26TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME (29th Sept. 2019)

May you, through the grace of today's Eucharistic celebration, feel the need to reach out to the less-privileged in order to alleviate their conditions.Happy Sunday!

DOCTRINE AND FAITH, 26TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME

(Amos 6,1a, 4-7; 1 Timothy 6,11-16; Luke 16,19-31: Year C, 2019)

The denunciation of the prophet Amos in the first reading, Amos 6,1a, 4-7, is not of the possession of wealth itself but the complacency that often accompanies it. He is distressed because the affluent entertain themselves with wantonness while the social structure of the northern kingdom of Israel disintegrates. The prophet's condemnation could not be more severe. He pronounces "Woe!" upon the people. Only funeral dirges begin in this way. The use of such denunciation here denotes the degree of the prophet's disdain. He believes the degenerate nature of the wealthy indicates that real life has died in them, and so a dirge is appropriate. The particular aspect of their lives that he censures is their habit of self-indulgence at feasts which is depicted in the luxurious lounges where they dine and wine, their menu mostly of diet of meat that was a rarity in ancient Israel. Nothing is said about their attire but mention is made of the costly oils with which they anoint themselves. Such perfuming was both a cosmetic practice and a sexual stimulation. Perhaps the most excessive example of dissolute dining is their manner of drinking wine. Not content to sip from goblets, they guzzle from wide-mouthed bowls. The prophet has gone to great lengths to paint a picture of the dissolute character of the wealthy. In contrast to this, with one simple but piercing phrase he describes the condition of the nation as the collapse of Joseph. The profligacy of the wealthy in the face of social breakdown is evidence of their self-indulgence and complacency. However, their affluent lifestyle will be cut short, and in an ironic turn of events those who always thought of themselves first will be the first to be deported into exile.

In the second reading, 1 Timothy 6,11-16, Paul addresses a personal message to Timothy. In it he delivers a fourfold charge: pursue the virtues; fight for the faith; grasp eternal life; keep the commandments. He calls Timothy to responsibilities any Christian would have assumed upon initiation into the Church. However, he expects that Timothy will fulfill them in ways that reflect his pastoral office. The righteousness Timothy is called to pursue is right conduct in human affairs; the devotion is openness to the will of God. Faith is an attitude of trust in God; love is benevolence and goodwill toward others. Patience, or endurance, is staying-power, and gentleness is the kind of meekness that will inherit the earth. Paul employs an image from athletic competition in order to illustrate the struggle that being faithful often entails. It is not clear whether he was thinking of running, boxing, or wrestling. In any case, he exhorts Timothy to perform energetically in order to grasp the prize that is given to the winner. The prize Paul has in mind is eternal life. Timothy, like all other Christians, was called to eternal life at his baptism. And now, again like all other Christians, he must fight for the faith so that he can attain it. Paul underscores the seriousness of his admonitions. He charges Timothy, before God, and Christ, to obey the commandments in anticipation of Christ's glorious manifestation (epiphaneia), a word that denotes divine self-disclosure. Here it is probably a reference to the Second Coming. When this great event will transpire is known only by God whom Paul extols in the final doxology.

The gospel reading for this Sunday, Luke 16:19-3, is a narrative that painstakingly paints a picture of radical reversals. The man who during life was treated as a castoff enjoys the bliss of heaven, while the one who savoured the pleasures life has to give ends up in great torment in the netherworld. The story has two parts. The first describes the situations and fates of the two men (vv. 19-26). The second describes the man's concern for his brothers (vv. 27-31). Jesus goes to great lengths to contrast the lives of these two men. The wealth of the first man is seen in his manner of dress, in the style of his home, and in the quality of the table he spreads for himself. He dressed like the wealthy people of his day. He lived in luxury everyday, enjoying sumptuous meals and a home that boasted a large gate or portico. By contrast, the poor man, Lazarus, whose name is the Greek form of Eliezer (my God helps), was destitute. He lay begging at the gate of the home of the rich man, hoping for crumbs from his table. His condition was so debased that the scavenging dogs licked his sores. Neither description comments on the moral rectitude of the man. However, the unclean state of Lazarus is obvious, and it is reinforced with the licking of the impure dogs. Then why is Lazarus rewarded while the rich man suffers? Is there merely a bias in favour of poverty here? The answer is found in the understanding of covenant responsibility. Both men are somehow associated with Abraham and therefore belong to the people of Israel. Abraham tells the rich man that his brothers have Moses and the prophets, a reference to the religious traditions of the people. From this we can conclude that though the social conditions of the two protagonists were diametrically opposed, these men were bound together by the covenant. This means they had responsibilities toward each other, particularly the rich man toward the poor man. The story shows that he ignored these responsibilities. The rich man was indifferent to the needs of the covenant brother who lay at the gate of his home. The fact that he named the poor man when he asked Abraham to send him refreshing water indicates he was not ignorant of him. When he asked that Lazarus be sent to warn his brothers to change their way of life (metanoia), he was told that they had the same religious tradition he had, a tradition that clearly charges the wealthy to meet the needs of the poor. If they were not attentive to that tradition, they would not heed a resurrected Lazarus. When he was alive and in a position to help Lazarus, he disregarded him. Now that he is in need, he asks that Lazarus first comfort him and then warn his brothers. Even in death the man is selfish. The entire character of the man shows he is concerned only with himself and with those who are like him (his brothers; there was no mention of sisters, etc). This is why he suffers. He has not been faithful to his covenant responsibilities, and his life witnessed no metanoia.

