30th Sunday; Year C, 2019

 May we in today's Eucharistic celebration be ever ready to acknowledge our sins before God, and through this, may he grant us his mercy and pardon. Happy Sunday!

DOCTRINE AND FAITH

(Sirach 35,12-14.16-18; 2 Timothy 4,6-8.16-18; Luke 18,9-14: 30th Sunday; Year C, 2019)

            The reading from the Book of Sirach, 35,12-14.16-18, is a discourse on both the impartiality of God and the prayer of those in need. Although, these are very different themes; in this reading one flows from the other. Sirach states that the justice of God is an established fact. In this, he stands within a long tradition in Israel that professes this belief (cf. Deut 32,4; Ps 145,17; Isa 45,24; Jer 23,6; etc.). He also states that God knows no favourites, neither the privileged nor the dispossessed. By stating this, he is indirectly showing that if there is any partiality, it is ours and not God's. He insists that God is concerned with justice, not favouritism; when God takes the side of the poor, it is for the sake of justice, not poverty. According to covenant theology, we are all responsible for one another. The well-offs are obliged to address the needs of those who suffer misfortune. This is a matter of justice, not charity. Sirach contends that God hears the cry of the oppressed - those who are the victims of wrongdoing. The oppressed cry out, the orphan wails, the widow complains, and God yields to their requests. These are all people for whom there seems to be little redress. It is almost as if God is bound to respond positively to them. As a covenant partner, God is accountable to them, especially when other covenant partners disregard their own responsibilities. Sirach assures these forlorn people that their entreaties will not go unheeded. Like the persistent widow in last Sunday's gospel reading, they will not cease praying until they accomplish their goal, until justice is reestablished.

            The Epistle reading for this Sunday, 2 Timothy 4,6-8.16-18, reveals that Paul is aware that his days are numbered, that his death is imminent. He does not resent it, nor does he run toward it eagerly. He faces it with the calm resignation that springs from deep faith. He uses moving imagery to characterise his death: he sees his life as a libation, as if his life is being poured out; secondly he views his death as a departure, a kind of leave-taking associated with sailors weighing anchor or soldiers breaking camp. Like them, Paul has completed a demanding tour of service and is now preparing to return home; finally, he uses imagery derived from athletic competition to evaluate the course of his ministerial commitment. He has competed well; he has finished the race. To this he adds that he has kept the faith, an idiomatic expression that means remaining loyal to one's oath. He has done what he could. Now he has only to wait for the conferral of the crown promised by God. The reference is to Christ's eschatological manifestation. Throughout this discourse, he extols the marvellous deeds God has done on his behalf. Paul is also confident that just as God had previously rescued him from peril, so God would rescue him again.

            The story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, Luke 18,9-14, well known to us is an example of divine reversal that surprises the hearers and obliges them to examine anew the values and standards by which they live. In it, two men are contrasted not only by their exterior behaviour but by the way each understands and describes himself. The judgment that is passed is based on self-assessment, not on the evaluation of another. The Pharisee in this story is a model of pharisaic observance. Everything about his demeanour bespeaks propriety. He stands, according to the customary posture for prayer, and his conduct has been exemplary. He is innocent of greed, dishonesty and adultery. His practices of piety exceed the requirements of the law. He fasts twice a week, when fasting is only mandated for the Day of Atonement; he tithes on all of his possessions, not merely on his earnings, as the law states. It would appear the man is beyond reproach. His description of himself is probably accurate, and his negative estimation of the tax collector may be accurate as well. The tax collector in this narrative does not deny his involvement in offensive practices. In fact, his prayer for mercy seems to be an admission of his guilt. His demeanour is radically different from that of the Pharisee. He stands at a distance, suggesting that the other man either stood in the front or in the midst of those in the Temple. He does not raise his eyes to heaven, suggesting that the Pharisee did. He beats his breast while the Pharisee's arms were conspicuously raised high. His repentant manner marks him as a sinner. There is no question about which of these men has lived a righteous life and which has not. The men have described themselves correctly. However, Jesus' evaluation turns the story upside down. The Pharisee's self-estimation is really a self-eulogy. While he may be living an upright life, he takes credit for his virtue, and he claims superiority over others who may not be as compliant as he is. The tax collector, on the other hand, acknowledges that justification comes from God. The tax collector prayed that his sins be expiated, and his prayer was answered. The Pharisee asked for nothing and received nothing. The saying at the end is the final judgment. The men's lives may have been the reverse of each other, but the judgment of Jesus exposes the real reversal.

