Kuruvilla Chandy's Books Online

INTRODUCTION

This collection of articles spans thirty years. My first article was “The Song of Mary and Our Song.” It was published in Light of Life, June 1964. I was just fifteen then.

The same year I started to preach in a youth club. Soon I was preaching in churches and house meetings. Even though I was ordained only ten years later, ever since I started preaching, I have been looking at my world from behind a pulpit.

However, I do not believe in the classifications “clergy” and “laity.” I believe there is only one people of God, and all who believe are equals. So, in presenting these articles as the View From The Pulpit, I do not want people to think of them as the slanted view of a peculiar creature out of touch with reality. I was in the pews when I started to preach and write.

For the preacher, the pulpit is the place for keeping the Bible. So, the view from the pulpit must not be determined by personal bias. It must present a biblical outlook on church and society.

View From The Pulpit is not just my personal interpretation of the Bible. When preachers are faithful to the literal meanings of the words of the Bible, they cannot come up with different interpretations. Everyone will come up with the same interpretation. It is only in emphasis and application that the personal or denominational bias comes through.

It is my hope that this volume of articles takes you back to the Bible so that you study it for yourself, and reflect on its meaning for life in India today.

Lucknow Kuruvilla Chandy

January 16, 1995

I

BEING CHRISTIAN

WE’RE CHOSEN

Was Jesus predestined to be holy and sinless or was He free to choose good or evil? If He was more predestined than He was free, then it follows that He was sinless only because He was predestined. It follows too that if we were equally predestined to be sinless, we too would be sinless. It would then mean that we are not rightly to be held accountable for our sinfulness.

On the other hand, if Jesus was more free than He was predestined, it would follow that if we too were as free as He was, we too could have chosen the path of sinlessness. Again, we could not be blamed for our sinfulness, for we ·are captive to predestination. Freedom of choice is the ultimate test of godliness. Without liberty, we are like programmed machines. Then, whatever we are, God is the cause of our spiritual condition. It is He who created us to become what we are; we did not choose the way we behave. But thank God, that is not how He made us. He made us free.

In God’s Image

Surely, this is one of the aspects of the image of God in humans. We are not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent like God is. Nor are we innately good. It is not in these aspects that humans are in the likeness of God. Being in the image of God is in the nature of our being. As God is spirit (Jn. 4:24), humans too are spiritual. Therein lies our difference from animals. It is true that other creatures too have some feelings and intelligence; but there is a vast difference and the human ability, to exploit that difference and subject other creatures must also be part of what it means for humans to be in God’s image. We might say that we are “as God” to other creatures. But the essence of humans being like God, is their spiritual nature. Of all God’s creatures, human beings alone have an appreciation for the abstract—for beauty, courage, honour and the like qualities. That is because they are spiritual and therefore have the capacity to comprehend what is abstract.

Most of all though, the image of God in humans has to do with their being the only creatures that make free moral choices. Morality is not an issue for animals. Only humans are concerned about it. Only to the Man and Woman did God give an opportunity to choose obedience to His command. That was because only humans are in the image of God.

But does humankind really have freedom of choice? Does God not know the end? Has God not said, “I make known the end from the beginning” (Isa. 46:10)?

This word from God is about Him being able to foretell future events. The gods of the nations could not do so. The fulfilment of prophecy was also the mark of the true prophet (Deut. 18:22,23). The classic case of the reluctant prophet Jonah centred on this issue of fulfilment. His reluctance stemmed from the fact that he had observed that God did not always carry out His predictions of doom. It made Jonah look like a fool. Jonah had got on to something about the way God acted, but he did not understand or appreciate God’s purpose in prophecy. All prophecy had the intention to warn of what would happen if people went their way; prophecies were not given to terrorise people, but to recall them to God’s way. God’s intention to reclaim them was the motive force of all prophecy. People were being given an opportunity to change or take remedial action.

Unfulfilled Prophecies

Jonah’s was no isolated experience. The Bible is replete with instances of God predicting something and not carrying it out, when people responded positively. God revealed to Moses His displeasure with Israel and His intention to destroy them. That warning enabled Moses to plead with God and have Him change His mind (Ex.32:9-14).

David enquired about what the people of the town of Keilah would do with him. God told him that the citizens of Keilah would betray him and surrender him to Saul in spite of his having fought for them. So David managed to make his escape (I Sam. 23:12-13).

When King Hezekiah was told to put his house in order and prepare to die, he pleaded with God and was allowed to live longer (II Kings 20: 1-7).

Was it not to warn Peter that he was told that he would deny Jesus (Luke 22:31-34)? He was cautioned to watch and pray to overcome temptation (Mark 14:37, 38).

Even Judas was given warning of what he was indulging in by his betrayal of Jesus (Mark 14:21). Till the end, Jesus regarded him as a friend (Matt. 26:50) and confronted him with the enormity of his betrayal (Luke 22:48). Could Judas have repented and been restored like Peter was? After all, Jesus had also said that He would deny those who denied Him (Matt. 10:33). Yet Peter was restored. Surely, the love of God could have covered the sin of Judas too, if he had repented. Or why did Jesus seem to be reaching out to Judas, by asking him to consider his manner of betrayal (Luke 22:48)?

God Repented

It is true that God says, “I the Lord do not change” (Mal. 3:6). The Bible says “God is not a man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfil?” (Num. 23:19). But the Bible records that God expressed regret and felt grief over His creation (Gen. 6:6). In fact, the Hebrew word is the one for repentance. The King James Version of the Bible has preserved the import of several passages stating that God “repented” of creation and the covenant with Israel. Not only so, but having announced His intention to destroy Israel, He “repented” again because Moses interceded on their behalf (Ex. 32:9-14). He repented that He had made Saul king (I Sam. 15:11, 35). God changed his schedule of punishment even in favour of wicked Ahab because he humbled himself (I Kings 21:29). The God who does not change did say that His love would respond to peoples’ repentance and He would repent of His plan. God said, “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it” (Jer. 18:7-10, NIV).

The above statement of God is not categorical, but hypothetical. In another significant passage, Jeremiah is asked to write down God’s prophecy of doom. That is, it was a recorded statement. In a non-literate society like that, written statements were of greater significance than verbal statements. But after having the prophecy recorded in writing, God says, “Perhaps they will repent and then I will forgive them” (36:2-3). God does not express certain knowledge of the outcome. He is hopeful, but He does not claim to be sure. All He can say is, “Perhaps…”

Is that how predestination works? After all, it is like prophecy. God knows the end of the various alternatives. He knows the end of the path I take. If I take a particular path, I will reach a particular end. Another path will take me to another end. God knows what those ends are, but the choice is mine.

What God Really Wants

People are predestined also in the sense of what God wants for them. He wants “all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). He is patient, “not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9; cf. Ezek. 33:11). Those words, taken literally, mean that God has predestined all to salvation. (If we do not take them literally, how are we to understand them and what logical reason is there for rejecting the plain meanings of the words of those passages?)

Just as God’s prophecies can be turned aside, His predestinations can be similarly set aside. Can God’s will be frustrated? Jesus cried over Jerusalem: “How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37). For all of Christ’s longing, Jerusalem had a will of its own that went contrary to His longing and frustrated Him.

The Jews were the elect of God. But for all that they frustrated God’s plan for them. They had to be “broken off” (Rom. 11:20) and their place was taken by those who were not the elect of God (1 Pet. 3:9-10). All of the Jewish elect were not saved, nor are all those who are not the Jewish elect damned.

Romans 9 is the most prominent chapter on the subject of predestination. God hardened Pharaoh, according to this passage (vv. 17-18). But, according to Exodus, it was also a case of Pharaoh hardening himself (8:15, 32; 9:34). At other times Exodus simply says that his heart “was hard” (8: 19; 9:7, 35). It would therefore mean that God was responsible for Pharaoh’s hardening only in the sense that God had made humankind in such a way as to be responsive to God or hardened against Him. God was not the cause of the sin of hardening (9:34), just as no sin originates in Him (James 1: 13-15).

Paul reflecting on predestination categorises people as “objects of wrath” or “objects of mercy” (Rom . 9:22,23) . For people to need mercy, they must first deserve wrath. That is, the objects of God’s mercy were themselves once objects of His wrath. Moreover, the objects of God’s wrath are “prepared for destruction.” They were not simply assigned to that end. There was a process of preparation that needed time. Significantly, though the Bible refers to those who are predestined to eternal life, it never mentions that people are predestined to hell. An argument from silence may not always be a valid one. But in this case, the silence is meaningful.

Power Over Power

Is such a God, who is not totalitarian in His rule, or unilateral in His verdict, sovereign at all? Can He be Almighty if He does not, at will, consign creatures to hell? Sure, God is sovereign and all powerful. He has power over power. Humans are unable to handle power. It goes to their head. They are controlled by power, instead of being in control. They turn abusive. We long for those who have power and have learnt to use it responsibly. That longing for the manifestation of the right use of power is indicative of the heart’s intuitive knowledge that there is such a thing as the right use of power.

A father has more strength than a little child. If he uses that strength excessively to show his power over the child, he not only destroys the child, but is seen to be power-mad. He is in the grip of power and would not be regarded as having power in the final analysis.

By teaching Christians that God is Father, Jesus indicated that all human fathers are meant to be in the likeness of the Heavenly Father. If good human fathers do not abuse their power over their children, how much more will the Heavenly Father not be abusive (cf Luke 11: 11-13). How much more He will be the one who has power over power, so that His sovereignty does not frustrate human free will.

The Incarnation, among other things, is proof that the Almighty God is able to limit Himself, without any loss of divinity. Jesus was omnipotent; He emptied Himself of that power. Jesus was omniscient; He chose not to see the future and know the time of the end.

The Father too limited Himself when Jesus was incarnate. Could He be the Father of Jesus without feeling the urge to end His Son’s suffering? He limited His power to end the suffering. He limited His power to destroy those who dishonoured His Son and subjected Him to ridicule and humiliation.

Like Jesus

Jesus is the answer to this question of whether we are creatures who are predestined and totally subject to some divinely ordained fate or creatures who are totally free, in whose life God is unable to even intrude. Jesus was the representative Man, the Last Adam (I Cor. 15:45), the Son of Man. He shared our human nature and experience. He was not so predestined that He could not exercise His free will. He was holy and sinless, not because He had no other choice, but because He chose to conform to God’s will. He made His own will subservient to God’s will, as He prayed, “Not my will, but Thine be done” (Matt. 26:39). God’s will was His sustenance (Jn. 4:34), and it was His mission in life (6:38). Was He predestined? Yes, but He needed to affirm by personal choice what He was predestined for.

We too are predestined to belong to God and to serve Him. God longs for us. As the prophet Micah would put it, “He has showed you, 0 man, what is good . And what does the Lord require of you?” (6:8). He has revealed what we are predestined for. Whether or not we choose what He has in store is entirely up to us. We can choose what He chooses for us, or choose what He would not choose for us.

