PROPHECY OR POPULARITY

One of the first indigenous bishops in Ghana (whose name I would not want to mention) returned to his native town for a reception soon after he was made bishop. His townspeople, most of whom had only a faint idea of what the Christian faith or the office of bishop stands for, came together to give him a big reception. In the welcome speech, the people expressed how happy they were that one of their own sons had risen to the exalted position of those who had direct access to God. They promised him they would all embrace Christianity if he, as bishop, would use the power of his office to suppress one of the Ten Commandments for them. Before they could say which of the Commandments they had in mind, the young bishop shocked them by telling them that the Ten Commandments are of divine and not human making, and so are unchangeable. The celebratory mood turned into disappointment and the bishop had to make a hasty departure from his own people. Jesus, in today's gospel, went through a very similar experience.

Like the bishop, Jesus was coming home soon after his baptism where the Holy Spirit descended on him and he was publicly declared to be the Son of God. Like the bishop, Jesus’ townspeople received him at first with amazement and praise: “All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, ‘Is not this Joseph’s son?’” (Luke 4:22). Like the bishop, Jesus was expected to use his powers and do some special favour for his own people. After all, they were his own people. And again like the bishop, when Jesus told them the truth that God has no favourites but relates to all humankind by the same standards, they turned against him in disappointment and ran him out of town.

Jesus anticipated the people's disappointment with him because he understood himself to be engaged in the prophetic ministry. In biblical terms, a prophet is not simply someone who foretells the future. A prophet, essentially, is someone who speaks for God, God’s own spokesperson. The prophet’s signature tune is, “Thus says the Lord....” The prophet focuses primarily on clearly expressing the word of God. Whether this word is happily received by the people or not is not the prophet’s primary concern. Prophets tell the bitter truth and this is what gets them into trouble. What is the truth that Jesus is telling his townspeople in today's gospel that gets him into trouble?

Jesus is telling his townspeople of Nazareth the truth of the universality of God's grace. The people of Nazareth, like most of the “chosen” people of God in Jesus' time, had come to believe in a God made in their own image and likeness. They believed in an either-or God -- “if God is for us, then he must be against them.” They believed in a God whose beneficence was limited to the “chosen” people. Jesus tells them that such a God does not exist. The true God is equally available to all humanity -- so long as they approach God with faith and trust. To illustrate his points Jesus cites the cases of the prophets Elijah and Elisha who performed great miracles for people who were outside the confines of the “chosen” people. The people were in error and Jesus tried to give them the truth:

The truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land; yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:25-27).

The people could not accept the truth because it went against their long-established beliefs in their own superiority, which made them feel good about themselves.

The people of God have always had two kinds of teachers. There are the prophetic teachers who seek above all to please God; who speak the truth of God even when this would cost them their popularity and the people's patronage. And then there are the popularist teachers who seek above all to please the people, to tell them what they would love to hear and confirm them in their prejudices. Scripture warns us that "the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires" (2 Timothy 4:3).

The greatest of all virtues is universal and unconditional love (2nd reading). And the beginning of this agape love is the recognition that there is only one chosen people of God, only one chosen race: the human race.

HOME WORK ON LOVE (Second reading of the fourth Sunday of the year)

The passage we have today in the 2^nd reading, 1 Corinthians 13, is one of the best texts on love that you can find in the Bible. If you want to know what true love is, read that chapter over and over again. Many times in church we speak about the importance of love. In fact, we cannot speak too much about love because in the Christian life, love seems to be everything. Even God, we are told, is love. Today, however, I would not like us to listen to another speech on love. I would rather like to propose to you some practical exercises on love.

A Checklist on Love

How much of a loving person are you? An exercise based on this reading helps us to find that out easily. The text, taken from the New International Bible, version reads:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 
It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Now let us read the passage again putting “JESUS” and “HE” wherever we find “LOVE” and “IT.” You can see that it read smoothly. You can still agree with every line of the passage. Next read the passage again, this time substituting your name, “NN”, and the pronoun “I”. Do you still agree with every line in the passage? How do you score yourself on a scale of 1 to 10? That shows how loving a person you are.

A Homework on Love
(Adapted From A Second Helping of Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen, 46-48.)

