7th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C 2019

The Gospel this weekend continues with last week’s instruction. What Jesus teaches is not unfamiliar to us. Both Matthew and Luke focus on the Beatitudes but with different target audiences and emphases. Matthew’s teaching is directed at the disciples and the crowds whereas Luke’s target is specifically the disciples alone. Matthew ends His teaching on the love of one’s enemies with an invitation to imitate God’s perfection whereas Luke concludes with an affirmation of God’s mercy.

All in, whether we imitate God’s perfection or His mercy, we are told that to be His disciples, we must love our enemies, turn the other cheek, give to those who ask, do unto others, lend without expecting repayment, judge not lest we be judged.

Just listening to the Gospel, we get a sense that Christian discipleship is truly a tall order. It is really a “big” word.

By big, I do not mean hard. Sure, the discipleship of Jesus is a tough calling; a tall order to fulfil. We are easily slighted in this age of entitlement and victimhood. Whenever I am stopped for a random security check at London Heathrow, the first thought that goes through my mind would be, “Why? Is it because I am Asian”? Closer to home, when stopped by the police, what goes through the mind is, “Because I am Chinese”? We readily flash the minority card, be it race, religion, sexual orientation and now gender identity. Therefore, it is not surprising that we will find ways to mitigate or soften Jesus’ teaching about love or walking the extra mile. And, even if we were to embrace the notion of love for one’s enemies, I am certain we will find some forms of “justice” to say that love does not extend to the categories of people like terrorists or a rapists. In would appear that Jesus’ definition of love is quite unlivable. What is worse is that loving those who love us is not love at all.

So, how are we to live up to the love that He has taught us? How do we embrace the difficulty of His teaching and where do you think the call to love most felt?

Judging from our electronic experiences, our universe appears to be divided into different echo chambers. The Church is not untouched by the world as she too is fractured by camps. We all inhabit eco-systems which we routinely encounter beliefs or opinions that coincide with ours, so that whatever we hold to be “true” is reinforced while alternative ideas are disregarded. Furthermore, there is a virtualisation of religion, in the sense that what we want to believe is easily accessible through the electronic medium and it does not help that we suffer from herd mentality. Check out your online new provider like the BBC app. There you can personalise your news in such a way that only the content which confirms your bias is delivered to you. In everyday life, do you have friends who forwards you pictures, messages, videos and emails? Do you realise what you see is filtered through the preferences of your friends? If you have a friend who is slightly paranoid, you are bound to be fed a daily dose of paranoia. And if you are paranoid, it amplifies it.

In this polarised and fragmented world, religion can be reduced to a form of social therapy. Jesus functions better as counsellor rather than a Saviour. Religion works more as a therapy rather than a belief system that aligns us to God. In this fearful and lonely world we encounter a strong antagonism towards what is different or the other. Nevermind walking the extra mile or lending to others without expecting any returns. If Najib calls himself the King of Trolls, he is definitely not the only one because cyberspace is veiled by an anonymity that engenders a meanness that is nothing short of vicious. What matters for many are the “likes” as if number were a measure of right. And guess what? People just need to be “right/like” for they fear the loneliness of being “wrong”. Yet, the need to be right does not always lead us to the path of good or truth. One could be “right” or factual and yet be espousing some form evil or falsehood.

The discipleship proposed by Jesus hinges on a person rather than on an idea. One the one hand, the whole shebang about “loving one’s neighbour, turning one’s cheek and etc” which is good in itself can also be a form of ideology. Would it not be nice if everyone got on together and there was more kindness in the world? We have tried to engineer this world before—bridging the gap between what the world is and how the world should be. A good example is how liberation theology proposed a socio-political vision of humanity whereby the “kingdom” of God had a better chance of success if it were conceived more as a “kindom” of God—not a hierarchical top down “kingdom” structure but a democratic system of kinship equality. The fact is, Communism had tried to impose an order of social fairness for everyone but without the person of Jesus Christ, any system that imposes itself on humanity will fail because it is merely an ideology, an idea without heart and without mercy. On the other hand, St Paul describes this link between what the world is and how the world should be as being modelled upon the heavenly man. Thus, discipleship is a “big” word in the sense that its horizon extends beyond the natural domain as it reaches into the supernatural realm.