YOUR CHOICE

Does God have a blue-print for my life? The Christian answer to that question is ‘Yes.’ I cannot accept that. I believe that it does not match the biblical evidence.

I first began to have doubts about the subject of God’s guidance when, as a college student, I was attending a Bible study group. The leader gave us an illustration of how God guided him in the kind of housing he was to choose for himself—an independent room in a large house or a complete one bedroom house with access to the terrace. That morning he read in his devotions that the Apostle Peter went up on the rooftop to pray (Acts 10:9), and concluded that God was asking him to select the house where he would have access to the terrace.

Next, I heard a young lady say that she was waiting to know God’s will, having finished her college degree course. That word ‘waiting’ set me thinking even though it was common evangelical jargon. If we wait to know, then, the period of waiting cannot be part of God’s will, and what exactly are we waiting for?

The Ordinary Course

My attention was turned first to the Acts of the Apostles. Did the apostolic band pray to know God’s will before venturing on their affairs? None of them are shown as getting down on their knees and enquiring about the Lord’s will first before going about their lives and ministries. The picture we have is not of hesitant men who were constantly afraid that they might miss God’s will. None of them waited. Paul, for instance, was planning to do something he took for granted and did not bother to first find out what God’s will in the matter was. Paul and his team were intending to take the Gospel to Asia and Bythinia because they assumed it would be all right and had to be told not to do so (Acts 16:6,7). The point is Paul did not think it necessary to discover God’s will before making plans or venturing on his missions. He worked on the assumption that Christian mission was already God’s will.

Similarly, God’s guidance came to Peter, not because he sought it, but on account of his not following the directive that Christ’s commission had been laid on him and was failing in the task of preaching the Gospel to every creature (Acts 10:11-16).

Another point to be noted is that such out-of-the ordinary guidance was granted only when God wanted people not to follow a course they had chosen, as for example, Paul’s attempts to preach in Asia and Bythinia. That is, guidance mostly came only when God wanted to break the routine. God was not against routine on the whole, but broke it only when it did not fit His own plans.

All of these instances of guidance are of the extraordinary kind: a dream, a voice, an angel. Such extraordinary measures of guidance are given only when God wants people to depart from their ordinary courses.

For the Christian, the ordinary course itself is hallowed because of the surrender he or she has made to the lordship of Christ. All Christian behaviour, emanating from a Spirit-controlled life is acceptable to God. No wonder Saint Augustine said, “Love God and do as you please.” Some have thought that Augustine was giving license to pleasure; however, it was not a form of anarchism, but the sanctification of the whole life, that the saint referred to. There could no longer be anything secular in the life of the person in love with the Lord.

Mind of Christ

Paul talks of Christians acquiring the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). Jesus Christ was one person for whom doing God’s will was like food and drink (John 6:32,34). To possess such a mind, is therefore, to adopt God’s will as one’s life-style. Without the mind of Christ, no one can be receptive toward any revelation or angelic message Cor. 2:9-15). However, when one has the mind of Christ, every decision has the pleasure of God in view.

In Romans 12:1, 2 Paul gives a formula for experiencing God’s will. He does not give a formula to discover God’s will. God’s will is not something we choose after such discovery. When the steps of the formula are gone through, Paul says we will have “tested and approved” (NIV) what is the perfect will of God. Paul means that if our lives are conditioned in a certain way, we would be experiencing God’s will and our experience will prove that God’s will is good and pleasing and perfect.

The first condition is that of being a living sacrifice. It is our bodies that Paul asks us to present thus to God because our bodies are the vehicles of our personalities. The body represents the total being. Also the sacrifice needs to be seen as an existential experience and not some abstract one. It involves the flesh and blood in the here and now.

The term “living sacrifice” is a paradoxical one. In the Old Testament order, the background out of which Paul writes, sacrificing anything involved the ending of life of the creature sacrificed. It is as if Paul is saying that Christians have got to be the living dead. Lenin used a similar phrase to describe communists as “dead men on furlough.” These phrases speak of a commitment that is dead to all else while vibrating with life towards the cause or person one is committed to.

Christian commitment to Christ demands that we totally reject the world’s values and aims, which is the second condition in Paul’s formula. There can no longer be conformity to the world. “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its mould” (Rom. 12:2, Phillips). Commitment to the lordship of Christ means not allowing the world to call the tune. “Never give your heart to this world or to any of the things in it. A man cannot love the Father and love the world at the same time. For the world’s system, based as it is on men’s primitive desires, their greedy ambitions and glamour of all they think splendid, is not derived from the Father at all, but from the world itself” (1 John 2:15, Phillips).

The third condition is that, instead of conformity to the world, there needs to be a transformation that renders us other-worldly. We think of transformation as something that happens to us by divine action alone. Paul gives us a command to be transformed, and thus places the onus of transformation squarely on us. This is possible because the world’s viewpoint can be replaced by a mentality that is renewed in Christ. It is possible to have the mind of Christ, and think as Jesus would in any situation. Our lives are determined by our thought-life (Prov. 23:7). What is fed into the mind is what contributes to mental attitudes. So if the mind feeds on God’s Word, it is possible to change one’s behaviour from being like that of the world (cf Psa. 119:9, 11). Knowing what God wants us to do is really just a matter of having spiritual wisdom and understanding (Col. 1:9).

As Oliver Barclay says, “What is promised to us, therefore, is the grace to look at things in a Christian way and to discern what we ought to do accordingly… the ability to discern what is the right thing to do… will not come to ‘us in some magical way nor will it relieve us of the duty of careful calculation. The promise is that we shall be enabled to look at the problem ‘Christianly’.”

Keeping Paul’s formula is in itself an experience of God’s will. The total surrender to God’s rule in our lives, the departure from worldly ways and, instead, having a new mind that seeks to be like Christ, are all the will of God for us. When we do these things, we do the will of God. That is, doing the will of God and experiencing the will of God are two sides of the same coin.

Your Choice

The will of God is not a mysterious blueprint in heaven. The idea of a blueprint suggests that in any given situation, there is only one course of action that is open to us. But God who created us free to choose, constantly places before us, not one, but several ways in any situation, so that whether we choose one or the other way, we would still be doing God’s will. For instance, Paul found at Troas an open door from the Lord, but not having any peace of mind about Titus not being there, he left for Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:12, 13). Paul felt free about not going through God’s own open door because of a mere disturbed feeling about one individual, while a whole city of lost people waited to hear the Gospel! From other sources we know that Paul had a dream of a Macedonian calling him there (Acts 16:8-10), and it may be inferred that Titus was probably the man in his dream. But the point is that Paul clearly understood that he had two options from the Lord. Compare Acts 20:22, 23 with 21:4 where the Holy Spirit gives Paul contrary directions.

God has no blueprint for us. God’s will is very simply a choice we make: the choice to live life with reference to God or with reference to human wisdom. If there is a blueprint, Jesus is that blueprint. Other than Him, there is no elaborate blueprint detailing each step a Christian should take. In the final analysis God’s desire is only that Christians should be like Jesus. “What would Jesus do?” is, therefore, a relevant question in any situation. What Jesus would do is God’s will. As Jesus submitted to the will of God when he prayed ‘Not my will, but thine be done’, so he taught us to pray:

“Thy Kingdom come

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. ”

Other than having the mind of Christ that is capable of determining Christ-like actions, we will receive no guidance, for we are free as the children of God, not bound as slaves.

NO DAISY CHAIN

In Lucknow, a Hindu festival involves young men going from their homes to one particular Hanuman temple. But they do not walk to the temple. They have to reach it measuring the road by their length when they lie down. The young man, who sets out to fulfil this commitment, lies down on the ground, reaches as far as he can with the tip of his fingers, marks the spot, gets up, goes to the marked spot, lies down, stretches out, marks the new place and so it goes on until he reaches the temple.

But one day, I saw a group of young men taking a shortcut. One lay down, reached out, another lay down at that point, reached out, and another lay down. I thought to myself, “But that’s cheating.” Suddenly another thought came to me, “How is that different from what Christians do during prayer chains?”

I am aware that I am attacking something that is sacred to many Christians. But so did Jesus when He criticised the Pharisees for their long prayers (Matt 6:7). He appeared not even to be charitable in the word He used. He called it “babbling”. I am sure there were some then who said, “But they must be sincere. They must sincerely think that the length of prayers is important.” That is not the way Jesus viewed it. He thought of it as being only a display.

Any Rationale?

What really is the rationale for prayer chains? First of all, there is no biblical example for it. No one is described as having engaged in chains of prayer. Any long praying was done individually. Even hypocrites did not lengthen prayer by making a daisy-chain of it. At least they did not cheat to make the prayer long.

There are other ways in which we make our prayers long contrary to the teaching of Jesus. Have you noticed that, at prayer meetings, there are persons who will pray for all the requests at once? When there are a few persons like that at a prayer meeting, the prayer meeting becomes long. But it is also sufficient to make it rather artificial and to stop people from coming to other prayer meetings.

Another way we lengthen our prayers is by using the name of God as punctuation marks. Such a prayer sounds like this: “Father, I thank you Father, that you have called us Father, to pray Father, and we are here Father, because of Jesus Christ, Father…” When I talk to my wife I do not say, “Roshini, it’s just great, Roshini, that we have this time, Roshini, to talk, Roshini, about the things that have been happening, Roshini…” If l did that, I am sure she would think that something was wrong with me mentally, or that I was pretending love to cover up a lack of love. I am not saying that Christians who pray in this way are only pretending to love God. But I would say that they are thoughtless in the use of God’s name, and the Bible calls it a vain use of God’s name. They are guilty of not praying with their minds. They have treated prayer as an activity that is unintelligent. Paul said, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind” (1 Cor. 14:15). For him it was not a matter of one or the other. Both the spirit and the mind are to be involved in prayer. Using one’s mind is a matter of loving God (Luke 10:27).

Jesus’ Example

From time to time, one hears Christian leaders say, “I have become aware of my need to spend more time in prayer.” They express a certain guilt at not spending enough time in prayer. I too have felt that way. The guilt feelings are about the length of time spent in prayer. Somehow Christians have forgotten that Jesus frowned on long prayers. His emphasis was against lengthy prayers. The efficacy of prayer is not directly proportional to its length.

So, how long should prayer be? That question is best answered by Jesus. In the context of criticising long prayers, He taught His disciples to pray and all He taught them was a prayer that takes a few seconds to pray. Let no one say that He was only teaching them the pattern or that it was only the outline of the prayer. No, they asked to be taught. As their Rabbi, using the repetitive method of teaching, He said, “When you pray, say, ‘Our Father…”‘ (Luke 11:2).

It was a pattern too. Not in the sense that we are to expound that prayer to God each time, but that we are to make the concerns of that prayer the subject of our praying. But if we call it a pattern, it must be a pattern for length too.