Today’s readings challenge us to reflect on the attitudes one brings to prayer. They illustrate basically two opposing attitudes: self-righteousness and humility. It is very easy for religious people to fall into a kind of self-righteousness: Thank God I am better than others. Their very enthusiasm and generosity can plant the seeds of religious arrogance. They discover what commitment demands of them, experience relative success in their endeavours to be faithful, distance themselves from what they think might threaten their resolve and then pass judgment on those who do not share their values or experience their success. The growth of this kind of arrogance is often imperceptible, because there is enough truth in every step along the way that it is difficult to recognise when one is veering off the track. The fact is that some religious people are better than the rest of us. The arrogant Pharisee clearly believed he was better because of what he had done. He had been observant and was proud of it. The tax collector, on the other hand, was ashamed of what he had done. More to the point, he knew what God was able to do in the face of his sinfulness, and so he asked for mercy. Justification comes from God; it is not an equitable return for a job well done. The tax collector knew this; the Pharisee did not. The tax collector asked God for mercy, and he was granted his request. The Pharisee asked for nothing of God, and so he received nothing. There are various ways in which we show we are self-righteous, but basically they all show we have forgotten that God is God and we are not. This is the attitude Jesus condemns. It presumes we are righteous through our own power, when it might be the case that we have not been thrown into a state of affairs that sorely tests the mettle of our virtue. It is one thing to be non-violent when the circumstances of life are relatively tranquil, and quite another when one is immersed in brutal situations. When the circumstances of life support our efforts to be observant, we can easily assume a superior attitude toward those whose weaknesses are only too apparent. They may show failings in areas where we are resolute, but our disdain for them is a clear sign of both our ignorance of our own human frailty and our lack of human compassion for the frailty of others. Unfortunately, this attitude of arrogance can be brought to prayer by the pharisee in all of us. Jesus extols the humility of the one who admits being a sinner and can accept the implications of that admission: Be merciful to me, a sinner. The tax collector neither denied his culpability nor tried to excuse it. He straightforwardly acknowledged his sin and stood humbly and openly before the holy God to whom he was accountable. There is an unpretentious honesty in his manner. He knows who and what he is, and who and what God is. He asks for mercy, knowing he does not deserve it but also knowing there is every reason to believe the compassionate God will grant his request. His prayer demonstrates contrition, humility, and confidence. Unlike the Pharisee, who looks only to himself, the tax collector, though he does not even raise his eyes to heaven, looks only to God. This is the attitude Jesus commends. This is the kind of prayer described in both the reading from Sirach and the Responsorial Psalm. It is those who can admit they are needy who turn to God in that need, and it is equally those who trust that God will be their strength in the face of their weaknesses who are strengthened. The lowly, the poor, the oppressed, and the brokenhearted are not closer to God because they are lowly, poor, oppressed, or brokenhearted but because in their dire straits they turn to God rather than to themselves. God is merciful, and they experience this mercy when they pray for it; God is the source of their strength, and they are strong when they turn to God for strength. Paul's own prayer demonstrates the attitudes that should be ours as we pray. Like the Pharisee, he acknowledges his success. He has competed well; he has finished the course; he has kept the faith. Unlike the Pharisee, he acknowledges that God is the source of any good he has been able to accomplish. The Lord stood by him and gave him strength. If there is any glory, it belongs to God. Paul's confident prayer springs from a humble heart. Therefore, may the good Lord in today’s Eucharistic celebration, grant us the humility to acknowledge our sins and the confidence to turn to God for mercy. +John I. Okoye

(pictures br Chukwubike)

29th Sunday, Year C, 2019

 May God grant us the grace to persevere in prayer and through that strengthen our relationship and intimacy with him.

Happy Sunday!

DOCTRINE AND FAITH

(Exodus 17,8-13; 2 Timothy 3,14-4,2; Luke 18,1-8: 29^th Sunday, Year C, 2019)

The account of the battle of the Israelites with Amalek demonstrates, conclusively, the favoured status of the people of Israel. The Bible records a long history of enmity between these two nations. It is clear the Israelites were no match for the Amalekites, for the only thing that prevented their defeat was Moses’ intervention. When Moses' hands were held up, the Israelites prevailed; when Moses let them down, the Amalekites advanced. The support Moses got from Aaron and Hur is probably symbolic.