An adult education teacher once gave his class an assignment to go to someone they love before the following week's class and tell them that they loved them. They would then give their report at the next class. It had to be someone to whom they had never said those words before, or at least not for a very long time. At the next class, one man stood up and recounted his story to the class. "I was quite angry with you last week when you gave us this assignment. I felt like, who were you to tell us to do something so personal? But as I was driving home, my conscience started talking to me. It was telling me that I knew exactly who I needed to say “I love you” to.

Five years ago, my father and I had a terrible argument which we have never resolved. We have avoided seeing each other unless it was absolutely necessary and even then we hardly spoke to each other. So last week by the time I had gotten home after class, I had convinced myself to tell my father that I loved him. It’s strange, but just making the decision seemed to lift a heavy load off my chest. When I told my wife, she jumped out of bed, gave me a big hug and for the first time in our married life saw me cry. We sat up half of the night talking and drinking coffee.

The next day I was up bright and early as if I had slept soundly all night. I got to the office and accomplished more in a couple of hours than I had the whole day before. At 9AM, I called my father to tell him I wanted to come over after work and talk to him. He reluctantly agreed. By 5:30, I was at the house. When my father answered the door, I didn't waste any time. I took one step inside and blurted out “Dad, I just came over to tell you that I love you.” Well, it was as if a transformation had come over him. Before my eyes, his face softened, the wrinkles seemed to disappear and he too began to cry. He reached out and hugged me, saying “I love you too, son, but I’ve never been able to say it.” My mother walked by just then with tears in her eyes. I didn't stay long, but I had’'t felt that great in a long time.

Two days after my visit, my dad, who had heart problems but hadn’t told us, had an attack and ended up unconscious in the hospital. I still don’t know if he’ll make it. So my message to all of you in this class is: don’t wait to do the things you know need to be done. If I had waited, I may never have another chance to do what I did."

And so my friends, your homework for this week is, go home and tell someone you love them before next Sunday. And it has to be someone you really love, but to whom you have never said those words before, or at least not for a very long time now. One day it will be your turn to tell us your own wonderful story of love.

PRESENTATION OF THE LORD

A scholar was conducting a study of an Amish village. The Amish are a branch of the Mennonite church who live in traditional rural villages far from industrialization and technology: no computers, televisions, refrigerators and telephones. In his study of the Amish village school, the researcher noticed that Amish children never screamed or yelled. That surprised him. So he decided to check it out with the schoolteacher. He told the teacher that he had not once heard an Amish child yell, and asked him why that was so. The teacher replied, “Well, have you ever heard an Amish parent yell?” The inference is clear: Like the parents, so the children!

We are all familiar with Mother’s Day and Father’s Day which we celebrate every year. Why is there not a Parents’ Day where we celebrate father and mother together as a couple? Today should be a good day to focus on both parents together, as we see both parents of Jesus, Joseph and Mary, together make the long journey to Jerusalem to present their firstborn child in the Temple as the law of God required. In the image of Joseph and Mary presenting Jesus in the Temple, we have a wonderful model of husband and wife united in practicing the faith and in raising their child in the faith.

We read that “When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord” (2:22) There is a confusion of detail here because, according to Jewish law, purification was for the mother alone while presentation was for the child. The story appears to be speaking of the two ceremonies as if they were one. Luke stresses the fact that they are doing it “as it is written in the law of the Lord” (verse 23). Joseph and Mary are presented as people who keep God’s laws. Moreover, they are presented as doing it together. It is easier to walk in the ways of God when husband and wife walk it together and encourage each other along the way. The author of Ecclesiastes had something like this in mind when he wrote: “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work: If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!” (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10). Husband and wife are companions in the journey of life, especially in the journey to our ultimate destination. We see this as we contemplate Joseph and Mary together in the Temple in obedience to God’s law.

The aspect of today’s celebration that some people have a problem with is this: why would the baby Jesus, who is not in a position to say yes or no, be initiated into the Jewish religion without his consent? This is a problem especially for those of us who question the value of infant baptism. Some Christians today feel that baptism has no value until a child reaches the age of reason and then is able to decide for oneself. But this is not the example that Mary and Joseph are giving us today. The concern about the value of infant baptism is a concern that is born out of the exaggerated individualism of the modern society. In the biblical era, people saw the whole family as one entity. The question of husband, wife and child belonging to different religions was unthinkable because religion was supposed to play a role in cementing the family unity. Thus we hear in Acts of the Apostles that when certain men and women were converted, they were baptised together with all their household (Acts 16:15, 31; 18:18).