On this Sunday, there comes again, the question of responsible management of money and the social relationships that influence it. The significance of covenant is clearly sketched, as is the harsh reality of judgment. It is Paul who offers us an alternative way of living that will stave off the punishment that results from disregard of our commitments. Both the reading from the prophet Amos and the gospel narrative pointedly condemn the lifestyles of the rich. Again, it is not wealth itself but the complacency and disregard for others that it too frequently generates that is denounced. When we are relatively secure and satisfied with the circumstances of our lives, it is easy for us to take these blessings for granted, to think we have a right to all our good fortune. This is particularly the case in societies that foster a sense of individual opportunity and advancement in contrast to those that are more communal in their perspective. There we find the sense that I earned this and so I have a right to enjoy it as I see fit. On the other hand, biblical covenant is a communal concept. It emerges from a society that insists on mutual responsibility. With the exception of the Davidic covenant established between God and one family (cf. 2 Sam 7,8-17), all biblical covenants presume that God entered into a solemn pact with the entire people. While individuals do have rights and obligations, they carry them as members of the group, not merely as individuals. Furthermore, these rights and obligations flow from the relationships with one another as well as the relationship with God. It is for this reason that social justice was such a fundamental concern of the prophets in ancient Israel. These readings are held up before us so we can compare our sense of covenant with that of the people portrayed within them. To what extent have we even been aware of our covenant bond with others? And conscious of it, how faithfully have we carried out our responsibilities? Unlike the people depicted in last Sunday's readings, those appearing here are not accused of dishonest behaviour. They are not guilty of sins of commission, infractions of the law. They are guilty of sins of omission, sins that flow from a casualness toward covenant commitment. How do we measure up in this regard? There is a theme in these readings we do not like to face. Although the fundamental image of God is one of mercy and compassion, we cannot disregard the fact of judgment. Amos pronounces a woe against his own people; Abraham declares there is an unbridgeable chasm between the saved and the condemned. These are harsh condemnations, but they cannot be softened. Their very harshness lays bare the gravity of indifference to the sorry plight of others. Paul even speaks here of the appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. Though he does not say that Christ will bring judgment when he comes, the nuances of this idea are present. Judgment will be deter­mined not primarily in terms of our obedience to law but in view of our fidelity to covenant commitment. Righteousness is a covenant term. It is a quality of God that is shared with us by means of our covenant bond. Paul admonishes Timothy, and us, to pursue this righteousness, along with devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness. Some of these virtues focus on our relationship with God, but most are directed toward our relationship with others. Those who are less fortunate are our sisters and brothers. If we take our covenant obligations lightly and allow them to languish at our gates, on our street, in village squares, etc., we will have only ourselves to blame when we find ourselves facing the harsh judgment of God. May we, therefore, ask the good Lord to endow us with the grace to take up our covenant relationship by assuaging the needs of our less privileged brothers and sisters.Happy Sunday! +John I. Okoye

(graphics  by chukwubike)

YEAR C (22 SEPTEMBER 2019)

DOCTRINE AND FAITH(Amos 8, 4-7; 1 Timothy 2, 1-8; Luke 16, 1-13: Year C, 2019)

