The vineyard is the leitmotif that runs through both the 1st reading and the Gospel. But, there is a twist in the ending. In the 1st reading, God finally rejects the vineyard. Instead of justice and integrity, it produces the sour grapes of iniquity and oppression. The Gospel ends not in the rejection of the vineyard. It ends with a rejection of those who first rejected the keystone who is none other than Christ Himself. The early Christians read the parable in reference to themselves as the new tenants who have replaced the rejected ones.However, the Gospel is not merely a historical account of the past for if read historically, we may just arrive at the altar of smug satisfaction. We are the new Israel so it seems. Actually, the drama surrounding the vineyard is a form of typology in which the acceptance or rejection is not determined in the historical past because those who became the new tenants through time could also pick up the bad habits of the previous tenants. The Old Israel may not be the only rejected tenants. Christians, who consider themselves the New Israel, too can be rejected.
So, what lesson can we learn today? It is all about rejection: God’s and ours.
Firstly, the basis of God’s rejection is quite simple. It is centred on the keystone upon “Whom”, not upon which, we have to build our lives. The old tenants were displaced for their failure to accept Christ as the new keystone in the vineyard of the Lord. By the way, the plan since the beginning of creation has always been centred on Christ. Even the Jews accept this. The only difficulty is they rejected Christ as the Christ they had been waiting for. Whilst Christians may like to consider themselves as the new tenants because they have accepted Christ, the truth is, many Christians who bear the name of Christ may very well be Christians in name only. Therefore, it is possible to reject Christ in our lives even if we called ourselves Christians. In truth, it is never God who first reject us but it is we who reject God first.
Secondly, there is a subtle form of rejection that many Christians do not sufficiently think through. Christians may not reject Christ but they have rejected the institutional Church. Consider the circumstances surrounding particular Churches [meaning a diocese or a parish] especially one which is racked by scandals of every kind. Poor moral leadership has been cited as a cause of people rejecting the Church. The very criticism of hypocrisy is often hurled against the Church’s hierarchy. Sometimes the Church is considered not only to be out of touch with reality but worse, she is an expression of everything which Christ stood against—a Church concerned with material wealth against the so-called Church of Christ who was born poor; a Church corrupted by honour and privilege rather than a Church steeped in humble service.
The result is a rejection of the institution of the Church seemingly in favour of personal faith in Christ. I do not need to be encumbered by the institutional Church. In fact, I do not need to go to Church to believe in Christ. After all, I can pray on my own.
It is true that leaders of the Church may be guilty of scandals, meaning, a person’s behaviour causes another person to sin. But, scandals may not be the reason for people rejecting the institutional Church. Usually, it takes less. Like the less-than-cordial reception by a parish. Like making the announcement that Holy Communion is reserved for baptised and practising Catholics. Or the priest is too harsh in the Confessional, like chastising a penitent. A little slight is enough to reject the Church. Do you know how many people have left the Church because their queries on marital difficulties have not been handled properly?
This is not to say that we do not need to be welcoming, gentle or tactful. The point is, no matter how valid an argument may be, the rejection of the institutional Church is a form of abdication of one’s responsibility. It sends a message that one’s faith in Christ is dependent on the action of another. One is literally saying that I reject Christ because of the bad behaviour of some Christians. There is a jump here and so let me rephrase what I have just said. Can my faith in Christ be expressed without the institutional Church? The answer is no. It is not possible because Christ the keystone is never without His Church—the Bridegroom is never without his Bride, the Head is never without His Body. Rejection of the institutional Church is the rejection of Christ Himself. There is an organic unity between Christ and His Church that many Catholics do not fully appreciate—a unity which is sacramentally manifested through the institutional Church—concretely made up of the hierarchy and the laity. You cannot love Christ without loving His Church.
If there is one thing we need to accept with regard to the institutional Church, it is that her sons and daughters will always be consistent in failing. Sin is our addiction and we should never be surprised that members of the Church succumb to their weakness. Accepting this reality will not only help us keep faith in Christ and His Church—His Bride and our beloved Mother. It also prevents us from placing our responsibility to be good, to be true and to be noble, on others, on whether or not they are living up to what we perceive to be the acceptable Christian moral standard. The failure, weakness or sin of others is not a valid reason to reject the institutional Church and ultimately Christ Himself. In that way, we can progress from sin to grace. Otherwise, by rejecting the Church, what we do is to blame others for our rejection of God and in that way prevent us from embracing what is necessary for change, for conversion and for our salvation.
