their sharings. These deacons and deacon candidates are people of high intelligence and deep spirituality. By the way, this sharing session was conducted by Deacon Tsang in the absence of the Vicar General. It seemed to me that they felt less restrained with their sharing when the VG was not there.
Here is my share. I think we are both masters and servants. We are masters when we command the others to serve us. However, we need faith to be masters. We need faith in ourselves as well as in our servants. With faith even as meagre as a mustard seed, a sycamine tree would obey us (Luke 17:6). In this mode of thinking, we would not be grateful to our "servant", be this servant a sycamine tree or even our God (Luke 17:9)!
In most cases, we are only servants, unworthy servants. We need faith to be servants as well. If we don't have faith in our master or in his design, we fail. Therefore, when we accomplish our duty, we have only completed a part, perhaps a very tiny part, of a master plan. Most of the time, we don't see the master plan. That is why, as servants, we beg Jesus to increase our faith.
To me, faith is not one-sided. Most of the time, we speak of our faith in God, putting our trust in Him. However, isn't it amazing that in reality, God has faith in us, His creatures! We do not have enough faith in ourselves. Alas! The question Deacon Ng raised was a deep one.
Fr. Milanese brought home the importance of faith in our life. Most of the time, we are frustrated. We keep praying day after day and week after week. Yet, the world does not change much. Bad news keeps popping up on the newspapers. That is why we are frustrated. However, we need to have faith. Without faith, we will not even try to do something to change the world. Without faith, nothing would be accomplished.
Dear Lord, increase our faith in ourselves and in You. Amen.
The Deacons shared their feelings on this passage last Sunday.
Deacon Lee first compared these servants with the elder brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son. In his own eyes, the elder brother thought highly of his own service. Therefore, he demanded reward. This was a mistake. He had done what was his duty (Luke 17:10).
Deacon Tse asked who the "master" was. Was he the clients we served?
Deacon Chow brought our attention to the structure of the story. It began with the disciples asking Jesus to increase their faith (Luke 17:5). Then, Jesus told them the power of faith even as meagre as a grain of mustard seed (Luke 17:6). Suddenly, Jesus changed the topic to talk about the master and servants. What is the relationship between "faith" and the "master", the "unworthy servants" or even the "master-servant" relation?
Cosmas Kwong attempted to relate the "worthlessness" of the servants with "faith". Since we are unworthy, we must acknowledge our limitations. Therefore, we need to put our faith in God.
Louis Wong reminded us of the teaching of St. Paul.
he (Jesus) said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong." (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)
For when we are weak, unworthy, the power of Christ is manifested.
Deacon Ng brought our focus back to "faith". He asked how much we believe in ourselves, how much we believe in God.
I love their sharings. These deacons and deacon candidates are people of high intelligence and deep spirituality. By the way, this sharing session was conducted by Deacon Tsang in the absence of the Vicar General. It seemed to me that they felt less restrained with their sharing when the VG was not there.
Here is my share. I think we are both masters and servants. We are masters when we command the others to serve us. However, we need faith to be masters. We need faith in ourselves as well as in our servants. With faith even as meagre as a mustard seed, a sycamine tree would obey us (Luke 17:6). In this mode of thinking, we would not be grateful to our "servant", be this servant a sycamine tree or even our God (Luke 17:9)!
In most cases, we are only servants, unworthy servants. We need faith to be servants as well. If we don't have faith in our master or in his design, we fail. Therefore, when we accomplish our duty, we have only completed a part, perhaps a very tiny part, of a master plan. Most of the time, we don't see the master plan. That is why, as servants, we beg Jesus to increase our faith.
To me, faith is not one-sided. Most of the time, we speak of our faith in God, putting our trust in Him. However, isn't it amazing that in reality, God has faith in us, His creatures! We do not have enough faith in ourselves. Alas! The question Deacon Ng raised was a deep one.
Fr. Milanese brought home the importance of faith in our life. Most of the time, we are frustrated. We keep praying day after day and week after week. Yet, the world does not change much. Bad news keeps popping up on the newspapers. That is why we are frustrated. However, we need to have faith. Without faith, we will not even try to do something to change the world. Without faith, nothing would be accomplished.
Dear Lord, increase our faith in ourselves and in You. Amen.
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Am I my brother's keeper?
Today, we hear the famous parable of "The Rich Man and Lazarus" (Luke 16:19-31). It is a story warning those people whose hearts are numbed by riches, people who are insensitive to the plights of the poor.
People will easily protest, complaining that they are not rich, unlike those who often enjoy a glass of red wine which is worth tens of thousands of dollars. In comparison, the description in Amos is no exaggeration at all: lying upon beds of ivory, eating lambs and calves, singing idle songs, drinking wine in bowls and anointing themselves in finest oils (Amos 6:4-6). Our luxury nowadays is much more than that. Even a man of middle-class can afford that, except for ivory which is banned for conservation reasons. But that is not the issue. The point is not about luxury or no luxury or the degree of luxury. Rather, our fault lies in our indifference towards the plights of the poor, our failure to extend a helping hand to improve their situation. We are sinful, not because of our riches, but our inconsideration. Therefore, whether you are rich or poor. As long as you refuse to become your brother's keeper, you are sinful.