In the second reading, 2 Timothy 3, 14-4,2, as he continues to instruct Timothy, Paul expounds on the excellence of the sacred Scriptures (holy writings) and their usefulness in the lives of Christians (3,14-17). The holy writings, to which Paul refers, are what we today call the Old Testament. The praise he directs to the Scriptures is directed to this tradition. Timothy is reminded of those teachers from whom he learned the message of the Scriptures. In his infancy and youth it would have been his mother, Eunice, and his grandmother, Lois (cf. 2 Tim 1,5). More recently, it would have been Paul himself. Loyalty to his teachers is given as one reason for his faithfulness to the teaching of the Scriptures. The witness of the writings is further cause for fidelity, for it is within this tradition that the wisdom for salvation is found. Paul does not mean that salvation is found in the Scriptures themselves. Rather, they prepare for and point to the one who brings salvation, Christ Jesus. Training in the Scriptures, interpreted through faith in Christ, can help believers fulfill their religious duties. Having expounded on the glories of the sacred Scriptures, Paul solemnly charges Timothy to remain faithful to his ministerial responsibilities. Until the day when the sovereign Christ comes to bring his reign to fulfillment, Timothy is charged to proclaim the word, be resolute at all times, correct those in error, rebuke those who have gone astray and encourage all. He has the power of Christ Jesus to accomplish this, so he should not be fainthearted.

On the 25th Sunday of Ordinary Time, we read the story of the unjust steward. In today's gospel, Luke 18,1-8, Jesus tells the parable of the unjust (adikia) judge. He draws sharp lines of contrast between this man and a widow who comes to him for justice. The earlier story compared the practical wisdom of the unjust steward with that of the children of light and found the latter lacking. Here, it is the vindication of God that is compared to the judge's execution of justice. The point of the parable is the need for persistence in prayer. The judge is described as fearing neither God nor human being. The fear of God is the quintessential characteristic of the pious person. By his own admission the judge is devoid of such devotion. He was unjust not because he was an active adversary against another but because he failed to ensure that justice was served in the lives of all. This is extraordinarily a serious charge against a judge, whose very function is to secure justice for all, especially the most vulnerable of society. Sins of omission can be as devastating as sins of commission. The woman, on the other hand, is a widow, a member of one of the most oppressed classes in Israel. Though vulnerable, this woman is bold. She is already the victim of injustice, but she appears here before the judge, pressing him for a hearing. As indifferent as the judge seems to be toward her case, so is she persistent in her demands from him. He will not give in; she will not give up. We are not told how long this standoff continued, but it was long enough to wear down the judge. He finally relents, and he states that he will render her justice before she gives him a black eye. At this point in his instruction, Jesus introduces an apriori argument: If the judge who is unjust will finally vindicate those who have been mistreated, how much more will God vindicate those who are the chosen ones, who pray continually, crying out to God day and night? The persistence of the woman becomes the model of resoluteness for God's chosen ones. Like the woman in the parable, they cannot be certain regarding when God will respond, so they must persist. Jesus' disciples are admonished to persevere in prayer day and night, regardless of how close God might seem to be to their pleas. This parable shows them that in God's case, it is not a question of disinterest but of timing. God will answer in His time. This eschatological note leads into the final saying. Using the title with which he generally identifies himself and the character of his messiahship, Jesus implies that he is the one who will ultimately come to execute justice. The question he poses is sobering: Will he find faith on the earth? Following the parable as it does, this could mean: Will there be those who persevere in prayer? He leaves the question unanswered so the disciples can ponder on it.