I do not mean that we are never to pray for longer than a few seconds. There will be times when our hearts will want to linger with God for a longer time. But it will not be by artificially lengthening our prayers, but because of the depth of our feelings. The concern will not be with the length of our prayers, but with the presence and the power of God, and our need to linger with God.

I do believe we need to pray more, but not for more’s sake. We need to be more in touch with God. We need to be more reliant on God. We need to be more in communion with God. It is not more prayer that we need. It is God whom we need more.

Spiritual Attitude

“Pray continually” (I Thess. 5: 17). That is what Paul said. But he did stop to eat, and sleep and talk to people. Surely he was talking about a mental/spiritual attitude. He meant that all our activity should be steeped in prayer and that our sensitivity toward God should be such that we are in constant touch with God about all that happens and all that we engage in. No one—not even our Lord—prayed continually with words. But as Scripture says, “The Spirit helps us in our weakness—the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit…” (Rom. 8:26, 27).

The writer of Ecclesiastes counselled, “Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they are wrong. Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few” (5: 1-2). The prophet Habakkuk also says, “But the Lord is in His Holy temple, let all the earth keep silence” (2:20) . We shall not be heard for our “many words” (Matt. 6:7). God hears the silences, and the silences and the groans of our spirits touch Him more than all our words.

God says to us, “Be still and know that I am God” (Psa. 46:10). We do not know God when we are feverishly active—whether in deeds or in words. We draw near to God when our spirits grow calm in His presence.

The Crucified Life

“Man does not live by bread alone.” That is why there are so many different philosophies and all get a hearing. Human philosophising is an affirmation of this truth.

However, all human philosophies are merely the products of human thoughts. As speculations, one man’s opinion is as good as another’s. But when contrary voices proclaim that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that each is proclaiming, then we need to hark back to the author of the Gospel since Christianity is rooted in the person of the historical Jesus. We must assess every proclamation of the Gospel with the givens of the Christian faith. Those givens consist of the historical events of the incarnation, the atoning death of Jesus, and His victorious resurrection. There is also a further given that there is a historical record of these events, namely, the Scriptures. This history of God’s dealings with Man, constitutes revelation.

The “Received” Gospel

Belief in God’s revelation is basic to Christianity. It is not human speculation about the nature of God and eternity. The “received” nature of the Christian faith is borne out in the apostolic writings. Paul wrote, “For I delivered unto you that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3,4; see also 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1; Gal. 1:9,12; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2 : 13; 4:1; 2 Thess. 2 : 10; 3:6).

This self-disclosure of God is itself a manifestation of grace. It is nothing but God’s grace that He reveals Himself to Man that turned away from Him, wanting to be a god. But Man, in his pride, has never found grace acceptable, and, for that reason, rejects the revealed Gospel and would rather concoct his own gospels.

In Galatians, Paul argues vehemently against Christians accepting “another gospel.” In fact, he contends that when it is another, it is not the Gospel (1:7) and curses those who preach any gospel other than Christ’s (1 :9).

Paul’s stand will be described as dogmatism. In our day, being dogmatic is understood as bigottedness. There is a need to be dogmatic about what we believe. Either our beliefs are valid or invalid. If they are valid, then whatever is contrary to our beliefs is invalid. Being dogmatic in the matter of Christian belief is also a case of not being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ (Rom. 1: 16), and if this is bigottedness, it is derived from the very one who said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6).

Such a stance is unpopular in India today. In the name of national integration, minorities are meant to lose their identity. Hinduism may seem to be philosophically sophisticated because of its capacity to absorb new gods and add them to its pantheon. Hinduism does not lose by such a transaction and can even claim to be enriched by such absorption of gods that are foreign to Hinduism. In being inclusive, Hinduism does not give up its character. On the other hand, Christians cannot do that and remain Christian. Belief in Christ is not the same as belief in some indeterminate and amorphous body of philosophical thoughts. Jesus Christ was a historical person, whose teachings and claims are fixed by history. Those claims cannot now be changed. While Christianity acknowledges Jesus as its author, the content of Jesus Christ’s teachings will remain the basis of belief.

Cost of Discipleship

When Christians compromise on this, it is because of an unwillingness to pay the cost of discipleship. The cost of following Jesus Christ is the cross. Jesus Himself said, “If anyone comes after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). The disciples of Jesus are those who follow in the steps of the Man of Sorrows who climbed the hill called Calvary. Thus, when Christians fail to stand for their beliefs, it is because they do not wish to pay the high price of following Christ, namely the rigours of discipleship—bearing the cross (of shame, harassment, ostracism, isolation, persecution, possibly martyrdom). Paul notes in his Galatian letter that the diversion from the once given Gospel takes place when the focus shifts from Christ to men and their pleasure (1:10). That is when men make up their own little gospels.

Christ’s Sufficiency

The different gospel that was plaguing Christians at Galatia was the controversy about Judaizing gentile converts. This was the earliest theological controversy of the Church (see Acts 15). In several of Paul’s letters we have inklings that this was fairly widespread (see Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8; Col. 2). Basically the Judaizers’ contention was that faith alone was insufficient. They said that the Old Covenant Law needed to be adhered to. Since faith has God’s grace as its object, in the final analysis it was grace that was being denied thus. Even when Man does accept grace, it seems he wants to add just a little of human effort so that it will not be “all of grace” (title of a book by C.H. Spurgeon). That little addition to grace salves the human ego.

Other gospels always advocate that we must have Jesus plus the distinctive something or the other that the other gospels offer as a super-spiritual experience, which can be mystical, ascetic or miraculous in nature. “The plus factor” however serves only in pushing Jesus out. First, the person who opts for the plus is alienated from apostolic witness (4:17), and ultimately Jesus Christ Himself becomes worthless (5:2). The plus becomes the high watermark for the group and Jesus becomes secondary. When the plus of another gospel finds acceptance with a Christian, he has in fact “lost connection with the Head” (Col. 2: 19). It is not only the sufficiency of Jesus Christ, but His Lordship that is denied when we allow ourselves to be persuaded by gospels that proclaim Jesus plus their specialty. It is no wonder then that the plus that removes a person from Christ’s rule is enslaving. The liberty in Christ is eroded and bondage to the plus sets in (Gal. 2:4). When the plus becomes the high watermark of practising the faith, achieving this mark of spirituality then becomes the be-all and end-all. For that reason, so often pretensions of having achieved the goal set in, because the desire to belong is oppressive in such cultic groups. Some of these groups are heretic in theology, but others simply require mindless conformity in behaviour. In either case, the members have been made slaves.

Where there is slavery there are always slavers. That is how Paul describes those who mastermind the gospel of Jesus plus. They are as devious as spies who infiltrate other nations, and are in the vanguard of the army that takes away people’s liberties (2:4). It is a mark of the cults that they are led by overbearing personalities that demand absolute mindless allegiance to their will. Wherever there is a tendency to subdue and regiment believers, there exists also the danger of the group becoming a cult—if not heretic in doctrine, at least one centred on human personalities, and for Christians the shift of focus from Christ to human personalities is itself a heresy.

In All Things Charity

Those who have the mastery and those who follow may also be described also as the strong and the weak. The Bible teaches about stronger brethren caring for weaker brethren by giving up the things that weaker believers find offensive (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8). Paul reasons that there is behaviour that those of weaker faith find questionable. Their new-found faith would be destroyed by the careless conduct of old believers.

On the other hand, the Judaising controversy was the result of numerically stronger brethren whose strength lay in Christianity’s Hebraic roots, attempting to impose their will on weaker new comers. Similarly, today the stronger are in the business of snatching away the liberty of believers claiming the existence of weaker brethren who might be offended and then, on that basis, impose a code of conduct on groups of believers. The weaker brethren, in this case, are hypothetical as they themselves have not raised any of the issues. The leaders are the ones who have raised all the issues and attempt to regiment people to patterns of behaviour.

It must be recognised that some things are not essential to faith, and the regimentation of behaviour not stipulated by Scripture falls into this category. The lists of “do”s and “don’t”s drawn up by various groups are arbitrary and depend a lot on the background. For example, the Judaisers tried to bring their background to the forefront and to colour Christianity. However, the biblical position is well summarised thus:

“In essentials unity,

In non-essentials diversity,

In all things charity.”

The essentials are the historical givens of the faith. In non-essentials such as manners, customs and rituals, diversity needs to be permitted. The differences should not divide, for in all things we are to show love for love can bridge all differences. But when the cultural extras get added on to the original Gospel and forced on others, love is thrown out.

According to Paul, when the first Church Council discussed the Judaizing controversy, the only stipulation was that those who worked among the Gentiles should not forget the poor (Gal. 2:9, 10). Yet, when we refer to the record of that Council’s meeting (Acts 15:23-29), we find nothing about caring for the poor. What happened at the Council was that a decision was taken not to allow Judaizing to split the church. That was love at work. Even though love is ultimately not a matter of a “command performance,” the Law can be summarised in terms of love (Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:18-10; 1 John 5:2, 3). That was why it was not laid down but was surely the operative principle, and the mutual dependence of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians must surely have been discussed. Paul skips over all of the details and summarises that, ultimately, the reality of Christian identity and faith does not lie in outward symbolisms as much as in practising faith in such a way that it produces love(Gal. 5:6). That’s because our faith is in the One who came in love and whose every word and action were of love. Not only so, but He specifically said that the mark of His disciples would be the love among them (John 13:34) and that their unity would be the only convincing proof that Jesus was indeed from God (17:23).

Finally, the plus is an avoidance of the cross that is so essential to Christian identity and discipleship (Gal. 6: 12). When men make up their gospels, their focus shifts from Christ to their own pleasures (1: 10) and it is the Cross that then gets left out.

The Cross of Jesus

The apostolic understanding of identification with Christ was described in terms of bearing about the body the marks of Jesus (6: 17), that is the “bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body” (2 Cor. 4: 10). Before crucifixion, the victim was stripped of all that is humanly valued and all his belongings became the spoils of his executioners as it happened with Christ’s seamless robe which occasioned the gambling at the foot of the cross (John 19:23, 24). Those who cherish and hold on to their pluses are not ready to be crucified.

The word ‘crucified’ occurs four times in the letter to the Galatian church.

There is one reference to the historical crucifixion of Jesus (3:1). The other references are about the crucifying of Christians themselves (2:20; 5:24; 6:14).

The centrality of the Cross to apostolic preaching is evident in any examination of the New Testament. The last public event in the life of the Man Jesus was His ignominious death on a cross. The apostles had to explain how God could hang on a cross and not be the lesser for it. Peter preached about it (Acts 2:23; 36; 3:13-15; 4:10) and wrote about it (1 Pet. 1:18,19; 2:21-24;3:18;4:1). The idea of God hanging on a cross was ridiculous to the Greeks and scandalous to the Jews, but for Paul there was nothing else to preach, but Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:23). There was nothing else to boast, about except the Cross of Jesus (Gal. 6: 14).