I don't like the Chinese translation of Luke 16:25. It reads
亞巴郎說：孩子，你應記得你活著的時候，已享盡了你的福，而拉匝祿同樣也受盡了苦。
Abraham said,"Son, you should remember when you were alive, you had already enjoyed all your good and likewise, Lazarus had suffered all his bad."
However, the Greek original does not have the meaning of "all"!
εἶπεν δὲ Ἀβραάμ, Τέκνον, μνήσθητι ὅτι ἀπέλαβες τὰ ἀγαθά σου ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου, καὶ Λάζαρος ὁμοίως τὰ κακά.
ἀπέλαβες means "receive, obtain, gain" and does not suggest any meaning of "all".
Perhaps the Franciscan friars wanted to satisfy the Chinese Buddhist mentality which believed that we are destined a certain amount of wealth and health. When we used it up, we would suffer in this life or next. This translation is not faithful to the Greek original, but natural to the Chinese readers.
In his homily this morning, Fr. Martin told us a little story which empowers us to extend a helping hand no matter what little we can help.
A company of 3000 employees has a "winner takes all" tradition in their annual dinner. Each one puts $10 in a box and writes his own name on a piece of paper and drops it in the lucky draw box. One name will be drawn and the winner will pocket the $30,000.
This year, when Jack put his $10 in the box, he remembered Rose, a janitor, whose husband would undergo a surgery which was a heavy financial burden on the couple. Though the chance was slim, Simon put down Rose's name on his paper and dropped it in the lucky draw box. That evening, a miracle happened. Rose turned out to be the winner!
After dinner, out of curiosity, Simon came to the lucky draw box and drew another name. It was Rose. He drew again. It was Rose again. He couldn't believe it. He took out several ballots. Each, in different handwritings, was Rose!
The conclusion:「 勿以善小而不為。」
Don't think that a good is so insignificant that it is not worth doing.
This statement is commonly attributed to the will of Liao Bi to his son.
Relating to the Manila tragedy, Fr. Martin reminded us to seize the moment to do good, however little it seems to be. The tragedy forcibly reminded us that we might not be able to see tomorrow.
Dear Lord, help us love more generously. Amen.
People will easily protest, complaining that they are not rich, unlike those who often enjoy a glass of red wine which is worth tens of thousands of dollars. In comparison, the description in Amos is no exaggeration at all: lying upon beds of ivory, eating lambs and calves, singing idle songs, drinking wine in bowls and anointing themselves in finest oils (Amos 6:4-6). Our luxury nowadays is much more than that. Even a man of middle-class can afford that, except for ivory which is banned for conservation reasons. But that is not the issue. The point is not about luxury or no luxury or the degree of luxury. Rather, our fault lies in our indifference towards the plights of the poor, our failure to extend a helping hand to improve their situation. We are sinful, not because of our riches, but our inconsideration. Therefore, whether you are rich or poor. As long as you refuse to become your brother's keeper, you are sinful.
I don't like the Chinese translation of Luke 16:25. It reads
亞巴郎說：孩子，你應記得你活著的時候，已享盡了你的福，而拉匝祿同樣也受盡了苦。
Abraham said,"Son, you should remember when you were alive, you had already enjoyed all your good and likewise, Lazarus had suffered all his bad."
However, the Greek original does not have the meaning of "all"!
εἶπεν δὲ Ἀβραάμ, Τέκνον, μνήσθητι ὅτι ἀπέλαβες τὰ ἀγαθά σου ἐν τῇ ζωῇ σου, καὶ Λάζαρος ὁμοίως τὰ κακά.
ἀπέλαβες means "receive, obtain, gain" and does not suggest any meaning of "all".
Perhaps the Franciscan friars wanted to satisfy the Chinese Buddhist mentality which believed that we are destined a certain amount of wealth and health. When we used it up, we would suffer in this life or next. This translation is not faithful to the Greek original, but natural to the Chinese readers.
In his homily this morning, Fr. Martin told us a little story which empowers us to extend a helping hand no matter what little we can help.
A company of 3000 employees has a "winner takes all" tradition in their annual dinner. Each one puts $10 in a box and writes his own name on a piece of paper and drops it in the lucky draw box. One name will be drawn and the winner will pocket the $30,000.
This year, when Jack put his $10 in the box, he remembered Rose, a janitor, whose husband would undergo a surgery which was a heavy financial burden on the couple. Though the chance was slim, Simon put down Rose's name on his paper and dropped it in the lucky draw box. That evening, a miracle happened. Rose turned out to be the winner!
After dinner, out of curiosity, Simon came to the lucky draw box and drew another name. It was Rose. He drew again. It was Rose again. He couldn't believe it. He took out several ballots. Each, in different handwritings, was Rose!
The conclusion:「 勿以善小而不為。」
Don't think that a good is so insignificant that it is not worth doing.