If parents are supposed to provide their children with the basic necessities of life, what is more basic than one’s faith in God. No parents would think of allowing their children to decide whether they want to go to school or not, whether they want to learn the common language or not, whether they want to be a citizen of their country or not. We make these decisions for them, knowing fully well that when they grow up, they may decide to continue with what we gave them or abandon it. But only a foolish parent would refuse to send a child to school or teach a child their language and tradition in the name of respecting the child’s freedom to choose. Similarly parents have a responsibility to initiate their children into their faith traditions. This is what we see today in the feast of presentation as Joseph and Mary present Baby Jesus in the Jewish Temple.

As parents, we have the duty and privilege of raising our children in such a way that they grow up to become good and responsible citizens as well as committed children of God. The example of Joseph and Mary, and the example of the Amish community, show us that the best way to achieve this is not just by talking and shouting at them but by leading the way and showing them by the example of our own lives.

CONTRACEPTION AND WOMEN OBJECTIFICATION: AN ETHICAL JUSTIFICATION

I would like to begin this write up by asking some fundamental questions. These fundamental questions seem to cover the aim, nature and the scope of this work. But it would be nice to note this before proceeding to the questions. The politics of contraception and women objectification and its moral issues are seriously linked to arguments of women’s freedom and right and is built on the Kant’s principle of not treating human person as a means to an end but as an end in itself. With this assertion, the questions read: what is contraception all about? What are the contraceptives? Does fertilized egg have right to live? Is it not a potential human being? Don’t you think that contraception could gradually and quietly lead to extinction of human race? What are the major types/forms of contraception? How does contraception entail women objectification? Do women have right to contraception since they are the owners of their body? To what extent do women have right to contraception? Do women have any right at all to contraception? Is contraception justifiable under any moral standards or schemata? By moral standard or schemata: one means mental or ethical framework by which an action is judged good or bad; right or wrong. What does the Church teach about contraception, contraceptives and women objectification? The above questions are existential and ethical. At this juncture one might ask: what is the meaning of contraception? And what forms does it take?
CONRACEPTION: WHAT IT ENTAILS
Contraception may be seen as the striking product of modernity. It is mass-produced and over half of the world’s products now use it. It has brought with its massive normalization and routinzation. Contraception and women objectification have become household terms both in public and private discourse. Contraception according to the Electronic Encarta Dictionary has three nuances. First, it is prevention of fertilization: the preventions of pregnancy using artificial methods such as condoms and birth control pills or natural methods such as avoiding sex during the woman’s known fertile periods. Second, it means preventing pregnancy and thirdly, it is deliberate prevention of pregnancy using any of several methods in birth control; preventing a female sex (egg) from being fertilized by male sex cell (sperm) and implanting in the uterus. For Electronic Encyclopaedia Britannica, contraception is a deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation. From the above definitions, this phrase ‘wilful prevention of conception’ forms their common denominator. Having seen what contraception entails in an eye bird, one might ask: Are there forms of contraception?
KINDS OR FORMS OF CONTRACPTION
There are various kinds or forms of contraception as underlined in The Electronic Encyclopaedia Britannica. It would be nice to classify them in groups for better articulation. The first method is: the Barrier Devices. This method involves spermicides, condoms both male and female and diaphragm method. Condom prevents sperm from entering the uterus by sheathing the penis with latex or rubber like- object. Diaphragm involves covering the uterine cervix with a cervical cap avoiding sperm from the uterus. Barrier methods simply bar sperm from entering the uterus; hence inhibiting conception. Second group is hormonal methods. Here drugs are used in preventing pregnancy. These drugs alter hormonal levels in women; it suppresses the hormonal signal sent by pituitary gland for the ovaries to release an egg. Under hormonal contraception, we have: birth control pill. Birth control pill is a combination of synthetic oestrogen and synthetic progesterone which inhabits ovulation. Other examples of hormonal contraceptive are: hormonal implant, contraceptive