The importance of that historical event is in no way minimised when Paul talks of the crucifixion of Christians. Such a spiritual understanding of the crucifixion needed in Christian’s life in no way implies that the crucifixion of Jesus was mythological. For Jesus it was a physical experience. The pain and the agony of the cross were real. The reason Paul talks of crucifixion as the personal experience of Christians is that, in his view, God ‘s purpose is to reveal His Son in the life of the follower of Christ ( 1:19) and so he himself experiences the birth pains of wanting to see Christ formed in the lives of the Christians he was writing to (4: 17).

Second Adam

Paul was not writing about some exclusive mystical experience that he had had, that made him a special kind of Christian. He says that his ministry aimed at the formation of Christ in the lives of those he ministered to (4:17). It was not a special experience. That was his norm for his life and ministry.

We are not called to be imitations of Christ, but representative Christs in our world (Acts 1:8). As He once was the Light of the world (John 8:12; 9:5; 12:26), so now we are no less than what Jesus was to the world—the Light. But to take the place of Christ is an impossibility, unless Christ Himself possesses us.

This view that Christ is to be “in” the Christian is based on the notion of the corporate personality of generic man. This was not a merely “no man is an island” theory. Adam was what his name meant: mankind. What Adam did and experienced became our experience. We were party to it (Rom. 5:12-21; cf. Heb. 7:9-10). But if Adam is the First Man, the beginner of the first race of Man, Jesus is the Second Man, the beginner of the second race of Man. If Adam is the First Adam, Jesus is the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45,47). As we were in the First Adam in the garden of Eden in his revolt against God, so we were in the Last Adam on the hill of Calvary in the Atonement. That is why Paul wrote, “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal. 2 :20).

Our status is that of being “in Christ” and we do have a calling to live a life in consonance with the resurrection life of Jesus (Rom. 6:3-5, 8-11). Paul suggests that this should be a matter of reckoning (6: 11). That is, we calculate that we are in Christ. We should mentally accept that this is how it should be. This logic and rationale should lead to an attitude of submission to God (6: 13, 17, 18). However, there exists a constant struggle with sinful tendencies (7: 14-20). For all the spirit’s willingness, the flesh has its weaknesses and the intensity of our weaknesses is greater than that of our strengths so that our strengths are overpowered and undermined by our weaknesses. Paul almost despairs, but concludes triumphantly that the deliverance and the victory lie in Jesus (7:25). As long as I seek the strength within myself, I discover only my weaknesses. But “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4: 13). It is not I but Christ who has to do the living in me (Gal. 2:20). For the Christian, living is simply allowing Christ to live in himself. Paul wrote, “For me to live is Christ” (Phil. 1:21). Christian living is just Christ living in the Christian.

While we have compulsions, we struggle with our besetting sins. The focus of our attention is on the problem. The more we struggle, the more it besets. When we shift the focus from the problem, · no matter how serious it is, and look to Jesus in love instead of having any sense of compulsiveness, then we find release from our slavery. I struggled against sin and lost. Then one day I stopped looking at the problem. I determined not to feel compulsive about it any more. When I stopped giving attention to the problem, and gave my attention to Jesus just as I was, the problem withered. It had been starved to death. That is how it is for all our Christian lives. It is possible to discover that one is crucified with Christ. The life which we now live in the body is lived by Jesus living in us (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3: 17). Such a total identification with Christ in His crucifixion implies that we will not respond to the stimulations of the flesh (5:24) and of the world (6: 14).

Works of the Flesh

The term “flesh,” in this context may sometimes be misunderstood. There is the hostility between Spirit and flesh (Rom. 8:5-8; Gal. 5: 16-17). The term ‘flesh’ is associated with carnality and lusts (Rom. 13:14; 1 Pet. 2:11). But in Galatians 5:19-21, it is not the carnality or sins of the flesh that is contrasted with the fruit of the Spirit in 5:22-23. What is contrasted is the deeds of the one with the fruit of the other. The carnality of the flesh is obviously contrary to the Spirit. It is not as easily seen that, when the flesh works at being spiritual, it is still working against the Spirit. The good deeds of the flesh are still the deeds of the flesh (John 6:6). We are saved by grace through faith. Salvation is not the product of our own efforts, but God’s gift. If we feel satisfied with our human efforts we would be proud (Eph. 2:8-9). Paul’s list of the deeds of the flesh includes not only what human society categorises as gross sins, but also those that are regarded as mild. While he makes no distinctions at all and he mixes them all up, he lists the full range of sins from the ones that society condemns to the ones that are excused and yet leaves the list open-ended so that all the efforts of the flesh may be included.

In Galatia the problem was not one of utter lawlessness. They were decent people trying to live good Christian lives by doing the works of the Law (3:3). Paul wrote then, that the works of the Law were nothing more than the works of the flesh. The works of the Law are contrary to grace (3:2-3; 5:4; Eph. 2:8,9). It is the pride of the flesh that is at the root of the works of the Law (Phil. 3:3-6). The Spirit is not only opposed to the flesh (Eph. 5: 16-17), but is opposed to keeping people under Law (Gal. 5: 18). All of these show that Paul argued against both the good works of the flesh (the observance of the Law) and the bad works (Gal. 3:10-11; Rom. 3 :20).

Crucified Flesh

From the context, the flesh that needs crucifixion is identified by extreme egotism that destroys others to feed itself (5:15-16,25-28). Our “in the flesh” condition is what puts us in touch with others in the flesh. But when flesh meets flesh in a dog-eat-dog-world, the natural tendency is to protect oneself and outmanoeuvre others in every encounter. The Old Testament Law served to contain these tendencies for its main concern is the protection of the rights of people in community, especially of those who were weaker. But the new liberty in Christ was not to be viewed as a throwing off of all restraints and an opportunity for indulging the flesh in its natural egotistic tendencies. Rather, since love is the redemptive feature of those who have given up slavishness to the Law for the heart of a child of God (4:6, 7), that love should express itself in service (5:6, 13). Paul talks of not allowing the flesh to indulge in egotism by “walking in the Spirit” (5: 13- 16). When we live by the Spirit, we will not allow the flesh its egotisms. Thus, Paul is describing walking in the Spirit in terms of loving people, especially the brethren of the household of faith (5:26; 6:10). In a similar, way John described walking in the light as just walking in love (1 John 1:5; 2:11).

Fruit of the Spirit

It is no wonder then that the “fruit of the Spirit is love…” (5:22). As many preachers note, there are not many fruits. There is just one fruit consisting of the ingredients of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness , self-control and the like. A careful look at the other ingredients would show them indeed to be no more than aspects of love. It is all about a basic attitude or spirit that we manifest in relationships.

While love of all we come in contact with is envisaged in the commandment to love neighbours, we must note that we do have a special relationship with those of the household of faith (6: 10).

This is a matter of facing up to reality. We are mere humans and have human capacities only. We are incapable of loving the world. Only God can do that. Too often this is the failure of those who set out with world concerns for world poverty, world hunger and the like. The problems are so large that it defeats human ability and, so often, world concern simply becomes jargon and slogans that create offices of privilege for those engaged in meeting the needs of masses of people. The commandment itself indicates our inability to love faceless masses. We are called only to love neighbours who have faces. They are identifiable. We live in touch with them. Their needs touch us. Since this is our human condition and we can benefit only as many as our resources permit, a special love of the brethren is but logical. But such caring love will transform entire societies as was discovered in the Early Church for their one winsome characteristic that their world took note of was expressed in these words, ”See how they love one another,” and here and there many rushed to enter the caring society of the people called Christians.

The World Crucified

The final aspect of the crucified life is that of the world being regarded as crucified as far as the Christian is concerned (6: 14).

The word “world” is used in three different ways in the Bible. There is the physical world of continents and islands, mountains and valleys, seas, lakes and rivers. The word “world” can also refer to the population of the earth as when the Bible says “God so loved the world” (John 3: 16). But the Bible also refers to the world as a diabolic system organised against God’s reign. The concept of “worldliness” is derived from this understanding of the hidden world of dark and evil spiritual forces.

It is against this world that apostles warn Christians. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not from the Father, but from the world” (1 John 2: 15,16). James puts it more starkly and describes worldliness as nothing less than spiritual adultery (James 4:4).

Worldliness is taboo in the world of believers. But, because it is an abstract concept, there is a lot of confusion about what it involves and permits the prevalence of judgmental attitudes among Christians.

Worldliness

Worldliness is primarily not a matter of taboos (or customs). Lists of “do”s and “don’t”s, as noted earlier, are quite arbitrary. What one group considers acceptable behaviour may in the view of another be worldly. For instance, most Christians would be considered worldly by the Old Order Amish in America, whose homes are not electrified and who will not own motorised transportation because, in their opinion, such things are worldly. Such lists of worldliness are made up of non-essentials, things that are not integral to Christian faith.

Worldliness is the spirit of conformity that makes people captive to a system that is opposed to God’s rule. The slogan of worldliness is “everybody does it.” It is more a mental attitude than customs and taboos. For instance, the acquisitiveness and materialism characteristic of those in the world, are more signs of worldliness than smoking or seeing movies.

Viewed thus, worldliness can also exist when we are slaves to religious habits, customs and taboos for the sake of being socially acceptable in our world of Christians . The Judaisers must have viewed Gentile Christians as worldly because of their failure to conform to Jewish practices. They even had a list of “do”s and “don’t”s that attempted to turn the Christian faith into an ascetic one (2:21). Paul warned the Colossian church against having a piety that was regulated by humans (2:8, 16-18, 20-23). J.B. Phillips captured the essence of what Paul wrote when he translated Romans 12:2 thus: “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its mould.” Paul discovered that the world can sometimes be apparently Christian, and when we conform to it, we have lost connection with the Head (Col. 2: 19).

The only way to deal with the world is to crucify it and be crucified to it. Crucifixion involves death. The Christian is to die to the world and the world to him. The stimulants of the world do not move him to conformity, nor is the world stimulated by the Christian. When Paul considered all the badges of importance of his day and society, when one has to choose between Christ and the honours of human society he crudely described them as comparable to shit (KJV: ‘dung’; some of the crudity is lost in modern translations, which refuse to use the word “shit” even though the New Testament was originally written in vulgar, spoken Greek and the KJV in its day was in the language of the people).

Conformity for the sake of acceptance or esteem, valuing status and its symbols are the basic ingredients of worldliness. Pride is so very much a part of worldliness. John wrote of the “pride of life” (1 John 2:16, KJV). C.H. Dodd describes this as the tendency to be captivated by the outward show of things without really enquiring into their real value. Our lives are filled with status symbols. We spend our lives trying to keep up with the Joneses, that mythical family that exists in the imagination of people whose lives are spent in acquiring status symbols. But our possessions are not the only badges of pride. Even religiosity or piety can be sported for the sake of human esteem (Matt. 6: 1-18). Judaistic practices that prevailed in the Early Church were such a symbol of piety. Pride of life is what the Pharisees had. But Jesus tore away their sophisticated veneer when He declared, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts for what is highly esteemed among men is abomination in God’s sight” (Luke 16:14, 15). The word “abomination” has connection with idolatry and that is what human pride is: an affront to God on the part of Man who ever wants to be like gods (Gen. 3 :5,6).