The theme of faith we have been considering these last two weeks takes a slightly different turn this Sunday. Today we consider the spiritual disciplines that exercise us in that faith and deepen our faith as they do so. The overarching discipline is prayer. The readings today offer various aspects of this prayer for our consideration. There is the spiritual discipline of prayer itself, which is essential to the life of the disciple; there is the communal dimension of prayer; and there is the ministerial commitment that is born of prayer. The spiritual discipline of prayer is seen in the exhortation for ceaseless prayer.  Our personal prayer must be persistent. Like Moses and the woman in the gospel reading, we must be ceaseless in our prayer, not discouraged by difficulties we might have to face. The woman's persistence finally opened the door of the judge. This story only captures one facet of prayer, namely, God's openness to us. In reality, prayer develops a mutual openness: God is open to our desire for Him and we are open to His desire for us. In the gospel account it is the woman who was persistent; in reality, it is God who prevails upon us to open ourselves. The gospel only hints at this particular aspect of prayer. It states that the Son of Man will come seeking faith. The first reading strongly emphasizes the communal dimension of prayer. The Israelites would not have been able to prevail against the Amalekites without Moses’ prayerful action, but he would not have been able to persevere in his action of entreaty had not Aaron and Hur supported him. The stress in today's world on the importance of the individual, as important as this may be, has obscured the reality of our social nature and our inability to thrive or even survive without others.  It is a big pity that we Nigerians gifted by God in community way of life are losing that God-given-gift very quickly. Quest for individual enhancement, especially, in the area of amassing wealth for selfish purposes not only militates today against the community aspect of our lives but negatively influences its spiritual dimension. This is because what is true about life is true about prayer. We were saved as a people. Salvation may unfold in each life in a particular way, but it is not simply an individual quest or a personal blessing. Christ saved all of humankind. To develop a communal sense may be one of the most challenging aspects of discipleship for many of us today, but develop it we must. The ministerial dimension of prayer can be seen in Paul’s admonition to Timothy to keep preaching the gospel, spreading the good news, allowing the Scriptures to continue being a source of wisdom for himself and, through him, for all of the people who hear him. To have this kind of facility with Scripture requires that one should enter into the deep meaning of the Scriptures and make them the basis of one's prayer. One must engage in what the monks call lectio divina - prayerful reflective reading of the Scriptures. This practice, or spiritual discipline, gives us access to God, and it also gives God access to us. It moves us out of our penchant toward isolated devotion into ministerial commitment. It gives us the courage and gentleness to teach, refute and correct. When our ministerial activity flows from prayer, it also flows from and strengthens right relationships with God, the religious tradition and the community. When this becomes a reality, the Son of Man will indeed find faith on earth. May we, therefore, in this Eucharistic celebration be endowed with gifts of genuine faith and prayerful openness to God. + John I. Okoye.

(pictures  by Chukwubike)

29th Sunday of Year A, 22nd Oct. 2017

May the relationship between you and God, which God started in you by infusing into you the theological virtues of faith, charity/love and hope continue to grow to the extent that God will use you as instrument for the salvation of the world. Happy Sunday! + John I. Okoye

Doctrine And Faith

(Isaiah 45, 1.4-6; 1 Thess. 1, 1-4; Matt 22, 15-21: 29th Sunday of Year A, 22^nd Oct. 2017)

Today’s reading resembles a royal decree, a formal statement wherein God addresses a king in order to authorise him for some tasks, empower him to function in the capacity of that task, give legitimation to decisions he may make or to a plan of action on which he might embark or instruct him in the art of ruling. This particular royal decree is extraordinary by the fact that in it, it is the God of Israel that addresses a pagan king. The contents of this decree reveal God using as his instrument a non-Israelite in the salvation of the people of Israel. Cyrus was the Persian ruler who permitted the Israelites to return from captivity in Babylon to their homeland and rebuild the temple. Cyrus subdued nations, released captive kings so that they might serve him unfettered, threw open locked doors and barred gates in the spirit of freedom. All these were done for the sake of the Israelites (Jacob-Israel). This Cyrus, the foreigner, was the agent of the release of the Israelites, but their release is for the sake of the enlightenment of foreign nations. It is understandable for God to work through the Israelites. But if the God of a people is seen to work marvels through the instrumentality of another people, it is easy to conclude that there is but one God who works through all. This is precisely what is stated in this reading. There is no other God but the God of Israel. This God is the author of history and directs the events of life to follow his plans. He can use anybody, not only the believers, but also non-believers to realise his plans. He will even use us the more if we are docile, disposed to the insinuations of his graces. What we have to do in life is to  make effort to see things from God’s perspective and align our actions and deeds  accordingly.  