injection, contraceptive ring and, contraceptive patch. More still, we have another method called Intrauterine Device (IUDs). Plastics or metal objects are implanted inside the uterus to avoid fertilization of an ovum by semen. Beside IUDs, we have surgical method of contraception. It includes surgical sterilization which is one of the most effective forms of contraception; is permanent and generally irreversible. It also includes vasectomy which is the blocking or severing of the ductus deferentes (or vasa deferential) which transports the male gametes. Finally, we have withdrawal method or coitus interruptus (an earliest contraceptive method). It involves the withdrawal of penis from vagina before ejaculation, and is the one of the oldest methods and though it is not reliable, it is still widely used. Summarily, Coitus interruptus is one the oldest methods, is not reliable yet is still widely used and practised. Sterilization is one the effective forms of contraception, is permanent and irreversible; whereas hormonal contraceptive method is one the most effective methods and reversible too. It includes: birth control pills, Norplant and Depo-Provera, intrauterine device and condoms used with spermicides. The safest contraceptive methods include the use of barrier devices and the avoidance of sexual intercourse during the period of ovulation.
 CAN CONTRACEPTION/ CONTRACEPTIVES AND THE OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN BE JUSTIFIED MORALLY?
From the above question, one is asking whether contraception/contraceptives and the objectification of women are morally right or morally wrong; morally good or morally bad. The above question could be answered with these ethical theories such as: Kant’s ethical imperative, personalism; existentialism, CD: Comprehensive doctrine and deontologism. First is: “Kant’s ethical imperative” (3rd formula) which states that: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in a person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. This particular thought asserts the dignity, freedom and nobility of womanhood. Hence, it judges the actions of those who indulge in contraception/contraceptives to be morally wrong since women are merely use as means to an end. Thus women are objectified, only seen as objects of sexual gratification or sexual toys to be manipulated or exploited. Similarly, “personalism” is a movement which upholds the primacy of the human person. Hence, a “personalist” would judge the actions of those who indulge in contraceptives to be morally wrong since it thwarts the nobility and the worth of womanhood and sees women as mere objects as opposed to subjects. Hence, women are objectified, instrumentalized and dewomanized. Next is “existentialism”. It is also movement that emphasizes on the individual responsibility and freedom. It was championed by Søren Kierkegaard and Martin Heidegger. For “existentialists”, those who engage in contraceptives are morally wrong since they are guilty of not allowing the fertilized egg to be and for depriving the “fertilized egg its freedom. Any conceived embryo has right to live. For “CD” which stands for “Comprehensive Doctrine” like Ten Commandment. It forbids: “you shall not kill’ and ‘other actions’ related to such an act. Hence, CD judges the actions of those who engage in contraceptives to be morally bad and ethically wrong and religiously sinful: and finally, ‘deontologism’ which is rooted philosophically in and popularized by the Kantian movement is focused on duty and goodwill. For deontologists, it is never the duty of women to prevent or inhibit conception and it does never involve goodwill at all rather bad will; hence, their action is morally wrong and bad will oriented. Finally, Natural law theorists would also argue against contraception since it goes against nature by blocking the natural process rooted in the metaphysics of finality which is fertilization, conception and partition. It would be nice to note that natural law according to Igboanusi in his book Normative Media Ethics designates the general dispositions and ends of those things and processes that are into being by natural processes and not by any intentional purposeful act of a creature. Thus, the proponents of natural law like Thomas Aquinas, John Finnis would see contraception and contraceptives as morally wrong since it obstructs natural process or it distorts the normal flow of nature thus abhorring artificiality of any sort. From the above ethical theories, it implies that contraception is intrinsically evil and as such denigrates the worth of women and also objectifies them. At his place, one might ask: what does the church say about contraception and women objectification?
THE CHURCH’S STAND ON CONTRACPTION/CONTRACEPTIVES AND THE OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN
According to Adrian Thatcher in the book titled The Good News of the Body : Sexual Theology and Feminism( 2000) classified papal teaching on contraception into three types: First: it is contrary to natural law; second; it is contrary to the inseparable connection between procreative sexual activity and third; it is an expression of a decadent society, culture or mentality. In the first point contraception/ contraceptives is against nature and it is intrinsically evil since it objectifies and instrumentalizes women. For the Vatican 11 document, contraception is vicious and is intrinsically shameful since it makes humans mere objects especially women. Pope Paul V1 in his encyclical Humane Vitae noted that contraception’s use is either contributing to a culture of death or it is already a consequence of such culture. Pope Paul V1 maintained that contraception would justify behaviour leading to marital infidelity or for gradual weakening in the discipline of morals as we see in Humane Vitae sec. 17. Similarly, the encyclical Familiaris Consortio no 6 warned against contraceptive mentality. Continuing, the encyclical affirms that contraception is a direct evidence of selfishness. Hence, it sees human as means of achieving a selfish interest. In the document Evangelium Vitae nos 22 and, 24, contraception and abortion are linked with a culture of death; a conspiracy against life and another negative mentality of hedonism. Moreso, the encyclical Evangelium Vitae no 24 states that contraception is evidence of a veritable structure of sin, a war of the powerful against the weak and conspiracy against life. In like manner , the encyclical Familiaris Consortio underscores that contraception is associated with consumer and anti-life mentalities, ultimate reason for which is the absence of people’s heart of God…( sec; 30). Finally the encyclical Familiaris Consortio affirms that contraception makes for adultery more likely because they make pregnancy less likely and by contraception the husbands lose respect for their wives because they are seen as object of sexual pleasure and sexual gratification. On this note, contraception involves the objectification of women: merely as objects of sex: sexual toys for men: pleasure giving venture. Furthermore, feminists would argue that contraception contributes in sexual promiscuity, selfishness, lack of respect and contempt for life especially on women (cf Lisa Isherwood, 2000, The Good News of the Body: Sexual Theology and Feminism). Indeed, contraception/contraceptives involve the objectification of women since women are seen as sexual toys to be used and dumped. Thus contraception objectifies and instrumentalizes women thus leading to I: ID of Martin Buber and seinde of Martin Heidegger
EVALUATION/CONCLUSION
Contraception goes against “natural law principle and divine principle. It also contravenes societal norms of any rational and moral society. Contraception objectifies, instrumentalizes, reifies, denigrates the worth, right, value, dignity and sanctity of women. Contraception is in itself is intrinsically evil, viciously shameful, morally wrong and religiously mortal or sinful. For us to ensure the women’s dignity and right; we should abhor all forms of objectification, instrumentalization, exploitation and manipulation rooted in contraception and contraceptives. Thus, the rights, dignity and worth of a fertilized egg according to Kant are non-negotiable. They are inalienable rights and values which form the foundation of human society since fertilized ovum is a potential child as well as an actualized adult. Summarily, fertilized ovum should be protected and sincerely cared for since it will fully become a human person requiring genuine love and care devoid of self-interest and self-centeredness. We have seen the problems associated with the politics of contraception and its multi-factorial nature, types and implications. The individual woman has to be made to understand the medical, theological, psychological, social and moral implications of her actions pertaining to contraception/contraceptives. There is need to address contraception both in private and public sectors. Conclusively, one would ethically and socially say that the politics of contraception and contraceptives is extremely important in our contemporary society both nationally and internationally. Contraception strips women of their womanhood, peels off their dignity, disrobes them of their freedom, divests them of their value, sheds off their worth and above all undresses them of their sanctity. It thwarts the autonomy and privacy of the fertilized egg since it is weak. Indeed contraception is intrinsically evil; naturally abominable, ethically wrong and psychologically disgusting since it de-womanizes women. It is really an anti-social tendency and anti-life. Therefore, the fertilized egg has an inherent worth and sacredness. This inherent worth of the “fertilized egg’ is buttressed by the theological and philosophical viewpoints. As a result, the protection of fertilized egg should form the preoccupation of government of any ethical and rational society. Hence, any relativistic understanding of moral values with regard to human persons fails in upholding the dignity and the right of a fertilized egg.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

