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)