This statement is commonly attributed to the will of Liao Bi to his son.
Relating to the Manila tragedy, Fr. Martin reminded us to seize the moment to do good, however little it seems to be. The tragedy forcibly reminded us that we might not be able to see tomorrow.
Dear Lord, help us love more generously. Amen.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
A steward commented by his master
Today, we read of the parable of a dishonest steward who was praised by his master (Luke 16:1-13). Whenever I hear this parable, I always recall a similar story in Chinese history. In my valedictory speech in the 2007 Biblical Institute Graduation Ceremony, I made "An attempt to explore God's revelation in Chinese Culture" its title and mentioned a probable relation between this Chinese story and the Lukan parable. Let me quote it in full.
初，馮驩聞孟嘗君好客，躡蹻而見之。孟嘗君曰；「先生遠辱，何以教文也？」馮驩曰：「聞君好士，以貧身歸於君。」孟嘗君置傳舍十日，孟嘗君問傳舍長曰：「客何所為？」答曰：「馮先生甚貧，猶有一劍耳，又蒯緱。彈其劍而歌曰『長鋏歸來乎，食無魚』。」孟嘗君遷之幸舍，食有魚矣。五日，又問傳舍長。答曰：「客復彈劍而歌曰『長鋏歸來乎，出無輿』。」孟嘗君遷之代舍，出入乘輿車矣。五日，孟嘗君復問傳舍長。舍長答曰：「先生又嘗彈劍而歌曰『長鋏歸來乎，無以為家』。」孟嘗君不悅。
居朞年，馮驩無所言。孟嘗君時相齊，封萬戶於薛。其食客三千人。邑入不足以奉客，使人出錢於薛。歲餘不入，貸錢者多不能與其息，客奉將不給。孟嘗君憂之，問左右：「何人可使收債於薛者？」傳舍長曰：「代舍客馮公形容狀貌甚辯，長者，無他伎能，宜可令收債。」孟嘗君乃進馮驩而請之曰：「賓客不知文不肖，幸臨文者三千餘人，邑入不足以奉賓客，故出息錢於薛。薛歲不入，民頗不與其息。今客食恐不給，願先生責之。」馮驩曰；「諾。」辭行，至薛，召取孟嘗君錢者皆會，得息錢十萬。乃多釀酒，買肥牛，召諸取錢者，能與息者皆來，不能與息者亦來，皆持取錢之券書合之。齊為會，日殺牛置酒。酒酣，乃持券如前合之，能與息者，與為期；貧不能與息者，取其券而燒之。曰：「孟嘗君所以貸錢者，為民之無者以為本業也；所以求息者，為無以奉客也。今富給者以要期，貧窮者燔券書以捐之。諸君強飲食。有君如此，豈可負哉！」坐者皆起，再拜。
孟嘗君聞馮驩燒券書，怒而使使召驩。驩至，孟嘗君曰：「文食客三千人，故貸錢於薛。文奉邑少，而民尚多不以時與其息，客食恐不足，故請先生收責之。聞先生得錢，即以多具牛酒而燒券書，何？」馮驩曰：「然。不多具牛酒即不能畢會，無以知其有餘不足。有餘者，為要期。不足者，雖守而責之十年，息愈多，急，即以逃亡自捐之。若急，終無以償，上則為君好利不愛士民，下則有離上抵負之名，非所以厲士民彰君聲也。焚無用虛債之券，捐不可得之虛計，令薛民親君而彰君之善聲也，君有何疑焉！」孟嘗君乃拊手而謝之。【孟嘗君列傳‧史記‧卷七十五】
I always admire the wisdom of these stewards. They are worldly and, to a certain extent, crafty. In the Chinese version, the steward was a great adviser of economics and diplomacy for his master and served him well. Of course, the master in the Gospel is God and who can be God's adviser (Isaiah 40:13)? Yet, God commented this dishonest steward. God is able to see good things even in dishonesty! We sinners have a lot to learn from God.
Dear Lord, we are taught to love righteousness and hate evil. And You want us to love sinners as well. Our hearts are too narrow. Teach us to love more, You and sinners. Amen.