Crucifixion is the only remedy for status symbols, badges of spirituality and whatever else that provides an occasion for human pride. For in crucifixion we devalue them. Our identification with the crucified Saviour points to what we believe to be worth dying for. The glory of the cross surpasses all the glories of the world. It is the Lamb who was slain who is worthy to receive power, wealth, wisdom, strength, honour, glory and praise (Rev. 5:12). It does not make sense according to the world’s calculations, but there it is. There is glory in the Cross.

The Galatian letter is very clear that there are not many gospels, but only one. The one true Gospel does not say, “Jesus plus.” The Gospel is about Jesus crucified and risen and when that Gospel touches our lives, as Christ is formed in our lives (4 : 19), we bear the marks of Jesus (6: 17) for we have been crucified with Christ (2:20) and have crucified the flesh with its attempts to add to grace (5:24) and the world with its tendency to compromise about the status of the pluses that humans work to add to the Gospel (6:14), for the glory is all in the Cross.

LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

“All over the world the Spirit is moving …” That song records what has been happening since the Charismatic Movement has swept through the Church all over the world. Not since the Reformation has any Christian doctrine so captured the entire Church and become a point of reference within the Church, distinguishing between those who believe and those who do not. That song must, of course, be understood as referring to the Church all over the world rather than the world itself.

In his first letter John counsels the Church not to be misled into believing that the activity of any spirit is necessarily of God. There is a need to be discerning. The test of a spirit originating from God is its confession or acknowledgement of Christ’s incarnation (1 John 4:1-3). Popularity is no index of a work being inspired by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it can only be a negative index. The world of the unregenerate is just not fascinated by the Holy Spirit’s activity. Only the regenerate are enchanted (vs. 5-6).

Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit of truth is not acceptable to the world. “It neither sees Him, nor knows Him” (John 14:17). Those who do not relate to Jesus Christ as Lord, do not merely lack the ability to discern the Holy Spirit’s activity, but do not have any interaction with Him.

The Charismatic Movement’s emphasis has focussed on Pauline teaching, especially about the gifts of the Spirit. However, the general tendency has been to gloss over what Jesus Himself taught about the Holy Spirit. I do not suggest that Pauline teaching contradicts that of Jesus; Paul has a different emphasis, based on specific issues in the Early Church. The seminal teaching about the Holy Spirit was, however, given by the Lord Jesus.

Nazareth Manifesto

When Jesus returned as an itinerant preacher to the synagogue at Nazareth, He read from Isaiah’s prophecy:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because He has anointed me

to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent me

to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and

recovery of sight for the blind,

to release the oppressed,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour”

(Luke 4:18,19)

This is known as the “Nazareth Manifesto”; the Christian world is taken up with seeing this as the capsule statement of Christ’s mission, and as setting forth the essentials of the mission of the Church. Without doubt that is the way to see this statement of Christ. But there is an imbalance in the way it is viewed today. The present focus is on the forms of ministry. In fact, the subject of Luke 4:18-19 is the Holy Spirit. The passage describes the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Christ Jesus and His work in the life of Jesus. The forms of ministry are only incidental.

The Spirit As Entity

In today’s vocabulary, the word “spirit” very often conveys an idea of abstractness. When people wish to talk of moods the word is used, as in the terms “Christmas spirit” or “good spirits.” Because of that usage, a lot of Christians misunderstand the biblical usage of the term “Holy Spirit” as referring to the power of God, rather than the person of God Himself. However, in biblical usage, the word “spirit” refers to an entity or a being. Jesus did not say, “The power of the Lord is upon me,” but that “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” He distinguished between the Spirit and power: “You shall receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you …” (Acts 1:8).

One of the words Jesus used to describe the Spirit is the Greek word paraclete (John 14:16,26;15 :26;16 :7). This word is translated as “advocate” or “counsellor.” That word in itself suggests a being. Moreover, Christ referred to the Spirit as “another paraclete” (John 14: 16). The qualifying word “another” suggests that the Spirit has similarity to Christ that allows Him to take the place of Christ in the life of the believer, and also distinctness or “anotherness” from Christ Himself. In these Johanine passages Christ’s specific teaching is that the Holy Spirit will substitute for Christ.

Further evidence to the fact that Jesus is talking about the person of God is in His warning that the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. His teaching, while claiming the possibility of blaspheming the Son of God, differentiates it from blaspheming the Spirit and makes the latter unforgivable (Matt. 12:31,32).

The Spirit as Energiser

It is significant that Jesus did not say at Nazareth, “I have come to preach and heal.” He says very definitely that the Spirit is the One who enables Him. He clearly implies that without the Spirit’s anointing He could not fulfil His Mission. Jesus did no miracles before the Holy Spirit came on Him, because He could do none. In saying that, there is no denial of His divinity. When Christ was incarnate, He was truly and fully human. He was totally the Son of Man. His divinity gave Him no super-human power or protection. He was human like us. He was a man just a man, not a superman.

There is an apocryphal story of the boy Jesus being able to breathe life into clay birds. Another story is that when the boy Jesus went to play with his friends, their mother hid them under a large basket and said that there were only chickens under it. After Jesus left when the mother lifted the basket to let her children out, she found that they had been turned into chickens. Such stories only turn Jesus into a monstrosity and do not in any way bear out Christ’s incarnation. Only with the endowment of power from the Holy Spirit was He enabled to perform miracles.

The teaching that blasphemy against the Spirit is unforgivable was occasioned by Pharisees dismissing His ministry as the work of the devil. He said that He cast out demons by the Spirit of God (Matt. 12:28).

Just as Jesus viewed the Holy Spirit as the source of all His power, He taught His disciples that the Spirit would be their helper in trouble and their enabler in ministry. When on trial for their faith, the disciples of Jesus Christ need to have no fear, because they would not be the ones to answer charges against them; the Holy Spirit would be speaking on their behalf through them (Mark 13:11). And for their regular work and mission, the Spirit would be with them constantly to enable them. Christ charged His disciples not to start their work until the Holy Spirit came on them in power (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 8).

The Spirit’s Effects

Enabled by the .Spirit of God, Jesus was able to preach the Gospel, make the lame walk, open the eyes of the blind, heal the sick and raise the dead. The presence of the Spirit was not just a spiritual experience; there was concrete evidence in the life of Jesus.

The most elaborate teaching on the Holy Spirit’s effects in the life of the individual believer and in society at large, as detailed by Jesus, is recorded in the gospel according to John.

First, Jesus said that the new birth is a work of the Spirit (John 3:6), and being born of the Spirit is essential for gaining entry into God’s Kingdom (v. 5). Spiritual rebirth is not a case of human planning or effort (cf. 1: 12-13).

When the Spirit comes into a life, there comes a sense of satisfaction. The heart’s deepest longings are fulfilled and the real thirsts of one’s life are quenched . The Spirit is like a spring of water that keeps on springing up and refreshing a dry and thirsty land (7:38-39; 4:14). The satisfaction that the Spirit gives is the essential of life, not the things of the flesh (6:63).

All these passages link the Holy Spirit’s presence in the life of the believer to faith in Christ. No one can be a believer in Christ and not have the Holy Spirit. As Paul has said, “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ” (Rom. 8:9). A believer acknowledges Jesus and submits to His lordship. That, says Paul, is a confession of faith inspired by the Holy Spirit. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). The believer is one who acknowledges Christ in his life, receives the Holy Spirit and experiences the new birth. After His resurrection, when His disciples began to believe in Him, Jesus breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). As God had breathed into dust and made man live by that breath, Jesus breathed on men of the flesh and made them new born sons of God.

Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit would bring divine power into the life of the believer. ·He prophesied that believers will do greater miracles than the ones Jesus did (14: 12) because whatever they would pray for on behalf of Jesus, the Father would do (vs. 13,14), and Christ Himself will send the Paraclete to be with them and to strengthen them (v. 16) when they love Him and are obedient to Him (v.15).

The world desperately needs to see the resurrection power of Jesus. It needs to see that Jesus is really the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8). It needs to see God validating the preaching of the Gospel (2:4). While the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewals today have indeed refocussed on the manifestation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the world has yet to see the fullness of the Holy Spirit’s power. As yet the manifestations are like the ones in the Old Testament. They are special. A few have the power and they are quick to practise it as their special gift. The prophecy was that the power of the Holy Spirit would characterise the whole Church in the last days, when sons and daughters, young and old, would all catch the vision of God (Acts 2:17-21). The world waits because the Church of Christ is still fragmented and does not experience the unity of the Spirit that will make it one body. The gifts of the Spirit are “given for the common good,” not for the special use of a few (1 Cor. 12:7).

The vast majority of the world’s population is yet to be brought under the conviction of the Holy Spirit’s view of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11) because Christians today, have not given a credible demonstration of His presence in their lives.

The Spirit’s Exclusive Interest

Christians must take to heart what Jesus taught repeatedly about the Holy Spirit. There is nothing else that He said about the Spirit that was repeated again and again like this. He described the Spirit as “another paraclete. “He implied that the Spirit would take the place of Jesus in their lives (14: 16, 18). But there was more than mere implication. He said that the Spirit would remind them of what He taught (14:26), give testimony to Jesus (15:26) and that He will take the teaching of Jesus Christ and expound it to believers (16:12-15).

However, Protestants in the Charismatic Movement have not been careful to insist on this acid test of whether prophecies and ministries are of the Spirit of Christ. They have remained silent in gatherings where there have been Roman Catholics who claimed that the Holy Spirit had enabled them to pray to and adore Mary better. No! The Holy Spirit guides only into truth and not into error (16: 13). He has only one theme: Jesus. He glorifies only Jesus (1 John 4: 1-6). Mary is not one of the themes of the Holy Spirit. Read through the Scriptures inspired by Him (2 Tim. 3: 16-17). Nowhere does the Spirit expound the glories of Mary in the post-Pentecost period. The last appearance of Mary in the New Testament is in Acts 1:14. There she appears as one of the members of the Church. She had no special position then and there is no evidence that she held any office thereafter. Any claim of inspiration by the Holy Spirit for beliefs and practices not set forth in the New Testament must be refuted.

Every word that Jesus spoke about the Holy Spirit, as recorded in the New Testament, has been scanned here except one. In these days, when denominations and local churches can get polarised on how they view the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and how they relate to Him as a person, it is good to remind ourselves that Jesus said, “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!” (Luke 11:11-13). For those who have fears and wonder if they will receive an offensive spirit, when they seek the Holy Spirit in their lives, these words of Christ should bring assurance.

Whatever may be your reaction to this doctrine about the least known member of the Trinity, there is one prayer that any Christian should be willing to pray. Everyone needs to say, like Jacob, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me” (Gen. 32:26).