Clearly, what Jesus asks of us is beyond our natural grasp as it requires a strength that comes from above. This strength is not derived from an ideology no matter how alluring it is. Instead strength comes from an encounter. In Deus caritas est, Benedict XVI furthers St Paul’s understanding: Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

This new horizon and decisive direction projects  a “big” picture which we often fail to see if we focus on mere ideology. It is big because it invites us to believe in a God who definitely sees more than we dare to acknowledge. It is a trust which places one’s life into the hands others and finally to God. This is exemplified in the lives of countless men and women who do not fight back not because they are cowards but because they trust in God. We would think it stupid but for them, justice is not confined to this earthly existence life and punishment does not end with incarceration. Now you see why Catholics offer Masses for souls in purgatory. However, St John Paul II, in our recent past, showed us the power of forgiveness and love for one’s enemy when he went to the gaol to forgive and be reconciled with the man who had tried to assassinate him.

Hence, to do what Jesus asked of us, we need to fall in love with Him. We can take our cue from our Protestant brethrens when they term it as a “personal” relationship. When I love Him, then I will love even the person whom I do not like or even know. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give others much more than what I can normally give. How can we fall in love with Him? Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity spend an hour with Him present in the Blessed Sacrament especially before they step out to do works of charity. This Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is the one who gave up His life as He embraced His Father’s will. That which gave meaning to His life gives us ours too especially when life turns messy. It is only in Him that we gain the courage to see selfishness as folly and accept self-sacrifice as triumph. For Him, because we love Him dearly, we dare to love our enemies and when everything we have is taken away—pride, wealth and health—and we still say we are victorious, it is then that our discipleship will shine brightly and pulsate with the light and love of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.

Novena of Grace (Day 8) Year A

We are now entering the penultimate night of the novena. The 8th day and it is good to touch, by way of passing, Francis’ endeavour in this part of the world. He spent most, if not his entire, Jesuit life as a missionary in Asia. I think he is the only missionary that can hold a candle to St Paul the Apostle. The spread of his missionary activity covers an entire swathe of the continent of Asia—sailing the sea of humanity from India to Indonesia and all the way to Japan.

The Gospel today lends itself to our reflexion on what Francis’ endeavour means for us. Jesus speaks of His Father in terms of His intimate knowledge with Him. “What the Father has taught me is what I preach”. He is the mouthpiece of the Father. His knowledge of His Father is the substance of His preaching. Knowledge of His Father becomes the impetus for His preaching. Likewise, knowledge in the case of Francis is to be translated into his missionary enterprise in Asia. How to bring to Asia the knowledge of God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ?

On this front, there is agreement that Francis blazed a trail for subsequent generation of missionaries to Asia. However, in the context of revisionist history, Francis remained just a tool of the colonial expansion of what is now looked upon as the ugly Western hegemony or colonial domination. And there is one criticism I would like to take up.

One of the criticisms has been that the Church is foreign. “Foreign” seems to be the only explanation because the 400 years of Christianity’s presence in Asia has yielded nothing but a miserable 3 percent of Asia claiming to be Christians. “Foreign” seems to be the reason for Asia’s rejection of Christianity. It is an easy and a convenient criticism to make. It makes the Church something so foreign that her presence in Asia is at best tolerated or at worst considered an imposition, a yoke to be freed of. Maybe this will jolt you: Pendatang. This word is an example of how even after 3 or 4 generations, people of South Indian extraction or people of Oriental ancestry are “tolerated” in this country. We’ve been told time and again, “Go back if you do not like it here”.

Since “foreign” is a ghost to be exorcised, the Church, in order for it to succeed, is asked to aim for greater “inculturation”, to shed a lot more of her European features.

If the Church is culturally European, she is therefore a foreign imposition. Fortunately, we have on our side what I would consider to be the porosity or the permeability of cultural boundaries. Because cultural boundaries are porous, it does assimilate and make for its own something which is in the first place “foreign”. For example, where does one get prawn “tempura”? Japanese restaurants! But, its origin is actually Portuguese. Shipwrecked Portuguese sailors cast upon Japanese shores introduced it to the Japanese. On certain days where they had to abstain from eating red meat, they ate fried prawns... the holy days were known in Portuguese as “Quattuor tempora”... We think prawn tempura is Japanese but its presence so entrenched in Japanese cuisine shows that culture is more adaptable. So, if the Church were foreign and we like to draw a more distinct line between foreign and indigenous, then perhaps, we should do away with this microphone and everything that the foreign culture has brought us. [The bra that women wear is a Western importation. Asian women were freer [more liberated] but now Western women don’t want to wear bra but we have kept them]. (Remember the tualang tree).