The prophetic oracle, in the first reading from prophet Amos, is one of condemnation. Here, the prophet denounces unscrupulous merchants for their false piety, their avarice, their dishonest business practices, and their exploitation of the poor and defenceless.  The celebration at the beginning of the new moon included sumptuous feasts and specific sacrifices (cf. Num 28, 11-15). As was the case with the observance of the Sabbaths, all business was suspended. While the merchants appear to have observed these religious obligations, they did so hypocritically, for in the midst of the celebration they were eager to resume their dishonest business. The poor referred to in this passage are those who do not have lands, and no harvest of their own crop but must purchase grain and wheat for their food. Thus they are dependent on the honesty of the merchants, who not only measure out the produce on their own scales but who are in a position to determine the prices to be paid for the staple food people need to live on. These poor are the people who are frequently brought to such extremes of poverty that they are forced to sell themselves into slavery in order to survive.

 These are the very people who are victimised by the unscrupulous merchants to whom this oracle is addressed and who cheat their customers in several ways. The last verse of the first reading reports the judgment of God which is passed in the form of an irrevocable oath: Never will I forget a single thing you have done. In the second reading, 1 Timothy 2,1-8,  Paul instructs Timothy to see that prayers are offered publicly for the salvation of all. 

The first three types of prayer mentioned are various forms of petition, and the fourth kind, thanksgiving(eucharistia), adds gratitude to the reasons for praying. The major point of this instruction seems to be the all-inclusive scope of Christian prayer. Twice Paul states that prayers should be offered for all people (vv. 1,4). Special attention is given to civic leaders. This indicates that Christianity was not fundamentally inimical toward those who wielded worldly power. Two reasons for such prayer are given. The first appears to be pragmatic: Pray for them so that you can experience peace in their midst. However, a closer examination shows that the goal of their prayer is really not simply peace but, rather, the salvation of others. Paul is urging prayer for the conversion of the leaders. If they are converted, then they will recognise and accept the teachings of the gospel, and all will be able to live tranquil lives. If the Church enjoys a congenial relationship with civic authorities, its members will be able publicly to live out the values they espouse.

 The second listed reason for praying for these officials is the primary reason: It is God's will to do so. It is God's will that all come to know the one God and Christ Jesus, the only mediator between God and humankind(anthropos). Belief in the universality of salvation through Christ should spur the Christians on to this kind of prayer. Not only through preaching will all women and men be converted to the gospel but through prayer as well. The reading concludes with a final injunction to pray in every place with hands uplifted, a common posture for prayer. The gospel narrative, Luke 16,1-13, is the story of the steward or household manager(oikonomos) who rewrote the debts of his employer in order to ensure a financial future for himself after he is dismissed. He decides to alter the accounts of his master's debtors. This gives us insight into the character of the man. He was not careful enough when managing the household resources for his master's benefit, but he is more than industrious when his own future is at stake. 

The judgment passed on the steward rests on the meaning of the Greek word adikias (v. 8). While the word does mean unrighteous' it usually refers to a violation of a law, to what is against custom rather than what is impious. It is clear the steward has violated customary law. It was his duty to advance his employer's position by enhancing his financial holdings. Instead, he reduced them for his own benefit. Despite this, the master of the household, not Jesus, commends him for acting shrewdly (from phronesis, the word for practical wisdom). Jesus seems to step back from this particular incident and use it to draw a religious conclusion: children of this age (or children of the world) have more practical wisdom than do children of light. In his admonition Jesus interprets several elements from this story in order to point out how children of light should act. He first instructs his disciples to act with the same kind of practical wisdom but to use it to ensure places in an eternal dwelling. He then comments on the character of one's stewardship. The way one handles small matters will determine the way one handles weightier responsibilities. If one cannot exercise practical wisdom when dealing with the mammon or wealth of unrighteousness, how can that one be trusted with the real thing? If one cannot be relied upon 

as overseer of the possessions of another, how can that one be deemed adequate to be an independent proprietor? The real point of the story is found in the last verse. Though shrewd in the ways of the world, the steward chose to serve his own financial needs rather than the economic interests of his employer. This made him an unreliable or dishonest servant. One cannot serve both the master of the household (God) and one's own personal interests (mammon). One must choose. The readings for today focus our attention on the proper use of money and the goods of this world. We are creatures of this world. We are made of it, and we are totally dependent upon it for our very existence. We require its air, its water, its food, its heat. We need it for covering and for shelter; we need it to stimulate our minds and our spirits. Therefore, our use of its phenomenal resources cannot in itself be immoral. What is questionable is the character of our use. Being  chidden of this world we have right to life which includes the  right to eat, to be clothed, to be sheltered, to be nourished by the beauty of the world of which we are a part.