初，馮驩聞孟嘗君好客，躡蹻而見之。孟嘗君曰；「先生遠辱，何以教文也？」馮驩曰：「聞君好士，以貧身歸於君。」孟嘗君置傳舍十日，孟嘗君問傳舍長曰：「客何所為？」答曰：「馮先生甚貧，猶有一劍耳，又蒯緱。彈其劍而歌曰『長鋏歸來乎，食無魚』。」孟嘗君遷之幸舍，食有魚矣。五日，又問傳舍長。答曰：「客復彈劍而歌曰『長鋏歸來乎，出無輿』。」孟嘗君遷之代舍，出入乘輿車矣。五日，孟嘗君復問傳舍長。舍長答曰：「先生又嘗彈劍而歌曰『長鋏歸來乎，無以為家』。」孟嘗君不悅。
居朞年，馮驩無所言。孟嘗君時相齊，封萬戶於薛。其食客三千人。邑入不足以奉客，使人出錢於薛。歲餘不入，貸錢者多不能與其息，客奉將不給。孟嘗君憂之，問左右：「何人可使收債於薛者？」傳舍長曰：「代舍客馮公形容狀貌甚辯，長者，無他伎能，宜可令收債。」孟嘗君乃進馮驩而請之曰：「賓客不知文不肖，幸臨文者三千餘人，邑入不足以奉賓客，故出息錢於薛。薛歲不入，民頗不與其息。今客食恐不給，願先生責之。」馮驩曰；「諾。」辭行，至薛，召取孟嘗君錢者皆會，得息錢十萬。乃多釀酒，買肥牛，召諸取錢者，能與息者皆來，不能與息者亦來，皆持取錢之券書合之。齊為會，日殺牛置酒。酒酣，乃持券如前合之，能與息者，與為期；貧不能與息者，取其券而燒之。曰：「孟嘗君所以貸錢者，為民之無者以為本業也；所以求息者，為無以奉客也。今富給者以要期，貧窮者燔券書以捐之。諸君強飲食。有君如此，豈可負哉！」坐者皆起，再拜。
孟嘗君聞馮驩燒券書，怒而使使召驩。驩至，孟嘗君曰：「文食客三千人，故貸錢於薛。文奉邑少，而民尚多不以時與其息，客食恐不足，故請先生收責之。聞先生得錢，即以多具牛酒而燒券書，何？」馮驩曰：「然。不多具牛酒即不能畢會，無以知其有餘不足。有餘者，為要期。不足者，雖守而責之十年，息愈多，急，即以逃亡自捐之。若急，終無以償，上則為君好利不愛士民，下則有離上抵負之名，非所以厲士民彰君聲也。焚無用虛債之券，捐不可得之虛計，令薛民親君而彰君之善聲也，君有何疑焉！」孟嘗君乃拊手而謝之。【孟嘗君列傳‧史記‧卷七十五】
I always admire the wisdom of these stewards. They are worldly and, to a certain extent, crafty. In the Chinese version, the steward was a great adviser of economics and diplomacy for his master and served him well. Of course, the master in the Gospel is God and who can be God's adviser (Isaiah 40:13)? Yet, God commented this dishonest steward. God is able to see good things even in dishonesty! We sinners have a lot to learn from God.
Dear Lord, we are taught to love righteousness and hate evil. And You want us to love sinners as well. Our hearts are too narrow. Teach us to love more, You and sinners. Amen.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
99 lost sheep
Today, we read of the famous stories of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin and the Prodigal Son in the gospel of Luke 15. I think Luke's Jesus was over-optimistic. What if he had not one, but 99 lost sheep to fetch out!
I do not know the world population in the first century. One source estimates that in 100 A.D., the Christians made up of less than 1% of the world population. Jesus really had 99 lost sheep to save at the end of 100 A.D. After twenty centuries of effort, the situation is improved. As of mid-2007, according to Worldwide Missions, about 32% of the world population profess Christianity.
I don't mean to be offensive. Let me label non-Christians as the "lost sheep" for the sake of argument. Therefore, ten years into the twenty first century, the Church still has 70 lost sheep to retrieve into her fold!
The three beautiful stories are meant to demonstrate God's love for men. Of course, God loves the righteous Pharisees and teachers of Law. They were the descendents of His friends Abraham and Moses. But He loves the sinners as well. God did not have to worry about the righteous Pharisees and teachers of the Law because Moses had already handed down the Torah to guide their lives. Therefore, God could be freed to fetch out the sinners.
In the early years of the Christianity, they were outnumbered by the Jewish establishment. Therefore, one sheep standing against 99 others was no exaggeration. How comforting it would be for Christians to hear that God would leave behind the 99 self-righteous Pharisees to look out for the one single lost Christian. Christians knew very well that they had been sinners. God values their repentance more than the righteousness of the Pharisees.
Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Luke 15:7).
I like to fancy what-if scenarios. What if the shepherd had lost 2 sheep instead of one? Well, I suppose he would still leave 98 sheep in the wilderness to fetch out the 2 lost sheep. What about the joy he would have after finding the 2 lost sheep? On average, there would be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 49 righteous persons who need no repentance!
What if the shepherd had lost 10 sheep and finally found them? His joy over one repentant sinner would be reduced to 9 righteous persons! How terrible the Law of Diminishing Return is!
What if the shepherd had lost 20 sheep or even more? Well, for economic reason, the stakes are getting higher and higher. I think the shepherd has all the more reason to go all the way out to save them. BTW, I think the Law of Diminishing Return has no effect on God.
Luckily, Jesus did not have to suffer this, not because of the ineffectiveness of the Law of DR over him! In reality, Jesus did not have 100 sheep to begin with. He started from zero! As of today, Jesus has managed to gather 30 sheep into his fold. Luke was ingenious indeed. When he wrote the story in the first century, there was only one sheep in the fold and 99 lost sheep outside. Indeed, this parable of the Lost Sheep sounds very apocalyptic to my ears.