The episode in today’s gospel is common to the three Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Once again Jesus is in a battle of wits with the religious leaders of the people. This time they are the ones who initiate it. While the purpose of the encounter is the entrapment of Jesus, the underlying issue is the possibility of being faithful both to God and to a secular state. The Pharisees did not seem to approve of the Gentile rule over the Jewish people. The Herodians, on the other hand, were Roman royalists. Within the ranks of the people, the Zealots vehemently opposed the occupation, while many others had made their peace with it and sometimes even benefited from it. Roman taxation was an issue that could easily cause people to take sides. It was with this issue that the Pharisees hoped to ensnare Jesus. They first flattered him, then set up the trap by asking him for an interpretation on a point of Roman law: Is it lawful for a Jew to pay taxes to Rome? The tax in question was probably the poll tax paid directly to Rome, evidence of political subjugation. If Jesus answers no, he can be accused of political insubordination of the type that might incite others to follow in violence. If he says yes, he would have appeared to have relinquished Israel’s boast of being a people bound only to God. In his reply, Jesus did not fall into the  snare of the Pharisees, neither did he incur an eventual shame nor put himself into political jeopardy/quagmire. In order to adequately respond to their question, he asked for a coin that could be used to pay the poll tax. The coin itself was abhorrent to the Jewish people, for it contained the image of Caesar along with titles that accorded him both political honour and divine status. Both of these features violated Jewish Law. In deference to Jewish sensitiveness, imageless copper coins were used in ordinary commercial exchange. At Jesus’ demand, the Pharisees produced the coin, and now they acknowledged that it contains the image of Caesar. Jesus directed them to give back or repay what is owed to both Caesar and God. Besides exonerating him from possible political or religious reproach, Jesus’ response suggests that one can indeed be loyal both to a religious tradition and to a secular power. It may be very difficult at times, especially where their claims seem to conflict, but it is possible.

In today’s second reading Paul thanks God for choosing Silvanus and Timothy as his co-apostles especially in founding and nurturing the young church in Thessalonica. The Israelites of the Old Testament prided themselves, with singular privilege, as God’s elect. But in virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ this privilege was extended to all the nations through faith in Jesus Christ.

 Indeed, every nation can now enjoy these privileges formerly reserved for the people of Israel. What and what could be the contents of the privileges? They are no other things than spiritual privileges of ardent faith, works of charity and constancy in hope. Their effort in manifesting these virtues in their lives was a clear indication of their election by God, who infused these theological virtues in them. Outwardly and humanly speaking, the Thessalonians were influenced by Paul’s preaching, but inwardly they were inspired and led by the Holy Spirit. Each one of us was infused with theological virtues of faith, love and hope at our baptism when we became the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and entered into close relationship with the Blessed Trinity. Paul is thanking God today for the growth and manifestation of these theological virtues which God infused into the Thessalonians through him as an instrument. Will the priests who baptised us and through whom we became the elect of God be thankful to God for our spiritual growth? It is only and only if we remain in good relationship with God through living out the theological virtues can we begin to acquire the optic/perspective of God; when this becomes a reality, we will see things as God sees them and he will make of us instruments of evangelisation and expansion of his mission just as he used the pagan Cyrus of the first reading of today. It is, therefore, abiding in the friendship with God that we will be able to see things in the way Jesus saw it and will be able to maintain our religious traditions and still cooperate with political dispensation, regarding them as part of God’s design for our salvation. Happy Sunday? +John I. Okoye 

( graphics  by chukwubike)

27th Sunday of Year A – October 8, 2017

May God fill you with his graces so that you produce the expected fruits of Christian love towards him and your needy neighbours. – Happy Sunday! + John Okoye

Doctrine And Faith

(Isaiah 5, 1-7; Philippians 4, 6-9; Matthew 21, 33-43: 27th Sunday of Year A – October 8, 2017)