Technology or the application of science is not a respecter of culture. What every culture does is to adapt technology for its convenience and thus, it is convenience which really is the agent for the inculturation or the reception of technology. Let me give another example: the mobile phone is a technology which is used everywhere. But here in Asia, we’ve made far greater use of this service than say the Europeans or the Americans.

Thus, the basis for the rejection of something or another basically follows along the criterion of convenience. That has always been the way cultures work. Two examples: it is far easier and more convenient to wear the “western suit” when attending Parliament or any of these functions of governance than to wear something which is dangling here or there. Secondly, and you find this amongst people who for whatever reason convert to Christianity. How often have these people returned to their “roots” because they consider Christianity as foreign? Few. I know that people visit this medium or that bomoh because Jesus is quiet and it is more convenient to get the answer from a medium or a bomoh. Often we reject something local or foreign because it is not convenient.

And, the knowledge of Christ is never convenient. At the end of mass, in many parishes, the priest and the servers will process right to the front to meet the people. It is a wonderful practice. Some people have asked me why I am not doing that. Why do I want to miss out on meeting people? The secret is this. When we recess into the sacristy, we wind up with a prayer. It may be routine or habitual. But, I have begun to pull the servers and make them look at the Crucifix. Sometimes they think it is funny but it is not because I tell him, “Look at Him on the Cross. It is your sin that puts Him there”. This is a reminder to each of them that knowledge of Christ will always bring us into the shadow of the Cross. The knowledge of Christ will always entail the Cross. Anytime we know Him better, be prepared for the Cross to come unbidden. The knowledge of Christ is never easy.

Perhaps, that is why Christianity has failed in Asia. Christianity failed because following Christ is too hard. In a homily, which I preached at the beginning of the year, I did mention that Christianity is actually an Asian religion. Christianity failed because it is not easy to live Christ. And the failure is our individual failure. Perhaps, it is unfair. We live amongst the very venerable traditions of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam and Sikhkism. Let me repeat some from a previous homily. “We are so unremarkable that Asia does not see our light—the light of Christ. So, Gandhi was right to say, “I believe in Christ but I don’t believe in Christianity”. But, the blame is not on Christianity. The shame is upon us Asians. We have failed our home-grown Christ. We have failed to be Christ. We have dimmed his light”. Indeed, the standard exacted upon the disciples of Christ is much higher. We can do better but always with the grace of God. We ask that Francis pray for us in this area that where Francis left off, we will continue to take up his mission of bringing to Asia the Good News of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Novena of Grace (Day 4) Year A

Today we enter the 4th day of our novena. The Gospel challenges us to look at our attitude towards Jesus. Accordingly, no one can be indifferent to Jesus. So who is this Jesus and who is Jesus for us?

There is an episode in the nascent beginning or early days of the Society of Jesus which may help us answer this question about Jesus. First of all, Francis was a Basque. Navarre, an autonomous territory, lies within the Basque region of Spain. It is said that all European languages are somewhat related. Except, of course, Basque is a language that has no relations to its closest neighbour, Catalan or Castilian. Francis probably spoke Spanish (or Castilian) and in Paris, some kind of French. The early Jesuits were all united in the vision of St Ignatius, which was to go to the Holy Land and to minister there.

However, they had to wait for favourable winds in order to set sail from Venice. So, at different times, they made their way from Paris to Venice to regroup there. Those who arrived early wasted no time to set themselves useful apostolically. They probably could understand Italian but not speak it well. But poverty of expression was no barrier to their preaching. They stood in the piazzas, the town squares and by shouting and waving their birettas they assembled a congregation. Many persons were moved by their preaching and they managed to receive in great abundance the necessities for their bodily welfare. In short, moved by the sincerity of their preaching, people were generous to them. [The biretta is a square cap with three or four ridges or peaks, sometimes surmounted by a tuft, traditionally worn by Roman Catholic clergy].