Let me define what I mean by Christian. A Christian is someone who makes Christ the core, the focus of his life. The day will come when only 1% of the world population is non-Christian. The Good Shepherd will leave the 99% Christians behind in the wilderness to fetch out the remaining 1% non-Christians in the world. After he has converted them all, he will be extremely joyful to tell God the Father, the Holy Spirit and all the angels what he has accomplished.
Is this a possibility? It is a certainty. When the Christian population has reached a critical mass, a tipping point will be reached when all the humanity will turn away from sins and return to God.
My dear Good Lord, You are the Good Shepherd who laid down Your life to redeem us. You have demonstrated Your love without reservation. Set my heart ablaze to join You in the mission to fetch out our brothers. Amen.
I do not know the world population in the first century. One source estimates that in 100 A.D., the Christians made up of less than 1% of the world population. Jesus really had 99 lost sheep to save at the end of 100 A.D. After twenty centuries of effort, the situation is improved. As of mid-2007, according to Worldwide Missions, about 32% of the world population profess Christianity.
I don't mean to be offensive. Let me label non-Christians as the "lost sheep" for the sake of argument. Therefore, ten years into the twenty first century, the Church still has 70 lost sheep to retrieve into her fold!
The three beautiful stories are meant to demonstrate God's love for men. Of course, God loves the righteous Pharisees and teachers of Law. They were the descendents of His friends Abraham and Moses. But He loves the sinners as well. God did not have to worry about the righteous Pharisees and teachers of the Law because Moses had already handed down the Torah to guide their lives. Therefore, God could be freed to fetch out the sinners.
In the early years of the Christianity, they were outnumbered by the Jewish establishment. Therefore, one sheep standing against 99 others was no exaggeration. How comforting it would be for Christians to hear that God would leave behind the 99 self-righteous Pharisees to look out for the one single lost Christian. Christians knew very well that they had been sinners. God values their repentance more than the righteousness of the Pharisees.
Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Luke 15:7).
I like to fancy what-if scenarios. What if the shepherd had lost 2 sheep instead of one? Well, I suppose he would still leave 98 sheep in the wilderness to fetch out the 2 lost sheep. What about the joy he would have after finding the 2 lost sheep? On average, there would be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 49 righteous persons who need no repentance!
What if the shepherd had lost 10 sheep and finally found them? His joy over one repentant sinner would be reduced to 9 righteous persons! How terrible the Law of Diminishing Return is!
What if the shepherd had lost 20 sheep or even more? Well, for economic reason, the stakes are getting higher and higher. I think the shepherd has all the more reason to go all the way out to save them. BTW, I think the Law of Diminishing Return has no effect on God.
Luckily, Jesus did not have to suffer this, not because of the ineffectiveness of the Law of DR over him! In reality, Jesus did not have 100 sheep to begin with. He started from zero! As of today, Jesus has managed to gather 30 sheep into his fold. Luke was ingenious indeed. When he wrote the story in the first century, there was only one sheep in the fold and 99 lost sheep outside. Indeed, this parable of the Lost Sheep sounds very apocalyptic to my ears.
Let me define what I mean by Christian. A Christian is someone who makes Christ the core, the focus of his life. The day will come when only 1% of the world population is non-Christian. The Good Shepherd will leave the 99% Christians behind in the wilderness to fetch out the remaining 1% non-Christians in the world. After he has converted them all, he will be extremely joyful to tell God the Father, the Holy Spirit and all the angels what he has accomplished.
Is this a possibility? It is a certainty. When the Christian population has reached a critical mass, a tipping point will be reached when all the humanity will turn away from sins and return to God.
My dear Good Lord, You are the Good Shepherd who laid down Your life to redeem us. You have demonstrated Your love without reservation. Set my heart ablaze to join You in the mission to fetch out our brothers. Amen.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Did Jesus encourage people to hate their parents?
We Christians have a responsibility towards our fellow men. We must tell them the gospel, the good news. If they listen to our message, good for them. If they don't, we cannot force them because it is their own freedom. We have fulfilled our duty and they have themselves to blame. However, if we don't preach the gospel, God will hold us responsible for their downfall.
However, sometimes, the gospel is not so pleasing to the ears. Like the gospel reading today, it sounds very harsh.
If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26).
If religions are responsible for the transmission of values to the next generation, honouring one's parents must be one such value. Jesus was a Jew. The 10 Commandments came down from Judaism and honouring one's parents is one of the Commandments. It is hard to imagine how Jesus could have spoken such words and how Jesus would expect his audience, especially the Chinese audience, to listen to such a message.
Chinese cherish family values. The family occupies a more important place than the state in their hearts. Many people have criticized the Chinese for their lack of patriotism. They love their families more than their country. "Filial piety" is the primary Chinese virtue. This can be illustrated by a dialogue between Confucius and Ye Kung.
葉公語孔子曰：“吾黨有直躬者，其父攘羊，而子證之。”孔子曰：“吾黨之直者異於是。父為子隱，子為父隱，直在其中矣。”【論語‧子路】
In discussing what straight dealings were, Confucius added an element of familial bonding. Instead of testifying against each other in the court of law, a father should "cover" for the son, the son for the father. Of course, a lot of commentaries have been written to explain this dubious verse. But at least on a casual reading, familial bonding was of higher value than legal justice in the mentality of Chinese.