    Today’s gospel as well as the first reading from the book of Isaiah narrates a parable whose subject matter is a vineyard. In the first reading, the attentiveness of the vineyard owner is clearly sketched during the cultivation of the vineyard. Each step of the viticultural process is carefully accomplished. Everything was done to guarantee a bountiful   harvest. Unfortunately, the harvest was poor. But what is more, the vineyard produced wild grapes. The unnatural yield was not as a result of poor cultivation on the part of the owner. The vineyard was a failure. At this juncture, the owner of the vineyard (no longer the prophet who acted as a narrator) turns to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah for some sort of judgement as he asked: What could I have done for my vineyard and I have not done. I expected it to yield grapes. Why did it yield sour grapes instead? One might be able to offer some reason for a paltry harvest, but how does one explain the presence of wild grapes? The only answer is deliberate treachery or the rejection of all the careful attention provided. The indictment of sin has been introduced. Judgement is now passed on the unnatural vineyard. Some of the steps taken to ensure its productivity will be undone. Protection against animal ravages and human theft were removed and the vineyard becomes vulnerable. Even the clouds will be commanded (by God, the real owner of the vineyard) to withhold rain necessary for crop growth.  The owner of the vineyard turned to the people of Jerusalem and Judah for judgement on the case before them; scarcely did they know that their judgment will be directed back to them. God, through the prophet, decodes the meaning of the parable: the owner of the vineyard is God: the vineyard, the cherished plant, is the house of Israel. Then the prophet describes the heinousness of the people’s offence. God looked for justice (good behaviour: mishpath) but found bloodshed (mishphah); for justice (sedeq) but found an outcry (seaqah). God has invested much in the future of this people and they scorned the attention of the beloved vineyard owner. 
    In Jesus’ narrative of the parable of the vineyard in the Gospel, the master of the house planted the vineyard himself, built a protection around it, and constructed the winepress to be used at the time of vintage. After the hard work was finished, he leased it out to tenants who had only to care for the vines until the grapes were ready for the press. He then went abroad and from there he sent words to have the produce of the vineyard sent to him. Interpreting the parable as an allegory (a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one), God is understood as the owner of the vineyard and the leaders of the people would be the tenant vinedressers to whom the vineyard was leased. To these leaders, God periodically sent prophets to announce his designs. Israel’s history records how both the leaders and the people refused to listen to the prophets and even put some of them to death (cf. Isaiah 52, 13 - 53, 12). Continuing the allegorical interpretation, the parable suggests that God sent Jesus with full divine authority and the leaders of the people put him to death outside the city. When Jesus finished narrating the parable, he turned to the leaders and asked them to provide a legal ruling on the situation. In compliance they stated: He (the vineyard owner) will bring those wretches to a wretched end and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will deliver the produce to him when the season arrives.Thus the leaders condemn themselves in their own words. 

The first reading and the gospel describe two attempts at thwarting God’s plan. In both instances there is deliberate treachery (betrayal of trust). The first reading describes the tender and solicitous care God has taken on behalf of the vineyard. God worked tirelessly to ensure that it would thrive and be a source of enjoyment and prosperity. Despite all God’s plans and effort, it produced an unacceptable crop. There was no mistake here. God was in no way remiss in planting or on tending. The vineyard was simply rebellious. The metaphor of the vineyard functions differently in the gospel account. Here the fault is not with the vineyard. It produced an abundant crop. In fact, it is the very productivity of the vineyard that sets the stage for the treachery described. In this case, those who were trusted stewards turn out to be traitorous usurpers. They want the vineyard for themselves and they are willing to use any means to acquire it. 

Without interpreting any of the metaphors allegorically, we can see ourselves in each instance. There are times when regardless of what God seems to be doing for us, we simply rebel against God’s plans. We stand in defiance and cry out: I will not serve; I will do what I want. There are other times when we, who are only disciples of Jesus, act as if the kingdom is ours to direct or to manage it as we see fit. We might even marginalise or force out others with whom we do not agree, so that we have sole control. Unfortunately, we may not be above such treachery.

God is connected in both parables and what   is expected to be his stand? He does not tolerate treachery. That is why out of his tender love for his vineyard (the People of Israel of Old and the New People of God) treachery cannot be tolerated. If we have produced unacceptable fruits, it is for our own good that God steps in and dismantles the structure that enables us to produce as we did. If we attempt to usurp the kingdom (the church or any of its organisations or structures, etc) in order to exercise our own control over it, it is appropriate that God snatch it from our grasp and entrust it to those who will faithfully carry out his plan. May we therefore, pray in today’s liturgical celebration for the grace not only to produce the expected fruit but also be completely engaged in humble and sacrificial services to the church and to our needy neighbours. Happy Sunday! + John I. Okoye

pictures by chukwubike

Third Sunday of Lent: Year C 2016

DOCTRINE AND FAITH
(Exodus 3,1-8.13-15; 1 Cor. 10,1-6.10-12;   Luke  13,1-9: third Sunday of Lent:  Year C  2016).