THE SECOND CHANCE

Nervousness is characteristic of our times. Humans in the Twentieth Century are fidgety creatures; they are nervous about being still, for this is the activistic generation. For such people in haste, there is an apostle. Peter was the apostle who had always been in haste.

The Gospel of Jesus has to do with His relationships with people. Whenever we forget that the Gospel is an account of His experience with human beings, we render the Gospel irrelevant. The Gospel must touch our lives, and react with our situations and personalities.

So, for the generation in haste, a study of the hasty and rash apostle is appropriate. Passion Greek changed the man and he learnt that when people accuse one of being drunk at nine o’clock in the morning (Acts 2:13, 15), instead of bashing them up as he once would have, you give them an explanation (Acts 2: 14-16) and when one is ill-treated for doing good and healing people, you bear it patiently for Jesus’ sake (Acts 5: 41). Peter also learnt that, when your own people accuse you of compromising, you need to patiently help them catch a vision of the power of the Gospel to transcend cultural differences (Acts 11:1-18).

Character of the Man

To begin with, Simon was an unstable character, because he would swing from one extreme to another. In one breath he could say to Jesus, “You will never wash my feet” and in the next, “Wash all of me” (John 13:8,9). It is such an unstable man that Jesus calls “Cephas” indicating the power that He Himself had to transform and make Simon rock-like.

His impetuosity must have been a natural corollary to his instability. As soon as he knew it was his Master walking on the water, Simon could not wait to do likewise and only then did he worry about the turbulence of the lake (Matt. 14:28,30). When Jesus was transfigured before him, without a thought for Christ’s own wishes, he wanted nothing but to prolong the experience of staying on the mountaintop (Matt. 17:1-4).

Yet the impetuosity was also a sign of the enthusiasm he would bring to any cause he would embrace. When confronted with the personal question as to the identity of the man they were following, there was only Peter to confess boldly that the man Jesus was none other than Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16).

Special Relationship with Jesus

Peter was one of the three who had a special relationship with Jesus. He, James and John were the only disciples taken into Jairus’ daughter’s room to see the miracle of life being restored. Similarly, these three were the only ones admitted to the mountaintop experience of transfiguration and the agonising in the garden of Gethsemane.

But it seems that Peter was not just one of the three. When Jesus wanted to pay the temple tax, He clubbed Himself with Peter alone (Matt. 17:27). Peter’s spiritual condition was a matter of special prayer with Jesus (Luke 22:31-32) and it was Peter’s falling asleep in the garden that touched Jesus the most (Mark 14:37).

Peter and John were the ones chosen to make the preparations for the last supper that Jesus had with His disciples (Luke 22:8). Every preparation was made for that fellowship meal, except that the feet-washing arrangements were forgotten, even for the Lord Himself. That is how it is so often when humans prepare for the special events of their lives as, for instance, marriage. In the hustle and bustle of photographing the event, and the wining and dining of guests, the spiritual dimension is lost sight of.

The Greatest

It may not have been an oversight though. The question of who was the greatest in Christ’s Kingdom was under dispute. Jesus was the greatest in His Kingdom, but instead of asserting His own rights, He simply begins to wash the feet of His disciples. Even today, whenever Christ’s disciples manoeuvre for power, essentially they have ignored that Jesus Himself is the leader. When we manoeuvre for power it is against Jesus that we manoeuvre.

The moment that Jesus had taken this drastic step of showing them that their cravings for power over one another were all against Him, Peter immediately wants to be identified as the “greatest in humility.” It was just his pride in reverse gear though. He wanted to show that he was better than the others, for even if others were making Jesus wash their feet, he would not make Jesus do it (John 13.:8). The disciples of Jesus have not changed after all these centuries. There are still false protestations as there are several conferences on “servanthood”, as also books, but everywhere Christians—liberals and evangelicals alike—seek upward mobility and manoeuvre for power, forgetting that in the Kingdom of Christ, there is only one Master and all others are brethren (Matt. 23:8).

Just like Peter, there is not one that does not need the cleansing touch of Jesus. No one can say, “I do not need cleansing”. If we refuse the cleansing of Jesus, we have no part in Him. But seeking cleansing is not like starting all over again. In the ancient Jewish world, after people walked through dusty roads in sandaled feet, there was provision only for feet to be washed when they entered a home. There was no need to have an entire bath (John 13:9-10). Those who have received Christ, because they are still very human, may often fail. But they do not have to start all over again. That was a special lesson for Peter on the eve of his denial of Christ.

The Lord Jesus prayed for Peter, and He still prays for His disciples today. “We have an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2: 1). The Bible says that the devil acts like our accuser before God (Rev. 12: 10). But we have a defender too, and He is described as being touched by our human feelings of weakness (Heb. 4:15). Who can condemn us? Christ Jesus justifies us and pleads for us (Rom. 8:33-34).

Apostle of the Cross

So, even though Peter had failed Jesus, he became no less than an Apostle of the Cross. The same Peter that had once revolted at the very idea of his Master bearing a cross and dying on it, because it spelt his own doom, goes on to write a letter (1 Peter) that accepts suffering as part of the Christian heritage. Soon after the Resurrection of Jesus, all that Peter talked about was the Resurrection. He barely referred to the Crucifixion. But he soon discovered that even though Jesus had triumphed by His Resurrection, Peter himself was not saved persecution and he learnt to accept it and even rejoice in his suffering. He had learnt the lesson that the Resurrection does not remove the Cross from the Church. The Resurrection of Jesus left his Cross empty. He had “finished” (John 19:30) with waging war against the devil, sin and the world, but left the cross to His disciples. The centrality of the Cross to Christian discipleship is now a matter of history as we observe that the Cross has become the symbol of the Church.

The lessons that Peter learnt are still to be learnt by the modern Church that seeks pomp and significance. Peter affirmed that the sufferings of Christ were predicted by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:11). The sufferings of Jesus were no contingency plan of God. He suffered according to plan and that is why sufferings did not finish Jesus.

Peter’s second affirmation is that the sufferings of Christ were redemptive (1:19-20). To set lives at liberty, life had to be given. The Christian belief is that God is just and loving at once. Because God is just, He takes sin seriously and because God is loving, He Himself finds the remedy for sin. The Cross of Jesus epitomises the justice and love of God as united. The sufferings and death of Christ Jesus are redemptive because they were vicarious. He died in our place. It was the punishment for our sins that He bore and, because He bore them, we are exempted from punishment (2 :21, 24 ; 3:18).

Finally, for Peter the sufferings of Christ constitute an example for Christian living (2:21-24). To all who believe that Jesus is Lord, His example becomes binding. But as A.W. Tozer, reckoned by many to have been the prophet of our generation, has said, “Among the plastic saints of our times Jesus has to do all the dying and all we want to do is to hear another sermon about His dying.”

All these lessons about the cross and its role in the life of a Christian came much later. But before that, Peter had to go through his most bitter experience. There is no more bitter experience than death depriving one of the opportunity to mend a broken relationship. That was Peter’s experience. The last thing he remembered just after the Crucifixion was the look of love that Jesus had given Peter after he had denied his Lord (Luke 22:61,62). That was Peter’s sorrow. Death had terminated his relationship with the Master with no hope of ever proclaiming his love and loyalty to the one he had denied.

The Sunday after the Crucifixion, Peter must have woken up thinking of how many more days would go by before death would release him from his pain and sorrow and shame. Then Mary Magdalene came reporting the disappearance of the body and he must have been filled with dismay at the thought that he was not even to have the opportunity to venerate the body in an attempt to do penance for his unfaithfulness.

When Peter and John came to the grave they discovered that the grave was not empty. On closer observation they discovered that what had seemed at first like the body were only the graveclothes wrapped in the shape of the body. In fact, if the face cloth had not been laid aside, everybody would have remained under the impression that there was a body inside. It was a mystery. John wrote in his Gospel that when he saw this he “believed.” If it was a mere case of grave robbing no one would have bothered to remove the graveclothes and then wrap them up in the shape of the body—in fact, wrapping up strips of cloth in the shape of a body without there being a body was an impossibility (John 20 : 1-10).

Peter and John returned to their lodgings. Soon afterwards women started coming in reporting that they had seen angels who had told them that Jesus was risen from the dead and in fact had specially wished to meet with Peter (Mark 16:17). Sacred history records that Peter did meet Jesus alone (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5).

Second Chance

The temporal world gives no one any second chance. Time-bound relationships are only terminated in time, but God gives us a second chance. The Bible is replete with examples of people who were given other chances to make good. Samson was given a chance to triumph over the Philistines even after he broke his Nazarite vows (Judges 16:28-30). Jonah is permitted to go and preach at Nineveh though he had run away in the first instance when the call came (Jonah 1:3; 3:1- 3). As for the Jewish nation, their history was nothing but a constant repetition of human unfaithfulness and divine redemption. In fact, there is reason to believe that God gives not only one more chance, but several more.

The Gospel of Jesus is that the prodigal can go back though he has been a wastrel. Peter himself may be described as the Apostle of the Second Chance, and he is the apostle for all who need other chances . God does not give up on us. When we mess up our lives, He comes back to us and asks us, “Do you love me?” and when we have professed our love for Him He commits Himself to us; He asks us to take over the feeding of His lambs (John 21: 15-17).

II

FAITH COMMUNITY

COMMITMENT PRESUMED

At a seminar on “renewal of the church” sponsored by a parachurch organisation, worship, witness and prophetic ministry were the three areas in which renewal was seen as needed.

The flaw with such seminars is that there is a tendency to view it as a matter of having an interesting and novel programme in the church. Thus renewal in worship would boil down to having services that are full of song and dance and drama. No one stops to think, that when service follows service in this fashion, with its loss of novelty, goes the sense of renewal. No doubt the Church needs to renew constantly, but that constant renewal is not simply a matter of the format of worship services.

To find renewal in worship, for instance, we must ask ourselves the question, what is the object of our worship? What are we concentrating on?

Much of what passes for renewed worship in the light of these questions will be seen to be man-centred. For example, the choir or soloist will sing “for you” a selection of music. Often, when we are concerned about renewal in worship, it is because of a sense of our worship being unattractive to the spectator-audience. Renewed or unrenewed, such worship that caters to the titillation of man’s aesthetic sense is off-centre. It is not worship.

The object of our worship ought to be God. We should focus our attention on His majesty and grace. Worship that is renewed is, therefore, not a matter of programme. It is a matter of awareness of the presence.

Sensitivity to God

Sensitivity to God comes with a commitment to Him. Without that commitment to the lordship of the Lord we shall not be sensitive to God, to know what pleases Him. For the essence of worship is the offering up to God of what pleases Him.

But in Christian circles there is a tendency to presume commitment and start talking of programmes of worship and witness on the assumption that what ails God’s people is the lack of a novel programme. But what ails us is the presumption of commitment. How can they worship when they know not God? How can they evangelise when they are themselves not submitted to the lordship of Jesus? Will a new format or style or programme make the heart more adoring and worshipful?