Do Chinese really care so much about family even at the expense of justice? Not quite! We can quote a famous story to dispel this misunderstanding.
四年，春，衛州吁弒桓公而立 ...州吁未能和其民 ...厚（石厚，石碏之子）從州吁如陳，石碏使告于陳曰，衛國褊小，老夫耄矣，無能為也，此二人者，實弒寡君，敢即圖之，陳人執之，而請蒞于衛，九月，衛人使右宰醜，蒞殺州吁于濮，石碏使其宰獳羊肩，蒞殺石厚于陳，君子曰，石碏，純臣也，惡州吁而厚與焉，大義滅親，其是之謂乎。【左傳‧隱公四年】
This is the allusion of the idiom 「大義滅親」. Therefore, familial bonding is not everything for Chinese.
Let's return to the gospel. Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the word "hate μισεῖ" is a Hebrew language feature. It means, in this context, "love less" rather than feeling hostile. In a similar passage, Matthew renders a different translation.
He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Matthew 10:37).
Biblical scholars believe that Luke was more faithful to Jesus' original wording while Matthew renders Jesus' saying in a more understandable manner. Therefore, Jesus did not encourage his followers to hate their parents. If he did, he would contradict his own teaching: to love even those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44). That is to say, even if your parents persecute you, prevent you from following Jesus, you still love them! Otherwise, you are not worthy of Jesus.
However, Fr. Milanese went one step deeper. He did not think that Jesus asked his followers to love him more than their parents. Fr. Milanese opined that love is not, like a TV commercial, a piece of mooncake. One slice for your mother, another for your younger brother and two slices for Jesus etc. This is a misunderstanding of love. He warned the young men that if their girl friends asked them, between God and them, which one they loved more, be sure to find out whether they were serious. If they were and forced you to make a choice, they had misunderstood love. Love can never be exclusive. Moreover, God is love. Without God, your love towards your girlfriend is empty, and even worse, is lustful. Similarly, our love of Jesus includes our parents. Since God is the source of all love, naturally, we should choose Him and love Him more than our parents.
This reading makes the two parables sandwiched between Jesus' exhortations more sensible. Jesus told us to renounce our relationships, our possessions and achievements etc. to follow him. Then he told two parables which suggest that we should weigh our abilities carefully before we take up any project. Otherwise, the consequence would be disastrous. It seems that Jesus was warning against people joining him impulsively (Luke 14:28-32).
Again, such an understanding is contrary to the Christian attitude towards life. Christians are not consequentialists. Jesus taught us to be like a child, not to be so calculating. We care more about the process rather than the consequence. We plant the seeds and leave the outcomes to God.
Therefore, following Fr. Milanese' line of reasoning, I believe Jesus was telling us to take God into the account. When we take up our cross to follow Jesus, he would take care of our parents, children and brothers. The problem is that many of our leave God out of our picture. We do not trust God enough. If we take God into consideration, we will have a favourable balance sheet. Then, we will be more confident to follow Jesus. Woe to those who do not take up his cross to follow Jesus!
Dear Lord, I believe. Help me believe more. Help me repent and forgive my sins. Amen.
However, sometimes, the gospel is not so pleasing to the ears. Like the gospel reading today, it sounds very harsh.
If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26).
If religions are responsible for the transmission of values to the next generation, honouring one's parents must be one such value. Jesus was a Jew. The 10 Commandments came down from Judaism and honouring one's parents is one of the Commandments. It is hard to imagine how Jesus could have spoken such words and how Jesus would expect his audience, especially the Chinese audience, to listen to such a message.
Chinese cherish family values. The family occupies a more important place than the state in their hearts. Many people have criticized the Chinese for their lack of patriotism. They love their families more than their country. "Filial piety" is the primary Chinese virtue. This can be illustrated by a dialogue between Confucius and Ye Kung.
葉公語孔子曰：“吾黨有直躬者，其父攘羊，而子證之。”孔子曰：“吾黨之直者異於是。父為子隱，子為父隱，直在其中矣。”【論語‧子路】
In discussing what straight dealings were, Confucius added an element of familial bonding. Instead of testifying against each other in the court of law, a father should "cover" for the son, the son for the father. Of course, a lot of commentaries have been written to explain this dubious verse. But at least on a casual reading, familial bonding was of higher value than legal justice in the mentality of Chinese.
Do Chinese really care so much about family even at the expense of justice? Not quite! We can quote a famous story to dispel this misunderstanding.
四年，春，衛州吁弒桓公而立 ...州吁未能和其民 ...厚（石厚，石碏之子）從州吁如陳，石碏使告于陳曰，衛國褊小，老夫耄矣，無能為也，此二人者，實弒寡君，敢即圖之，陳人執之，而請蒞于衛，九月，衛人使右宰醜，蒞殺州吁于濮，石碏使其宰獳羊肩，蒞殺石厚于陳，君子曰，石碏，純臣也，惡州吁而厚與焉，大義滅親，其是之謂乎。【左傳‧隱公四年】
This is the allusion of the idiom 「大義滅親」. Therefore, familial bonding is not everything for Chinese.