   The readings of this Sunday are challenges to us. The first reading talks about the incident of the burning bush, an event that provided the occasion in which God revealed his personal identity to Moses. God, first of all, revealed himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: as a faithful God, that is to say, the God who maintains his promise. God reveals himself as the spontaneous liberator of the people of Israel:  I have seen the miserable state of my people in Egypt. I have heard their appeal to be free … Yes I am aware of their suffering. I mean to deliver them out of the hands of the Egyptians. God laid the burden of leading his people towards freedom on Moses. God assured him of full success and revealed his personal name to him: I am who am. In this first reading we note that the initiative to free the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt came, first and foremost, from God. We are aware of the prodigies God worked in Egypt in order to bring them out and how he protected and cared for them in the desert until they reached the Promised Land. Paul, in today’s 2nd reading, teaches that the salvation of the newly converted Corinthians (and ours by extension) is the fruit of God’s action and love. In reviewing God’s relationship with the people of Israel, Paul noted how God showed preference to Israel and how he bestowed favours on her. Yet, due to presumption, she fell out of God’s favour. Paul was, therefore, warning the new converts of the Church of Corinth to desist from manifesting the same presumptuous mentality of assured salvation. This was because there was always the possibility of falling and losing one’s soul. Paul warns all of us, the Christians of Nigeria as well: The man who thinks that he is safe must be careful that he does not fall. One of the questions we have to ask ourselves this Sunday is: Am I presuming that my salvation is assured, by the fact that I am baptized into the Catholic Faith? Being baptized is already an enormous privilege: it means being inserted into the mystical body of Christ, being incorporated into Jesus Christ and being the son or daughter of God. In this Sunday, and the rest of Lent, God challenges us to review our relationship with him. Am I just a nominal member in the body of Christ or am I committed by the way I live my Christian life in the circumstances of my daily life?  How do I co-operate with the grace of God so as to bring to fruition the salvific action which God had already initiated at baptism?

    The gospel reading also challenges us Catholic Christians in Nigeria. In our daily life, it is noticed that the principle of retributive justice is often evoked. This principle holds that the just and good people are rewarded with good things and the wicked are punished with bad things in this world. Therefore, when any one suffers misfortune, what comes to the mind of people is that he/she must have done something wrong and that is why God is punishing him/her with some misfortune. Even when one’s conscience was clear, then comes the idea of retributive justice taking its toll generation after. That is why, any misfortune would be interpreted as the punishment arising from the sins of our forebears who died generations and generations before. To prevent the misfortune from going on further, people seek for the so-called powerful men and sometimes women of God to heal their family roots. Such mentality was in vogue both in the Old Testament and New Testament, as the gospel reading makes us understand. The people who approached Jesus had the same mentality. For them, the people whom Pilate killed and those who died, following the fall of the tower, were paying for their sins. Jesus corrected this idea: There is no link of cause and effect between sin and misfortune, between personal sin and sickness. There are no where, in the teaching of Jesus, where he holds that the good people will be rewarded while the wicked punished in this life. Reward and punishment are issues for the next life not for this present earthly one.

    Having put to rest the idea of retributive justice, Jesus affirms that conversion to the Lord is the important issue that his disciple should pursue: … but unless you repent you will all perish as they did. Conversion entails the resolute decision to be always free from sin and to always behave as Jesus would want and put into practice his teachings. This serious duty of ongoing conversion is not to be postponed from day to day without incurring great risk. The two incidents of the sudden deaths in the gospel reading warn against any waste of time so as not to be caught by surprise and unprepared at the coming of the Lord.  There is also a theological fallacy that circulates among us and robs us of the rich mercy of God. That is, we often think that we are such  hardened sinners that we hold firmly that we cannot change our way of life for better and what is left to us is to drift along in our accustomed situation of hopelessness. In such situation, we think that God is tired of us. At other times we hold that it is impossible for God to pardon all our sins. Jesus corrects this notion we have of God with the parable of the unproductive fig tree. The owner for three years has been waiting for its fruit. He was willing to wait for another year before uprooting it. By this parable, Jesus reveals that Our God is a God of mercy and compassion and is willing to pardon our sins. He is patient with us and waits for us to change and be converted to him. This is one side of the coin. The other side is that God’s patience and mercy should not be abused, for surely the time to give account of our lives will come. Happy Sunday! +John I. Okoye  

(graphics  added by blogger)