This Sunday’s
“End of the World” reading and the Gospel, far from prophesying a portentous
prospect, instead nudges us in the direction of God by challenging us to assess
the quality of our relationship with Him.
Firstly, the
relationship we have with God is articulated within the framework of
Providence. We have a God who will provide. However, this cornucopian imagery
proposed by the first reading is nowhere recognisable in what one gets from the
movies.
Secondly, God is
benevolent to His creation. He is not a “deistic” God who created world and
left it, at best, to run on its own or at worst, to rot. However, we have
difficulty appreciating God’s benevolence. Or rather, we have a tough time
believing this. Why? The answer may be found in an interesting feature about
the Gospel, a detail which is not unique to this Sunday. It is the availability
of a shorter and a longer version which the celebrant is free to choose. The
shorter version seems to cut out an uncomfortable reality but which is
important to understanding what sort of relationship we are called to have with
God.
When we speak of
“relationship” we ought to consider an aspect of it associated with the
Millennials. It deals with “disloyalty”. For the millennial workforce,
employment must be multi-faceted in the sense that a person who is working only
in one job would be considered as committing career or professional hara-kiri.
As it were, one is forced to chart a course so that one’s work experience can
be widened. Thus, relationship for the Millennials is markedly selfish, not in
a wilful sense of the word but rather it necessarily follows a logic of
self-preservation. In order to advance in one’s career, one has to be
“disloyal”. Coupled with self-preservation is also a strong sense of entitlement.
This sense of
privilege has far reaching consequences. For example, have you ever heard of
“cheat days”? It happens when someone is on diet. He is entitled to a cheat day
where the healthy regimen he adheres to does not apply. Imagine this privilege
being translated into morality? In the commitment to be good, consciously one
is entitled to be bad. How does that impact our relationship with God? With
this type of morality, disloyalty is built into commitment. Catholicism Soft
and Lite has never been so popular!
In fact, a
shorter version of the Gospel might give us an inkling of the sort of
relationship we want from God. In other words, for us who are entitled, what we
want is to hear is that God loves us. God cannot be anything but kind and
merciful to sinners. This is the only Gospel we want to hear, the only Good
News that makes sense. Not that it is not true.
One of the
challenges of the Jubilee Year of Mercy was the clamouring to announce God’s
graciousness but for an entitled ear, we fail to recognise that the invitation
to partake of God’s mercy must also be accompanied by a courageous ascent of
conversion. The long version of the Gospel brings forth the message that a
balance has to be struck between gratuity and commitment, between grace and freedom
and between reconciliation offered by God and the conversion that we submit
ourselves to. If at all, God were “indulgent” by constantly giving in to us,
then we do not really know the meaning of indulgence. In Luke 7, the woman with
the alabaster jar of oil is described as, “she who has shown great love has had
her many sins forgiven”.
In summary, the
wedding garment calls us to a relationship that is not one-sided in that we are
entitled to God’s love without the corresponding duty of ever conforming our
lives to God’s will in response to His generosity. The God who provides is not
a God of the Entitled. Instead, He is also entitled to our faithfulness because
we have entered into a covenant with Him at baptism. Sad but true, the odd man
who believes that he can respond to God on his own terms will soon find himself
bound and cast out into the abyss where the grinding of teeth never stops.