For them to do what they did—braving ridicule, when people laughed at their poor command of the language, for example, was it the vision of St Ignatius that commanded them or is there more to the vision? Is the vision enough to drive them into the streets to preach?

In today’s gospel, the Jews were quibbling about the identity of Jesus. The name Mary Magdalene actually means Mary of Magdala. (Pause) You see, the Feast of the Tabernacles meaning the festival of the Booths is understood by some to be the commemoration of the forty years when the Jews wandered homeless through the desert. So, during the seven days of the feast the Jews lived in tents. The tent is an annual reminder that they came from nowhere. A tent is basically “nowhere”. Therefore, a place is identity. Mary’s identity is Magdala. Joseph’s identity is Arimathaea (the one who buried Jesus) and Jesus’ identity is Nazareth.

So, the quibble was about whom Jesus really was—His identity. They knew where He came from and that identity helped them size Jesus up. “Isn’t He the Carpenter’s son and His mother Mary from Nazareth? Even though they knew where He came from they really did not know that His real address was not a place but rather a person: His Father.

Now, we come back to our dear St Francis. The early Jesuits may have been guided by the vision of St Ignatius but in actual fact, they were driven by the love of a person. They couldn’t have rooted for Jesus if Jesus were merely human—a mere man from Nazareth. That would mean idolatry of some kind. They could only preach because they knew Jesus’ origin. He was of God. He was from God. He was God. They gave their hearts to Jesus. Only Jesus can draw people to Himself. Thus, they served not a vision. They served a person.

Thus, behind the apostolic endeavour of Francis and his companions was not an ideology or principles of conversion. It was a personal commitment to the person of Jesus. It was a personal commitment that drove Francis to the far fringes of the earth to seek for Christ unnumbered souls to be cherished and loved.

It cannot be understated how important this person of Jesus is for the Church and for the world. The world is decidedly a more dangerous world. It is unquestionably a more unfriendly world. Whether the locus of this unfriendly world is within us or as the case may be for so many of us, “out there is an unfriendly world” is not important. What is important is to look at the initiatives that people of goodwill take in order to build a better world. Religions, according to some people, have made the world a more dangerous place—Sept 11. Therefore, in order to mitigate or soften the impact of a religion’s claim to universal truth, there seems be a “universalist” approach that tries to turn Christianity into a religion without Jesus. He cannot be the Saviour of the world because that would mean Christianity is the only religion that saves. Jesus is only good because He shows us the way. He is not the way.

In many ways, to eliminate Jesus from Christianity is to substitute an ideology for faith. Faith leads to freedom. Ideology can only lead to slavery. Let me give an example. Remember the incident of the adulterous woman anointing the feet of Jesus. Judas’ reaction was clearly that the money from the ointment sold could be used to help the poor. But Jesus was adamant that the love of the woman was to be directed to Him. When we serve the poor we believe that we serve Jesus. But, it doesn’t always follow that way—because they are many people who serve the poor without any knowledge of Jesus. Thus, one can serve the poor without serving Jesus. This is where some Christians run into difficulty when they forget who they are. This is because when the means for serving the poor were frustrated, those who claim to serve Jesus would turn to arms and violent means to achieve their aim of serving the poor. Ask the revolutionary priests of the late 80s and 90s in the jungle of the Philippines.

In actual fact, then it is not Jesus whom these people serve. It is an ideology, an idea of what service for poor means. That is why Jesus’ answer to Judas is so relevant: the poor you will always have with you. He is not canonising poverty but rather giving Judas a context for serving the poor. What Jesus is saying is this: When you serve me in the poor, be prepared to have your service frustrated. But, I am still in charge here even though it does not seem that way. Trust in me.

On the first day of the novena, I mentioned about expectations and in the light of today’s preaching, perhaps we can also add our vision. When we have a vision for Jesus, be prepared to have our vision purified because we serve not a vision but Him who gives us sight to see Him in the poor etc.

In summary, our vision of the world is only sharpened if Jesus our Lord is kept at the centre of our love and devotion. Any attempt to eliminate or remove Jesus from Christianity is to make ourselves God—our ideology becomes us. Today, let us ask, amongst other things, for the grace to know Jesus more intimately so that we can follow Him more closely.