One day in an introductory Bible class one of my classmates asked: "Why are there four Gospels rather than one?" Certainly things would look a lot easier if there was only one Gospel. Everything we read in that one Gospel would then be the gospel truth, pure and simple. Now that we have four Gospels that often differ significantly from one another, things can be quite confusing. When you come to think of it, however, you begin to realise that things would be a lot worse if we had only one Gospel. If we had only one Gospel we would think that there is only one way of understanding Jesus and how he relates to us. But now that we have four different Gospels, each of them telling a significantly different story of Jesus and his mission, it becomes easier for us to see that no story of Jesus can exhaust the whole truth of what Jesus is. As limited human beings we can only tell part of the story of God.
This remind us of the story of the six blind men who set out to discover what the elephant is. The first blind man feels the elephant's side and says the elephant is like a wall. The second blind man feels the elephant's tusk and says it is like a spear. The third feels the trunk and says it is like a snake. The fourth feels the elephant's leg and says the elephant is like a tree. The fifth feels the ear and says it is like a fan. And the sixth blind man feels the elephant's tail and concludes that the elephant is like a rope. You could imagine the bitter disagreement that would ensue among them if they got together to discuss the nature of the elephant. Every one of them would insist that he is right and the others wrong. But the truth of the matter is: yes, he is right, but then so also are all the others. Each of them has a valid experience of the elephant but no one of them possesses the full knowledge of the total reality of the elephant. Even when you put all the six images of the elephant together it still does not capture the full mosaic of the elephant.
After Vatican II the church's reading of the Gospels on Sunday was revised into a three-year cycle: year A for the gospel of Matthew, year B for Mark, and year C for Luke. The gospel of John is read on certain Sundays interspersed within the three years, such as the Sundays of the Easter season. We are now in year C, the year of Luke. The question we shall be asking ourselves this year is, What aspect of the mystery of Christ does Luke highlight, as distinct from the focus of the other Gospels? A certain scholar has outlined in one word the aspect of Christ that each of the Gospels highlights. Matthew highlights the Christ of majesty (who heals by word of mouth alone, never touches people, never hungry, never angry, etc.), Mark highlights the Christ of might (who proves he is the Messiah by his acts of power and authority over natural and demonic forces), Luke highlights the Christ of mercy (who reaches out to the poor, the outcasts, foreigners and women) and John highlights the Christ of mystery (who was with the Father from all eternity and who has come into the world to reveal this hidden mystery, the truth that leads to life).
Today we begin reading the Gospel of Luke. In his opening preface (1:1-4) Luke tells us why he wrote the gospel. It was to explain to Theophilus, probably a Roman official, what Christianity was all about. Have you ever tried to explain to someone what Christianity is all about? Many people think that Christianity is all about sin and judgment, heaven and hell; and that God is a heavenly policeman who is constantly monitoring our movements, writing down all our sins in His book and waiting to throw us into hellfire as soon as He catches up with us. Luke sees it all differently. For him Christianity has more to do with God's love and mercy than with punishment.
That is why, in telling Theophilus about the Christian faith, Luke finds the incident in the synagogue in Nazareth very useful. In this incident found only in Luke's Gospel, Jesus makes a solemn declaration of his mission in the world. We can call it the Jesus Manifesto. People who initiate a revolution usually start off with a declaration of their manifesto. Karl Mark started by publishing the Communist Manifesto. Martin Luther started off with the publication of the 95 theses in Wittenberg. Jesus has come to start a revolution of mercy and love in the world. And here in today's Gospel reading he publishes the Christian manifesto:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour. (4:18-19)
In these few words we see in a nutshell how Jesus, in Luke, understands his mission in the world. What is Jesus' work? It is "to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour."
In Matthew Jesus speaks of "the poor in spirit" but in Luke he speaks simply of "the poor." Jesus in Luke is concerned not only with the spiritual aspects of human life but also with the material and social aspects. Here we see the love and mercy of Jesus reaching out to all in need. Like the master, so the followers. We who bear the name of Christ – Christians – ought to live according to Christ's manifesto. It is our mission as individuals and as a community to bring Good News to the poor in our society. Today's gospel challenges us to stretch out our hands in practical solidarity with those who are visibly disadvantaged around us. As Christians we should not only be concerned with saving people's souls, we should also be concerned with saving their bodies, their health, their housing and their jobs. The Good News is not only for the soul, it is also for the body. The Good News is for every person and for the whole person, body and soul.

