Rev. Fr. (Dr.) Osmond Anike

Readings:

First Reading: Acts 6:1-7 – They elected seven men full of the Holy Spirit.

Responsorial Psalm: Psalm 32(33):1-2, 4-5, 18-19 – May your love be upon us, O Lord, as we place all our hope in you.

Second Reading:1 Peter 2:4-9 – Christ is the living stone, chosen by God and precious to him.

Gospel: John 14:1-12 – I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.

When Jesus was physically with his disciples, he frequently emphasized the supremacy of spiritual food over bodily food. Certainly he did not neglect the fact that people have to eat. He did not diminish the necessity of food for sustenance of human body. On the contrary, some of his miracles involved the multiplication of loaves of bread and fish so that people had enough to eat. Yet, he frequently warned his followers to look for food that will last forever and not for the perishable ones they struggled to get. And when he was tempted in the desert, he unequivocally insisted that food alone does not suffice for the salvation of humankind. Elsewhere, he told us that his food is to do the will of the Father who sent him. During the Last Passover, he turned the material bread into sacramental bread for our spiritual nourishment. The early Christian community continued this practice by incorporating into their daily routine not only the normal Jewish prayers in the synagogue, but also the element of breaking of bread. Although they ate together, the more important part of their daily routine centered on prayers and sharing of the word of God. They were indeed united in prayer and the breaking of bread.

However, with the increase in their number, distractions concerning daily distribution of food set in. When two groups, who hitherto did not see eye to eye, suddenly found themselves as a single body of community, there were bound to be mutual suspicion. Jews and Greeks were in fact, not the best of friends. Although the Hellenists referred to in the first reading were Christian converts among the Jews who lived in the Greek world and had returned back to Judea, they not only spoke Greek as their adopted language, but also adopted Greek culture. They were also inclined to interpreting the law less rigorously than the ‘Hebrews’. In fact, evidence of Greek cultural influences was all around them. Because of this, the other Jewish converts to Christianity who were born and bred in Israel and are referred to here as ‘Hebrews’, saw and treated them more as Greeks than as fellow Jews. However, the gospel has brought them together as members of the same community of Christians. But this did not remove the mutual suspicion; and very soon, this suspicion boiled into the open and tended to derail the main focus of the apostles. They were being dragged into abandoning their principal responsibility of preaching the word of God and dabbling into the “trivial” issues concerning the method of sharing food. But the apostles would not want to be dragged into that. It was not that sharing food at the table was “below the dignity” of the apostles. No. It was simply that they had a more pressing responsibility. They were aware that, in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, they should not sacrifice the preaching of the word of God at the altar of sharing food. This was just a “distraction” which they were not willing to give in to, especially given that there were more than enough other people (non-apostles) who could perform such responsibility efficiently. The consequence therefore, was the establishment of the diaconate. Seven “men of good reputation” were chosen to take up this task of daily distribution of food. They were the first deacons of the church. Among these men were two Hellenistic Jews – Stephen and Philip whose missionary activities were described in Acts 6-8. Stephen, who preached the gospel in Jerusalem, was later to become the first martyr in the Church, while Philip brought the gospel to Samaria and Ethiopia.

From the account surrounding the election of the first deacons, it is obvious that there has to be priority in the work of the church. For centuries, the materialists have been trying (and sometimes succeeding) in projecting the role of Christianity in the world only in terms of meeting the material needs of the people. The discourse of Jesus concerning the last judgment (“I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink”) became the favorite quotation of these materialists to justify their insistence that the role of Christianity should be limited only to the provision of material needs of people. Any discourse concerning the spiritual needs of people is viewed by such people with consternation. Some of the proponents of this school of thought argue that church buildings be converted into factories in order to meet the material needs of people. The church, of course, has been fulfilling this material role. The establishments of schools, hospitals, charity organizations, etc., all over the world, are testimonies to this fact. But in terms of what should take priority over what, the preaching of the word of God stands out as the first role of the church. Jesus was unequivocal about this during his encounter with the devil in the desert (“man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”). The devil wanted to suggest that tackling hunger in the world suffices for the salvation of humankind. But Jesus quickly reminded him that if the world has all the material food it needs to sustain it, without God, such a world is not thereby saved.  The newly elected deacons in the first reading of today appeared to have known this fact. Even when they were elected to serve food, it is interesting that these deacons realized very quickly that a more urgent role was that of preaching the word. They therefore joined the apostles in this task. We never heard anything again about distribution of food; rather, we were told about how they preached the word of God to the ends of the earth. One of them (as we have already indicated above) was to become the first person in the history of Christianity to be killed for preaching the word of God.

In today’s world where materialism appears to have taken over the whole aspect of human existence, it is imperative that we pause a little and rethink about our understanding of the role of the Church in the world. If it is solely to provide the material needs of people, then the world does not need the church after all. There are establishments – hotels, restaurants, industries, factories, etc., better equipped to do this job. The church can, and has been doing some of these jobs, as we earlier indicated. But there is one thing that the church provides, which these others are ill-equipped to provide – the aspect of the spiritual needs. Sadly, this aberration of tending to address only one aspect of the human existence – the material aspect – at the expense of the other aspect – the spiritual aspect – that has characterized today’s world, tends to have affected the church too. In order to be seen as remaining relevant in a world that understands not the language of the spiritual, some church authorities sometimes give in to the temptation of neglecting the preaching of the word of God in order to engage in the “distribution of food”. But this comes at a cost. Human nature is such that, no matter how much you provide, people will always complain about being shortchanged. This becomes even more apparent if there is diversity of cultural groups within a particular community of people being provided for, as was demonstrated in the first reading. When people associate the role of the church only in terms of this provision of material needs, the complaint will eventually metamorphose into a concept of the church that favors one group of people over another. This is where the danger of giving in to the solely materialistic interpretation of the role of the church becomes an existential threat to the very survival of the church. This image of discrimination (real or imaginary) will then forever define the church. The concept of the Church as a body of people where there are “no Jews or Gentiles” will be lost; and with it, to some extent, its claim to catholicity. It will no longer be viewed as a church that speaks for all people by speaking in all languages. The name ‘catholicity’ will be put in parenthesis when describing the church because, although theologically and historically, the transition of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome, i.e., from the Hebrew people to the pagan world, implies that the church has been catholicized (i.e., has broken from the shackles of a particular culture – the Hebrew culture representing the ancient people of God, to embrace all cultures – all other people outside the ancient people of God represented by Rome), the perceived discrimination emanating from the “sharing of food” will give the impression that some group are “more catholic” than the others. In brief, limiting the role of the church only to the provision of material needs of people is a distortion of the concept of the church. When people come to the church not to pray and commune with God but rather to “struggle for food” and positions that will guarantee that such “food” is provided for them and for people of their own cultural group at the expense of others, then something is indeed very wrong somewhere.

As we make effort to feed the hungry, it is important that we know that the hungry needs two kinds of food – material food to nourish their body, and spiritual food to nourish their soul. None should take the place of the other. They can and should coexist. And in Jesus’ own ministry, we could see that he places priority on the spiritual food. He always started with preaching the word of God to the people to nourish their souls. Then after, and only then, he concluded by providing material food for their bodily nourishment. If only we could adopt this  model of Jesus!