Let's return to the gospel. Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the word "hate μισεῖ" is a Hebrew language feature. It means, in this context, "love less" rather than feeling hostile. In a similar passage, Matthew renders a different translation.
He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me (Matthew 10:37).
Biblical scholars believe that Luke was more faithful to Jesus' original wording while Matthew renders Jesus' saying in a more understandable manner. Therefore, Jesus did not encourage his followers to hate their parents. If he did, he would contradict his own teaching: to love even those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44). That is to say, even if your parents persecute you, prevent you from following Jesus, you still love them! Otherwise, you are not worthy of Jesus.
However, Fr. Milanese went one step deeper. He did not think that Jesus asked his followers to love him more than their parents. Fr. Milanese opined that love is not, like a TV commercial, a piece of mooncake. One slice for your mother, another for your younger brother and two slices for Jesus etc. This is a misunderstanding of love. He warned the young men that if their girl friends asked them, between God and them, which one they loved more, be sure to find out whether they were serious. If they were and forced you to make a choice, they had misunderstood love. Love can never be exclusive. Moreover, God is love. Without God, your love towards your girlfriend is empty, and even worse, is lustful. Similarly, our love of Jesus includes our parents. Since God is the source of all love, naturally, we should choose Him and love Him more than our parents.
This reading makes the two parables sandwiched between Jesus' exhortations more sensible. Jesus told us to renounce our relationships, our possessions and achievements etc. to follow him. Then he told two parables which suggest that we should weigh our abilities carefully before we take up any project. Otherwise, the consequence would be disastrous. It seems that Jesus was warning against people joining him impulsively (Luke 14:28-32).
Again, such an understanding is contrary to the Christian attitude towards life. Christians are not consequentialists. Jesus taught us to be like a child, not to be so calculating. We care more about the process rather than the consequence. We plant the seeds and leave the outcomes to God.
Therefore, following Fr. Milanese' line of reasoning, I believe Jesus was telling us to take God into the account. When we take up our cross to follow Jesus, he would take care of our parents, children and brothers. The problem is that many of our leave God out of our picture. We do not trust God enough. If we take God into consideration, we will have a favourable balance sheet. Then, we will be more confident to follow Jesus. Woe to those who do not take up his cross to follow Jesus!
Dear Lord, I believe. Help me believe more. Help me repent and forgive my sins. Amen.
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Three levels of humility
I am very inch. Humility is a virtue I am in want. Today, I don't want to write about the tragedy in the Philippines. Many people have spoken more than enough and today, many people organize many prayer services and processions. Our senses (including common sense) have been bombarded non-stop by feeds after feeds from the mass media. Enough is enough.
The opening ceremony for a new school year for my studies in the Holy Spirit Seminary College of Theology & Philosophy was held today. I took part in sharing together with Teresa Ng, as Year 2 students, our study experiences with the Year One newcomers. There were a couple of familiar faces.
Among them, the LaSalle boys are doing well. Fr. Lui Chi Man, Dominic, swore in today as a professor teaching moral theology. Paul, who has already obtained a PhD in psychology, came to study the Licentiate in Theology course. He said he loved teaching and saw that a lot of professors in the College were ageing. He wanted to study theology and in the future teach in the College. His aunt, Teresa Ng, my classmate told me that Paul would get married next year.
Betty Wong studied the Biblical Diploma course with me six years ago. She came, one year behind me, to further enhance her biblical understanding.
Tam Chun Ho, a friend of teenage days from Choi Hung, also came to study. His wife had attended this opening ceremony and she told me that she had already finished this course some years ago. How sweet it is that husband and wife take turns to study!
I feel good about this college of Theology & Philosophy because many elite and fervour Catholics come here to enhance their knowledge of the Catholic faith.
Many professors co-celebrated the opening mass in the afternoon. Fr. Lam Chung Wai, Simon, the Provincial of the Salesians Don Bosco, was the concelebrant with Bishop John Tong. Fr. Lam spoke in the homily on the theme of the gospel reading --- humility. He distinguished three levels of humility. It was the first time for me to hear the homily of Fr. Simon Lam. Unfortunately, I was already tired and not able to fully pick up his homily. What a pity! I have to dig up from the Internet what "three levels of humility" are. From a 1910 article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, one may discover that St. Benedict spoke about 12 degrees of humility and St. Anselm seven! These saints do NOT impress me with humility, at far as the intellectual dimension is concerned.
Humility is no longer a value, not to mention virtue, in modern society which is marked by its competitiveness. People need to outshine his colleagues in order to survive and to get promoted. This is understandable. But challenging and criticizing the government, the authority are fashionable. For example, 8 Hongkongers were gunned down in a hijack incident in Manila. The Philippine president and police have drawn a lot of criticisms as a result of this botched rescue operation. Tens of thousands of Hongkongers took to the street today to show their dissatisfaction of the incompetence of the Philippine government in the name of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues!