 But how much and what quality of food do we have a right to when others who have the right to eat do not have enough to live on? How many changes of clothing do we have a right to when others who have the right to be clothed go naked? How elaborate a home do we have a right to when others who have a right to shelter are homeless? How much beauty do we have a right to when other gentle spirits live in squalor? There are many circumstances that contribute to the complexity of these questions, making them very difficult to answer. Surely the merchant in the passage from Amos had a right to his business. He should not be faulted because he was prosperous while others were poor. Nor should the householder or the steward in the gospel be criticised for trying not to be in need. We cannot be censured for putting resources aside for future use, for the education of children, for possible medical needs, for retirement, even for vacation and celebrations. But how much do we really need? How much do we have a right to? Our consumer, corrupt and greedy society might tell us we have a right to everything we can earn or grab. But do we? In a world of limited resources how much do we have a right to? What does the balance of the natural world tell us, where air, rain, sunshine, etc., are in abundance for every one? What do the legitimate needs of others tell us? What does our religious tradition tell us? There are no easy answers to these questions. We live our lives on the horns of a dilemma. We have the right to use and to enjoy the marvels of our world, but we cannot do this free of responsibility to one another and to the world itself. The men in today's readings are not condemned because of their economic privilege but because they used it only to their own advantage. As Christians we are not merely children of this world; we are also children of light. Paul's admonition to pray for our civic leaders reminds us that we do indeed live in the real world, but we are called to live there according to standards worthy of our calling. We are more than insatiable consumers. 

Our value is not found in the measure of our possessions. It is in the quality of our relationships, in particular with our relationships with our deprived sisters and brothers. We are not called to disown the world. It is impossible for us to do that because of our total dependence on it. But we are called to live in it gently, using what we need and sharing what we can. We may never be sure we have made the right decisions in this regard, but we must be ever conscious of our need to grapple with these issues. We are not the only ones involved in our economic decisions, and so we cannot make them lightly. We cannot afford to squander the resources of our world. We must make decisions as trustworthy stewards of the household of God, not like the man in the gospel who was only concerned with his own well-being. We must serve God, not mammon. May we be empowered by the Holy Spirit to always choose to serve God by sharing the goods of life with the less privileged ones. Happy Sunday! +John I. Okoye  

(Graphics by.blogger)

24TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME year C 2019

(DOCTRINE AND FAITH)
(Exodus 32,7-11. 13-14; 1 Timothy 1,12-17; Luke 15,1-32: Year C, 2019)
0

The first reading, Exodus 32,7-11, 13-14, reports a dramatic exchange between God and Moses. The Israelites are guilty of having violated the first two commandments: You, shall have no other gods; you shall not carve idols. They have made themselves a molten calf. In response to their infidelity, God seems to disown them, insisting that they are Moses' people, whom he, Moses, brought out of Egypt. For his part, Moses will not allow this shift in association to take place. He insists that these are God's own people whom God, and no other, brought out of Egypt (v, 11). God accuses the people of being stiff-necked, that is to say being very stubborn. Judging the people to be an impossible lot, God considers destroying them and beginning anew with a people that springs from Moses. God makes the same promise to Moses as was made to Abraham (Gen 12,2): I will make of you a great nation. It is probably here more than anywhere else that the greatness of Moses is seen. Rather than accept this amazing offer, Moses pleads for the preservation of the people of whom he is a member. As the story is told, Moses has been successful in his defence of the sinful people. God relents of the severe punishment intended.
The second reading, 1 Timothy 1,12-17, is a bold statement about the mercy of God toward sinners. Paul begins it with an expression of gratitude for God's goodness toward him, and from this he moves into a personal testimony that demonstrates the extent of God's goodness. Paul states that he is grateful Christ strengthened him and found him worthy to proclaim the gospel. In itself this could be an audacious claim. However, lest it sound like he is bragging he quickly admits to the character of his former life. Previously he had denied everything he had heard about Christ; he hunted down those who were his followers, and he stood in judgment over them. He is a perfect example of one who deserves punishment at the hands of God. However, the opposite occurred. He was treated mercifully by God. His instruction on God's mercy continues with a pronouncement of the trustworthiness of the statement he is about to make, in which he maintains that redemption was the reason for the incarnation. In other words, the merciful love of God toward sinners prompted the coming of Christ Jesus into the world.