JUST ONE BODY BUT MANY PARTS

There is an old African fable showing that every member of the community, including those who appear to be useless, are important after all. Once upon a time, the various parts of the body began complaining against the stomach. “Look at me,” says the hand, “I till the soil to plant the seeds, I harvest the crops, I prepare the food. All that the stomach ever does is lie there waiting to be fed. This is unfair.” The feet agreed, “Me too, I carry the heavy stomach around all day, I carry him to the farm to get food, I carry him to the river to get water, I even carry him up the palm tree to get palm wine, and all the stomach ever does is lie there and expect to get his ration of food, water and wine whenever he needs them. This is unfair.” The head, too complained how he carries all the heavy load from the farm and from the river, all to feed the stomach who does nothing to help. The parts of the body decided that this injustice must stop. To force the issue, they decided to embark on a protest action. They agreed to stop working and feeding the lazy stomach until the stomach learns to be a responsible citizen of the body.

A whole day went by and the stomach was not given any food or water or wine. All that the stomach did was groan from time to time while the others taunted him. By the second day of starving the stomach, the head said that he was beginning to feel dizzy. By the third day, the hands reported that they were feeling weak, and the feet were wobbly and could not stand straight. Then it dawned on them that, much as they were visibly supporting the stomach, the stomach was also supporting them in a less obvious but equally important way. It dawned on them that by feeding the stomach they were feeding themselves without knowing it. So they called off their strike action and went back to work to feed the stomach. Their strength returned and together with the stomach they lived happily together after.

The story makes the point that everybody in the community is making a vital contribution, even those who appear to do nothing but consume what others produce. Paul, in the 2^nd reading, makes a similar point.

The members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable. Those members of the body that we think less honourable are clothed with greater honour, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this. God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body (1 Corinthians 12:22-25).

We know that poor people envy rich people. What we do not know is that sometimes it is rich people who envy poor people? Why do the rich envy the poor for paying no taxes? Haven’t you heard people complain that they pay their taxes and people on welfare get a free ride? If you feel street people and welfare recipients are getting a free ride, try trading places with them for one cold night.

I know a bishop who had a very able and gifted man in his pastoral council. If you wanted anything done, and done well, give it to this man. One day the bishop called him and gave him another assignment. This man could not bear it any longer? “My Lord,” he said, “Am I the only person in the pastoral council? Why must every work be given to me while there are some people there doing absolutely nothing? The wise bishop said to him, “Would you want me to pray so that no one ever calls on you to do anything again?” The man got the point. He would not like to trade places with the less gifted members of the council who could not complete an assignment. From then on he stopped complaining and was happy to put his talents to work for the common good.

Today the word of God challenges us to give up that secret pleasure we get by comparing ourselves with others and thinking that other people are inferior. No part of the human body is inferior. In the same way, no member of the church community should be regarded as inferior. God has given each one of us different gifts, different opportunities, different job descriptions in life. Our concern should be to try to be faithful to the grace that God gives us day by day. On the last day, God will tell us who did more than the other. And, oh, what a surprise that would be!

YOU ARE SO SPECIAL.

A little girl wanted to become a great pianist, but all she could play on the piano was the simple little tune, "Chopsticks." No matter how hard she tried, that was the best she could do. Her parents decided after some time to arrange for a great maestro to teach her to play properly. Of course, the little girl was delighted.
When the little girl and her parents arrived at the maestro's mansion for the first lesson, they were escorted by the butler into the parlour, where they saw a beautiful concert grand piano. Immediately, the little girl dashed over to the piano and began playing "Chopsticks." Her embarrassed parents started across the room to tell her to stop, but as she played, the maestro entered the room and encouraged the little girl to continue.
The maestro then took a seat on the piano bench next to the little girl, listening to her play. After a moment he began to play along with her, adding chords, runs, and arpeggios. The little girl continued to play "Chopsticks." The parents couldn't believe their ears. They were hearing a beautiful piano duet, played by their daughter and the maestro, and amazingly enough, the central theme of it was still "Chopsticks."
At times you may feel like you're a nobody, that you will never accomplish great things. But think of that little girl. All she could play was "Chopsticks." Nobody wanted to hear "Chopsticks." It was an embarrassment to her parents and annoying to everyone else. Yet the maestro encouraged her to keep on playing.
God knows what you can do. He created you with gifts and talents. Sure, compared to some people's abilities, your gifts and talents may seem like "Chopsticks" not very original and not very spectacular. But God says, "Keep on playing--and make some room on the piano bench for Me." God is able to take the little that we are able to do and turn it into something beautiful for Him.