Nothing can happen without God's consent. For the sake of argument, let us assume that this tragedy is God's will. The 8 Hongkongers and the hijacker were all victims of an incompetent government disabled by corruption. Then, shall we not submit to God's will? This submission is the first level of humility.
Two cases of dismissal of domestic helpers caused by this tragedy have been confirmed. Some people have forgotten how much these domestic helpers have contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. They have released a lot of housewives to join the workforce of Hong Kong, enhancing her economy. The ability to recognize the virtues and talents others possess is the second level of humility.
Perhaps due to Interpol agreements, the Hong Kong Government has sent five police and forensic officers to collect evidence from the tourist coach, the crime scene of this hijack incident in the Philippines. I am rather pessimistic with the outcomes. If the Hong Kong people are willing to accept the limit of the talents and authority of our officers, we have attained the third level of humility.
In his homily, Fr. Simon Lam told us a story of a crippled child buying a crippled dog in a pet shop. It was a touching story, teaching us the true meaning of humility. However, humility does not seem to occupy any place in the Manila tragedy. Hong Kong people are demanding justice instead. How does humility go hand in hand with the demand of justice? This is really a challenging question to meditate on.
Dear Lord, my sins and my sickness are before my eyes continuously. They teach me to be humble. My Lord, I submit my life to Your will. Amen.
The opening ceremony for a new school year for my studies in the Holy Spirit Seminary College of Theology & Philosophy was held today. I took part in sharing together with Teresa Ng, as Year 2 students, our study experiences with the Year One newcomers. There were a couple of familiar faces.
Among them, the LaSalle boys are doing well. Fr. Lui Chi Man, Dominic, swore in today as a professor teaching moral theology. Paul, who has already obtained a PhD in psychology, came to study the Licentiate in Theology course. He said he loved teaching and saw that a lot of professors in the College were ageing. He wanted to study theology and in the future teach in the College. His aunt, Teresa Ng, my classmate told me that Paul would get married next year.
Betty Wong studied the Biblical Diploma course with me six years ago. She came, one year behind me, to further enhance her biblical understanding.
Tam Chun Ho, a friend of teenage days from Choi Hung, also came to study. His wife had attended this opening ceremony and she told me that she had already finished this course some years ago. How sweet it is that husband and wife take turns to study!
I feel good about this college of Theology & Philosophy because many elite and fervour Catholics come here to enhance their knowledge of the Catholic faith.
Many professors co-celebrated the opening mass in the afternoon. Fr. Lam Chung Wai, Simon, the Provincial of the Salesians Don Bosco, was the concelebrant with Bishop John Tong. Fr. Lam spoke in the homily on the theme of the gospel reading --- humility. He distinguished three levels of humility. It was the first time for me to hear the homily of Fr. Simon Lam. Unfortunately, I was already tired and not able to fully pick up his homily. What a pity! I have to dig up from the Internet what "three levels of humility" are. From a 1910 article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, one may discover that St. Benedict spoke about 12 degrees of humility and St. Anselm seven! These saints do NOT impress me with humility, at far as the intellectual dimension is concerned.
Humility is no longer a value, not to mention virtue, in modern society which is marked by its competitiveness. People need to outshine his colleagues in order to survive and to get promoted. This is understandable. But challenging and criticizing the government, the authority are fashionable. For example, 8 Hongkongers were gunned down in a hijack incident in Manila. The Philippine president and police have drawn a lot of criticisms as a result of this botched rescue operation. Tens of thousands of Hongkongers took to the street today to show their dissatisfaction of the incompetence of the Philippine government in the name of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues!
Nothing can happen without God's consent. For the sake of argument, let us assume that this tragedy is God's will. The 8 Hongkongers and the hijacker were all victims of an incompetent government disabled by corruption. Then, shall we not submit to God's will? This submission is the first level of humility.
Two cases of dismissal of domestic helpers caused by this tragedy have been confirmed. Some people have forgotten how much these domestic helpers have contributed to the economy of Hong Kong. They have released a lot of housewives to join the workforce of Hong Kong, enhancing her economy. The ability to recognize the virtues and talents others possess is the second level of humility.
Perhaps due to Interpol agreements, the Hong Kong Government has sent five police and forensic officers to collect evidence from the tourist coach, the crime scene of this hijack incident in the Philippines. I am rather pessimistic with the outcomes. If the Hong Kong people are willing to accept the limit of the talents and authority of our officers, we have attained the third level of humility.
In his homily, Fr. Simon Lam told us a story of a crippled child buying a crippled dog in a pet shop. It was a touching story, teaching us the true meaning of humility. However, humility does not seem to occupy any place in the Manila tragedy. Hong Kong people are demanding justice instead. How does humility go hand in hand with the demand of justice? This is really a challenging question to meditate on.
Dear Lord, my sins and my sickness are before my eyes continuously. They teach me to be humble. My Lord, I submit my life to Your will. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)