The opening verses of the gospel reading, Luke 15,1-32, set the stage for the parables Jesus tells. In them, lines are drawn between scribes and Pharisees, who were considered righteous religious leaders, and tax collectors and sinners, who were social outcasts. To share a meal with the latter group was to share life with them. These were the people who came to hear Jesus. The Pharisees and scribes criticised Jesus for keeping company with them. They maintained that Jesus' association with such unclean outcasts contaminated him. In contrast, Jesus saw-this association as an opportunity for opening the reign of God to all. He illustrated God's care for the outcasts by means of three parables. The first two are parallel stories. In them Jesus depicts the extravagant solicitude of the shepherd and the woman in order to demonstrate the extent to which God will go to rescue even one lost individual. It should be noted that divine solicitude is characterised by a woman's concern as well as a man's. The joy that both the shepherd and the woman experience in finding what was lost cannot be contained. They invite their friends and neighbours to share in their celebration. It is not that the shepherd cares less for the ninety-nine who were not lost, but both parables state that repentance generates more joy in heaven and among the angels than does faithfulness. This is more clearly stated at the end of the third parable: The one who was dead has come back to life again! The third parable has a double focus. While it is clearly about the mercy God shows to repentant sinners, it also contrasts God's openness with the closed-mindedness of those who consider themselves faithful. The scene with the elder brother is not an afterthought. In fact, it returns us to the opening verses that describe the disdain of the Pharisees and scribes. Within the parable itself the contours of each of the three main characters are carefully drawn so that the meaning of the story shines through clearly. There is no question about the depraved behaviour of the younger son. With his third of the father's estate (the elder son would get a double portion) he abandons his father's home and even his own country, and he embarks on a life of dissipation. After squandering his fortune life is hard on him. He is willing to acknowledge his sin and even relinquish any filial claims if only he can be treated as one of his father's hired workers. The picture of the father is also straightforward. He initially put no obstacles in his son's path but gave him his share of the estate. He disregards convention and runs out to welcome this son home. He treats him as one brought back to life, lavishly clothing him, giving him sandals, which would distinguish him as a son rather than a barefooted servant, hosting a sumptuous feast in his honour. He is no less attentive to the elder son, going out to plead with him to join the celebration, assuring him the major portion of the estate. The father is neither domineering nor disinterested. He respects the decisions of both his sons even when he disagrees with them. When it becomes clear they have been mistaken, he forgives them. This startling new picture becomes the metaphor for understanding God. The elder son strikes an interesting pose. He resents his father’s unrestrained joyous treatment of the errant one. Just as the younger son had formerly repudiated his family, so this son refuses to participate in a family affair, and he will not even refer to the younger one as his own brother. Unlike the dissolute one, he has always obeyed orders; he has served his father like a slave; yet he never even received a goat with which to feast. Though the elder brother contrasts his loyalty with the infidelity of the younger one, Jesus is really contrasting the compassion of God with the mean spiritedness of the Pharisees and scribes. Like the elder brother, they lack compassion, and they seem to resent the fact that God is merciful toward sinners who repent.