It is bad enough when seminar leaders labour under such a misconception because they fail to touch the problem and quickly condemn the pastoral leadership of churches for a lack of enthusiasm in implementing their wonderful ideas. (Or could it be the vested interests of parachurch organisations to claim that churches are not doing wonderful work such as they are doing?) But it is very much worse when uncommitted persons attend such seminars and return to their churches intent on implementing a programme without ever committing themselves to Christ.

But the first rule of imparting something is that you should have what you are attempting to give to others. Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none [and so cannot give them]. But such as I have, give I thee. In the name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk” (Acts 3:6). How can you share Jesus if you do not have Him?

Not only so, but God does not want unholy fire offered in His Temple. Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, made the mistake of offering unholy fire to God and they were consumed by the divine fire. The Lord then said to Aaron, “You must distinguish between the holy and the profane, between the unclean and the clean (Lev. 10:1-10). Only what has been previously sanctified is acceptable to God (cf. 2 Cor. 8:4-5).

Something Offensive

There is something particularly offensive about offering the unconsecrated gift or task to God. It smacks of hypocrisy that Christ condemned so strongly. It also suggests that God is in partnership with the hypocrites and seems to countenance their hypocrisy and bless it. The prosperity of the wicked is a theological stumbling block for many (Psa. 37:1, 7, 35; 73:2-14).

Thus the basic misconception of seminars on renewal is that of presuming the pre-existence of commitment that needs to be only renewed. Mainline churches, especially, have those who are second, third and fourth generation Christians who are Christians only nominally. It is possible that they even speak the language of the church and claim to ‘believe’ without any experience of personal commitment to the beliefs that they pay lip-service to.

It is possible that you, as a person born in a Christian family or as a faithful member of the church, consider yourself a Christian on those grounds. However, God’s Word clearly teaches that neither birth (John 1:13; Matt. 3 :9), nor ritual (Rom . 2:28, 29) render us His children. You have to make a decision to receive Jesus into your life (John 1:12; Rev. 3:20). He died for your salvation, but you need to personally exercise faith in Him (John 3:16, 17), believing that salvation (being in a right relationship with God) comes not by any good or meritorious works of your own, but by putting your trust in the free unmerited grace of God (Eph. 2:8,9).

Thus, having a Christian status before God is dependent on an experience of Christ and His salvation. Neither heritage, nor ritual, nor even personal reformation of one’s life can take the place of this personal experience of Jesus as a Living Saviour who can and does save from sinfulness and the consequence of sin. These evidences of salvation are the proof of the reality of the experience of encountering Jesus in one’s life.

It is no salvation if it does not make a difference to our lives. Salvation does not simply save us from the ill-consequences of sin, namely hell, but brings in the positive element of godliness which touches life-styles and relationships (Rom. 6:1, 2, 13; James 2: 14-26)

It is also no salvation to never be sure that we are saved. It is characteristic of a person who trusts Christ to be sure of his salvation right now, right here, and be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is destined for heaven . There is no spiritual arrogance involved in such a claim. A Christian is simply taking God at His Word. It is because the Christian’s faith is placed in the efficacy of Christ’s redemptive action in history that when Jesus comes into a life, He brings the absolute certainty of eternal life (John 3 :36; 5:24; 1 John 5:12,13). The confidence is not in self, but in Christ Himself. If you do not have this assurance, according to the Bible, you do not know Christ; you are not a Christian.

Only this experience of knowing Christ brings vitality to Christian activities because without the awareness of Christ’s presence, they become an observance of the absence of Jesus.

Responding to Gospel

Earlier, a person became a Christian by responding to the Gospel and receiving Christ into his life. He experienced for himself that strange warmth that had stirred Wesley. Today we are in the same position that John Wesley was in on his way to America to convert people there while presuming his own commitment. It took a storm at sea to show him that he, a highly respected Church of England clergyman, was sadly lacking the vital and robust faith manifested by the despised Moravians on board the ship. Then the Moravian Spangenberg confronted him with the question, “Do you know Christ?” Wesley answered, “I know He is the Saviour of the world.” But Spangenberg did not spare him any embarrassment as he rudely pressed further, “True, but do you know He has saved you?”

Today many Christians would answer in the same vein as Wesley did at first, that they believe in a “Christ for the World” and so on. But they refuse to be confronted by the more personal question.

Dare we presume commitment? John Wesley did. As a result, he blundered in his ministry in America and left in defeat. That is the history of presumed commitment. God does withhold blessing in the cases of pretensions to commitment.

Christians today need to ask themselves a few searching questions because knowing Christ is integral to being a Christian. Do I know Christ? Do I relate to Him as to a living person? Is He my Saviour and Lord?

Once again we must restore the altars of personal commitment. We need to simply ask Jesus to come into our lives. All we have to do is ask. If you care to, then say to Jesus:

“Lord Jesus, I am a sinner who cannot save myself from my sins or their consequences. Thank you for dying in my place. Thank you for purchasing my salvation. Come into my life right now. Jesus, thank you for hearing me. Thank you for answering me. Thank you for coming into my life and bringing salvation to me personally. Fill me, transform me, use me as your instrument of grace, justice and peace.”

SHOWPIECE CONVERTS

Articles that get into a showcase are not necessarily of high utility value, but they must have prestige value. Today, the Church has a showcase and it is full of Christians of prestige value to the Church. The Church keeps exhibiting them. “See who’s a Christian!” and there is always the unspoken implication that being a Christian is not unrespectable, for one is in good company.

One of the persons that gets into the showcase is the one who is converted from a non-Christian background . “He couldn’t find peace and happiness in his own religion, so he’s become a Christian. Now he is at peace and happy. Therefore, Christ must be the true God and Saviour of mankind. Quod erat demonstrandum. The trouble is that if we can exhibit some non-Christian converts, other faiths can also exhibit some converts from Christianity, and we are at a loss to give an explanation.

“He’s been a terrible sinner in his time and now he has become a Christian.” As in the first case, the non-Christian faith can also produce some such exhibits. Secondly, there is an undercurrent of admiration for sinfulness. Why else should there be such a fuss made about the magnitude of sinfulness?

Riches count for something in every community. It seems that the Church has not escaped. Sometimes there have been organisations that have prided themselves on having reached monied classes and having their membership. (And, there have been Christians who have prided themselves on attending such and such a church, implying, “That’s where all the big shots go”). How different was the attitude of Paul. “Not many noble, are called….And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and th ings which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence” (1 Cor. 1:26,28). O that the Church may escape the corrupting influence of riches, which give men a false sense of their own importance! The more important one thinks one is, the less important God becomes, for He must necessarily be less important to us than to those who are lesser than we are.

Of late, since the great advances in science and technology, we have been putting in the limelight Christians who are highly qualified. The greater number of scientists and technologists who are not Christians may well be pointed out by non-Christians.

Beatles

A young man once remarked to me. “What a good thing it would be if the Beatles became Christians!” But it would be no better than anybody else becoming Christian and nobody is anymore important to God than others. If the popularity of Christ depended on Beatles and the like, it would only show as to who is really popular—the latter. Anyway, Christ does not seek popularity. He could have been popular, had He wished to, but then He would have also had to do what was popular, and that He refused to do. He would not be popular at the cost of His relationship to God, His Father. He had come to a godless world, and to be popular He would have had to be as godless as the world. No, Christ does not seek popularity. Nor does He specially favour popular converts. If there is a Christian who is popular with the godless people of the world he must examine and see whether that for which he is popular is God-glorifying.

Non-christians can also sport and exhibit converts, rich, popular, educated and “sinners-turned-saints.”

Showpiece Christianity is not real Christianity. The converts must always be in the limelight to be Christians. The moment they are removed from the limelight, they are no longer interested in being Christians. (Of course, this limelight is the favourable kind. Favourable-limelight-Christians flee from the limelight of persecuting attention. Or, when they are dissatisfied with the smallness of the circle of “Christian limelight “, they will seek the world’s limelight).

Such a Christianity can do without fellowship with God, for it is dependent not on God, but on the availability of limelight. Showpiece converts are loud, glamorous and sensational, but they have never learned to “be still,” and if they have not done that, can they know God? The promise of God is that when we know God, He will be exalted by the heathen and the whole earth (Psa. 46: 10). God is acknowledged by others, not when you are in the limelight, but when you know God. Christ said, “1, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me” (Jn. 12:32). He was referring to the manner of His death, but there is still a lesson for the Church to learn. It is only when Christ is lifted up and not when we put up our showpiece converts, that men and women, boys and girls, will be drawn to Christ

The Church today practises “respect of persons” a great deal. Special regard is shown for the showpiece Christians. “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man who is all glitter and glamour, and there come in an ‘ordinary’ Christian, you have respect for the man of glitter and glamour, but not for the ‘ordinary’ one. Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts (Jas. 2:1-4, paraphrased).

Pride

When we have respect of persons it invariably leads to pride in the one so respected above others. He thinks himself better than the other who is less respected by people. One cannot be proud before men, without having pride towards God. Inasmuch as we are proud before men, insomuch we consider ourselves worthy in God’s sight. Such pride results in a subconscious condescension toward God, for we begin to think that it is a good thing for God that we are on His side, and He must be proud to have us.

We said earlier that the Church puts on display some of its members with the implication that it is not an unrespectable thing to be a Christian, for one will find oneself in good company. This is basically wrong as far as Christianity is concerned, for the Christian faith is something that no self-respecting person can embrace. The pride of men does not allow them to admit sinfulness. If they do admit it, they are still more unwilling to accept grace. They would rather earn their salvation than be gifted with salvation. This is what makes Christianity different. All other religions cater to men’s self-respect (pride), by suggesting methods of attaining salvation. Whereas Christianity says that men are incapable of saving themselves, but God is willing to make a gift of salvation. One has to be humble enough—low enough, that is—to be a Christian. Therefore, showpiece Christianity goes against this basic philosophy of no self-respect.

.

Showpiece Christianity must go, for it is a foolish way of witnessing. It makes for shallowness among Christians, it is the practice of respect of persons. It leads to pride, and it paints a picture of respectability which is not true to Christianity. Let us turn off the limelight.

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM

What if it was the San Thome Cathedral that was destroyed on December 6, 1992, instead of the Babri Masjid? Christians would feel sad that this centuries-old landmark of the Christian presence in India was wantonly destroyed. They would also feel hurt that Christians are treated as second class citizens in their own motherland.

In December 1991, a militant Hindu group in Madras called Hindu Munnani (Hindu Front), laid claim to the site of the Cathedral. According to the Front’s spokesman Rama Gopalan, there used to be a temple at that place to Lord Kapaleeswara and Bhringi Maharishi did penance there centuries before Christ. Inter-religious harmony in South India has been disturbed by this claim which is much like the stance of Hindu militants in North India which finally resulted in the demolition of the ancient mosque. So it is not unlikely that San Thome suffers a similar fate at some future date.