The readings of today show us some depictions about God. The God who spoke to Moses is pained by the depravity of the people yet moved to show them mercy. Who could ever have imagined such a God? The God depicted in the gospel actually searches for what is lost. He seems to abandon the safe ones for the sake of the one who has strayed. She goes to great lengths to find one coin. As a spurned yet loving father, God patiently waits until we have come to our senses. Who could ever have conceived of such a God? It is not enough that God chooses to enter into covenant with us. Our God is foolishly consumed with an insatiable desire to reestablish a relationship with us after we have turned our backs on God, have chosen to commit our loyalties elsewhere, have thoughtlessly wandered off into danger that threatens our well-being, not God's. What is it about us that makes us so desirable? The answer, of course, is that it has less to do with us than with the magnanimous character of God. It is almost as if unconditional love is not simply a characteristic of God but God's very essence, and no human frailty or depravity can change this. Our God even celebrates. In the gospel reading the jubilant father graced his son with fine clothing and all the trappings of a sumptuous banquet. Once our covenant relationship has been reestablished, what blessings does God bestow upon us? The first is mercy, the intimate womb-love only a parent can know. It is almost as if God cannot reject us, because it would be like rejecting a part of God's very self. This mercy compels God to forgive us as totally as God forgave the perfidious Israelites and as the loving father forgave the chastened and repentant son. God's mercy and forgiveness take the form of freedom from slavery, and if not slavery from Egypt, certainly slavery from evil impulses, from addictions and habits that can destroy us. The younger son left his dissolute life behind him. The elder brother could have been freed from envy and resentment had he opened his heart to the loving concern of his father. The celebration that follows the return of the lost nation, the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son, is open to all who will attend. And who will they be? Only those who admit they are sinners and who repent of their sin will recognise the need to celebrate. Those who have no sin to repent have no reason to rejoice. Only those who share the joy of God in the repentance of others will recognise the need to celebrate. Those who envy the celebration or who harbour resentment because of God's mercy will have no reason to rejoice. Paul insists it is through Christ that all of this is accomplished. It is through the sacrifice of Christ that the depraved are forgiven, that sinners are saved, that the lost are found. It is through Christ that we are sought by God, and Christ is the very gift of mercy, the forgiveness of our sins, the celebration of our return. Paul is overwhelmed by God's goodness to him through the agency of Christ Jesus. He is the classic example of the forgiven sinner. In his repentance he is a model for us to imitate. He is certainly one over whom the angels of heaven rejoice. And what of us? Will we join the celebration? We will, especially if at the Eucharistic Celebration of this Sunday we are bestowed with the graces that will enable us, be truly repentant of our sins and failures and arise and return to our God who ever loves us and is merciful to us through his Son Jesus Christ. Happy Sunday ! +John I. Okoye

23rd Sunday of Year C, 2019

As you participate in today’s Eucharistic Celebration, may the Lord bestow you with graces to always choose Jesus and to remain his true and active disciple all the days of your life on Earth. Happy Sunday +John I. Okoye

DOCTRINE AND FAITH
(Wisdom 9,13-18b; Philemon 9-10,12-17; Luke 14,25-33;  23rd Sunday of Year C, 2019)

The passage of the first reading, Wisdom 9,13-18b, declares the limitations of human wisdom in various ways. It begins with two rhetorical questions in parallel construction: who can know the counsel of God; who can conceive the intentions of the Lord? The intended answer to both questions is, of course, no one. No one can fathom the mind of God; no one can know God's will. Yet we are required to live according to it. Therefore, somehow the will of God will have to be revealed to us. The Wisdom tradition of Israel, a treasury of insights and perceptions gained through the conscientious reflection on the experience of life is not adequate to give comprehensive directives to man. However, valuable this information may be, no bit of wisdom is universally applicable, nor can all of the wisdom put together answer the most fundamental and pressing questions of human existence. It is obvious that man is unable to discern the will of God. It is the realisation of human limitation that prompted the author to ex­claim that we will attain the wisdom we so sorely seek only if God bestows it upon us. The Holy Spirit of which the author speaks should not be understood as the Third Person of the Trinity. The sense of the spirit found here eventually may have been incorporated into Christianity's Trinitarian Theology, but here it probably only refers to the immateriality of the things of God.

Paul's letter to Philemon, 9-10.12-17, is a personal appeal to accept back with no recriminations a slave who had escaped Philemon's household and his control. While there is no direct teaching, Paul uses a pedagogical technique as he tries to persuade Philemon to acquiesce to his wishes in regard to this runaway slave. In doing this Paul is not using his authority in this matter. In this short appeal, Paul addresses the issue of slavery. He has been criticised by many for not condemning the practice. To expect him to do so would be anachronistic. However, he does suggest a mode of action that will eventually undermine the philosophy that undergirds slavery. It was a legal custom, and Paul recognised Philemon's rights within it. Nor would he use conversion to Christianity as a refuge from the difficulties of human existence. Although Paul would have liked to keep the man with him because of the service he could offer him, he still sent Onesimus back to Philemon. However, he now relies on Philemon's own understanding of mutual brotherhood and sisterhood in Christ to transform his attitude toward his slave. Paul had taught that in Christ there were no longer slaves or free persons but that all were children of God (d. Galatians 3,28; CoI 3,1l). Now he challenges Philemon to witness to his own belief in this teaching. He relies on his insistence that partnership in the Lord has broken down all barriers. He asks Philemon to treat Onesimus like the Christian brother he has now become rather than the slave he once was. Paul’s belief that God can work wonders in any circumstances can be seen in the way he reinterprets Onesimus' escape, seeing it as the occasion of significant changes. Though a criminal act in itself from the perspective of Onesimus, it transformed a pagan into a follower of Jesus Christ. From Philemon’s perspective, it turned a slave into a brother in Christ. Paul ends his request with a final plea: Welcome him as you would me. We do not know whether Paul means that he is a Christian brother as I am, or that he is a part of my very heart. Perhaps it makes no difference. Paul appeals both to Philemon's Christian conscience and to his indebtedness to Paul. The man in prison can do little else.

The cost of discipleship is the basis of Jesus’ teaching in this gospel passage, Luke 14,25-23. Three conditions for discipleship are given here: subordination of everything to commitment to Jesus, acceptance of the cross, and relinquishment of all possessions. Jesus holds that to be his disciple one has hat one's closest family members. Here the word, hate means loving less. Jesus insists that nothing, neither the closest family ties nor love of one's own life, can be placed in conflict with commitment to him. Whoever cannot make this sacrifice cannot be his disciple. The second condition for discipleship is willingness to carry one's cross. Jesus' total commitment to his mission resulted in his own suffering and death. The commitment of those who would follow him can be no less. The demands this will exact will differ from person to person, but the requirement is the same-wholehearted commitment. Finally, would-be disciples must be willing to relinquish all their possessions in order to possess and to be possessed by Christ. This is not a new or different requirement. In a sense it contains within itself the other two. Total commitment to Jesus requires the willingness to give up the comfort and security of a stable family life as well as the willingness to spend all one has on that venture. Whoever cannot make such a wholehearted commitment cannot be his disciple.
On this Sunday we are once again confronted with the need to make choices as disciples of Jesus. The Wisdom tradition, from which the first reading is taken, is rooted in the fact that life is a series of choices. The epistle and the gospel reading provide us with examples of the way Christians should choose. We do not simply make choices but should show our priorates in so doing. Life at various levels, offers us opportunities to choose from. We are even free to choose the values we would espouse to support our choices. There is so much from which to choose, and all of it is presented as acceptable by the world.

Discipleship demands that in the face of all these we keep our priorities straight. We must seek the counsel of wisdom so as to choose the right path. True wisdom is knowing where to put our energies, how to focus our attention, with whom to commit ourselves. In the gospel Jesus insists that we must be single-minded. We must cling to the one thing necessary, and that one thing is authentic discipleship. It may be demanding, but it is not impossible, for we are given the grace of God to sustain us and the community of other disciples as a support. All of the readings promise that if we make the right choices our lives will unfold in ways that will enrich us. The challenge is knowing which choices are right, and then having the courage to make them. In order to do this, we need the wisdom that comes from God, the wisdom sketched in the gospel reading. We must be willing to put our lives on the line for the choices we make. In choosing Jesus, we choose other things as well. We choose new relationships with the very people to whom we have already been committed. Those who were in other classes as we are: employees, or providers of service, are now regarded as sisters and brothers in Christ. They may continue performing the same service as before, but we now perceive them in a new way, and we now treat them as equals. Those who are related to us through blood are now considered also bound to us by the grace of God. Our former ties are not severed, they are augmented. In choosing Jesus, we also choose the cross. We choose to live in a way that calls us to travel the high road: to forgive offences committed against us; to live simply so others can simply live; to take responsibility for the moral character of society. This way of living is very demanding, yet not very rewarding in the rewards of this world. We might even lose the little we have. In choosing Jesus we willingly relinquish our hold on the people and the goods we cherish lest they rival our commitment to him. The fleeting nature of life as characterised in the psalm forces us to look at the meaning of life. When the day dawns for us to return to dust, what will we have gained from life? From our possessions? From the towers we construct? From the battles we have won? They will seem like the grass that wilts and fades, like the corruptible body we have been born with. What will it have been worth? The realisation of our finiteness and the transitory nature of life should help us set our priorities right and should give us the courage to remain faithful to them. Throughout the Wisdom tradition the sages all place the meaning of life within the context of its brevity and the suddenness of its ending. In the face of this, it becomes clear that living in right relationships, following the straight path, choosing the wisdom of a covenant with God, is the only way to spend the brief time we have here on earth. Nothing else is really worth it. May we be bestowed in today’s Eucharistic celebration the graces to always choose Jesus and to remain his true and active disciples all the days of this our short life on earth. Happy Sunday! +John I. Okoye