Tradition has it that the mortal remains of the martyred Apostle Thomas were buried at the site of the cathedral. But the existence of the San Thome Cathedral is not fundamental to the Christian faith. In the last sentence I used that word “fundamental” from which that bad word “fundamentalism” is derived.

Origins of Fundamentalism

Most people do not know that the concept of fundamentalism originated among Christians. Fundamentalists were orthodox Christians who surfaced in the first half of this century to assert that certain doctrines were fundamental to being Christian. They were opposed to the so called “Modernists” who denied the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. The Modernists believed that Jesus was not God-incarnate, nor virgin-born. They did not believe that His death was substitutionary. His death could not therefore atone for the sins of the world. He never did rise from the dead, and of course, there will be no Second Coming. They viewed Jesus, not as the Saviour of the world, but only as the Perfect Teacher. It was this “modernism” that Fundamentalists opposed. This total unbelief in the manifestation and intervention of divine power in human history was what passed for sophistication in faith. In the presence of such sophistication the adherence to a literal understanding of the biblical events and message was nothing but obscurantism. Since these sophisticates were more acceptable to a sceptical generation, it was the fundamentalists who were ridiculed. Today, most people are ignorant of this background history of the origin of fundamentalism, and understand it as the intolerance of bigotry.

Arun Shourie in his book Indian Controversies discusses the role religion has played in politics in the Indian sub-continent. In his analysis, fundamentalism (in its modern sense) is inherent in Islam because it believes in jihad (holy war) and in Christianity because it proclaims Jesus Christ as the only way to God and salvation. He pontificates that Hinduism alone is not a fundamentalist religion.

Be that as it may, we need to ask, “Is Christianity Fundamentalism?” No. It is not the practice of intolerance, but of praying for enemies, blessing those who curse, doing good to those who hurt, and turning the other cheek when struck on one. But, don’t we believe others must be converted to our faith? No! We do not believe that others need to be converted to “our faith,” but yes, people must be converted to Christ, and “must” not in the sense that they will be forced, but that they will be won by persuasion

The word “fundamental” is not a bad word in itself. For instance, The Constitution of India describes some of the rights of people residing in India as being “fundamental rights.” The rights to equality, liberty, exercise freedom of speech, and practise (and propagate) religion are considered essential to the wellbeing of people. The word “fundamental” simply means foundational, basic or essential.

Fundamental Tenets

What then is fundamental to the Christian Faith? In one word, Jesus. Without Jesus, Christianity would be just an empty and meaningless shell. The reality of Jesus is essential to Christian belief and practice. Without Christ Jesus, Christianity would not be Christianity.

However, it is not enough to say “Jesus,” when answering the question as to what is fundamental to the Christian faith. If He is only the figment of Christian imagination, we could imagine Jesus in as many ways as there are Christians in the world. Each one could have his or her own conception of Jesus, and everyone would be right. Each person’s opinion would be just as valid as everyone else’s.

Since Jesus was a historical person we cannot leave it to each one’s imagination and speculation. The revelation of Jesus is a constant, a given. He was born in a certain place and at a certain time. He had a definite life-style. He was categorical in His claims and teaching. He forthrightly opposed certain beliefs and practices. His actions were events that took place at geographical locations and at fixed periods in human time. His death took place at a definite location and period. And to cap it all, the record states that He rose bodily from the grave after His death, and went back to heaven, promising to return at a divinely appointed time. It is this Jesus who is fundamental to Christianity.

Existence of God

There are therefore certain fundamental tenets of the Christian faith that arise out of belief in this Jesus revealed in history. Firstly, since Jesus claimed divinity, there is the fundamental belief that God exists. The Bible and all the historic creeds of the Church assume the existence of God. No attempt is made to prove it. According to the Bible, only “the fool (says) in his heart, ‘There is no God”‘ (Psa.14: 1).

But we live in an age of scepticism and need convincing that God is there. Today science is a sacred cow and there are many that believe that modern science opposes belief in God. While one cannot argue the case elaborately in a short space, one must examine some of the biblical evidences for God’s presence and creative activity in the universe. In Genesis Chapter 1, the word “created” is used only thrice. Rest of the time it says that God said, “Let there be… and it was so.” That is, the Bible nowhere indicates the processes of creation, only that God created by fiat. The first time the word “created” is used is in verse 1, which indicates the creation of matter. Then in verse 21, the creation of life is referred to and finally verse 27 talks of the creature made in God ‘s image.

Science may be able to theorise about the origins of matter and life, but it really cannot explain the jumps from nothingness to existence, and from non-living matter to life. And, of course, science cannot view humans as creatures in God’s image, but there is no other form of life that has an appreciation for the abstract. No cow was stopped from eating a flower because of its beauty, or a cat from eating a bird because of the sweetness of its song. Only humans admire beauty, purity, courage and the like, because they are the creatures with a capacity for the spiritual, being creatures in the image of God who is spirit. These jumps science cannot explain, nor ever can; the Bible simply describes them as acts of God .

Matter, life and a creature, so unlike all other living things, were all “created”. Existence and humanity cannot be explained apart from God.

God Incarnate

The Second fundamental Christian belief is that God reveals Himself. All religions are mere human speculations about spirituality. They are the philosophies of men. They are just human attempts to understand and interpret God. But as Paul said, just as one cannot know what a man is thinking unless he gives voice to his thoughts, in the same way, God cannot be known unless He reveals Himself (1 Cor.2:11). In this sense Christianity is not at all a religion. It is not a claim of superior wisdom. Rather, it is an admission that God was not known, until He chose to show Himself. He spoke through prophets and other holy people, but all revelation culminated in Jesus Christ (Heb.1:1,2). In Jesus, the fullness of God was seen (John 1:14,18).

The third fundamental belief is that God incarnated Himself. All religions are but men’s attempts to become godlike. They describe what people must do to climb up to God . But to be a Christian is to admit no superior morality or holiness. Rather, it is the humiliation of admitting utter unworthiness and total failure, requiring that God intervene and accomplish the act of saving one from one’s sinfulness. The intervention came in the person of Jesus. He was God-incarnate. It was a case of God climbing down to the human level, instead of waiting for men to climb up to Him.

Fourthly, it is fundamental to believe that God is in the business of redeeming people. This follows from the fact that God incarnated Himself. He was not incarnate without purpose, merely to visit men or just to display His powers. While all religions are about men’s attempts to atone for sin and attain salvation, the Christian faith proclaims that Jesus died for the sins of people and in their place .

Finally, it is a fundamental tenet of Christianity to believe that God will judge the world. The God who viewed the sinful condition of humanity so seriously that He allowed the death of His Son to atone for it, cannot but enter into judgment with those who refuse to value that act of redemption. Humans are not caught in a kalchakra, a never ending cycle of time. Hinduism says satyug is coming, but as the earlier satyug deteriorated into kalyug, so too will the new satyug deteriorate. Christianity believes rather that history is marching on to culminate in the day of Christ’s return, and when He begins His reign of justice, His Kingdom will never end. There will be no return to kalyug.

Not In Cathedrals

This is what Jesus is all about. We celebrate the one who was incarnate in human history. It is celebrating a baby born in poverty to working class people. It is celebrating a simple village carpenter, a daily wage labourer. It is celebrating a man who was railroaded to an unjust death. It is celebrating the fact that God became human, felt needs and emotions. When deprived of food, He hungered. After long hours of work, He felt weariness and exhaustion. When hurt, He felt pain. When wounded, He bled. He attended festive occasions, laughed and played with children, and got along well with vulgar and profane people of the world like tax collectors and prostitutes. He experienced both sorrow and joy. It is this Jesus, who revealed Himself thus, whom we celebrate as fundamental to christianity.

Are Christians fundamentalists? If fundamentalism is believing that fundamental tenets of the Christian faith are fundamental, then let it be affirmed that we are indeed fundamentalists. But if it is implied that we believe in being intolerant, then let it be known, we pray for India; but we seek no political kingdom. The Kingdom of Christ is not of this world. It is not a place; if it were, as Jesus said, the establishment and possession of it would involve fighting (Jn. 18:36).

Christians do not believe that God lives in temples and cathedrals made with human hands (Acts 17:24). To God, one place is no more sacred than Ayodhya or Kashi or Mecca. Nor is Bethlehem or Jerusalem holier than Calcutta, Mexico City, New York or Tokyo (Jn. 4:21).

Only the spirit matters (vv. 23-24) because the Kingdom of God is established in human lives in the realm of the spirit (Lk. 17:21), not by building holy cities and erecting temples and cathedrals.

San Thome may be taken away by Hindu militants. But San Thome is not fundamental to Christian faith. Not Bethlehem, nor Jerusalem. Jesus, however, is fundamental. Him we will not give up nor can anyone take Him away from us. Jesus is Lord. One day, the whole world will belong to Him. Not by might, but by love.

THE LORDS OPEN TABLE

Sam is a Pentecostal minister. He is my friend. He has invited me to preach from his pulpit several times. I too have invited him to preach from mine. Ours is not merely a functional friendship. It goes deeper. We are able to spend time together, and enjoy one another’s company. We share and discuss concerns. We discuss issues.

On one occasion, in the course of our conversation, the matter of his church practising a “closed” communion table came up. It was closed to anyone who did not share the theological position of Pentecostals. So a visitor to that church would be taken aside, assessed by the elders, and if found wanting in the area of Pentecostal beliefs, would be asked not to take part in their observance of the Lord’s Table.

I said to Sam, “You know that I am a believer. You know I love the Lord. But because of our differences on points of theology, your church will not welcome me at your observance of the Lord’s Table.” Sam said, “That’s right. The church feels we cannot be undiscriminating in the matter of the Lord’s Table.”

“Yet,” I said, “your church will allow Mr. So And So to take part in the Lord’s Table because, though he has a reputation of unethical business practices, he speaks the language of Pentecostals and claims the Pentecostal experience.”

Sam got the point. He grinned. He said, “Left to myself, I would have no problems with you joining us at the Lord’s Table. But the system won’t allow it.”

On the other hand, in the church I serve, occasionally there are visitors, whom we know to be non-Christians. Should I close the Lord’s Table to them?

First Century Christians

To answer that question, we must put ourselves back in the Early Church. In the first century, the Holy Communion service was not a ritual affair. They had a full meal. They did not eat just dry bread washed down with some wine. They ate the bread with some meat curry, as they did at the Last Supper. It was a regular Passover meal that Jesus turned into the Last Supper (Matt. 26: 19). At the Passover meal, they had lamb to go with the bread (Exo. 12:3-4).

At that Passover meal, Jesus passed the bread and wine around among His disciples, and asked them to remember Him each time they got together and shared a meal. They were to remember that just as their bodies needed physical sustenance, He, the Bread of Life, was their spiritual sustenance (John 6:35, 57).

In the early days of the Church, Christians were meeting together daily (Acts 2:46). So soon after the Resurrection and Pentecost, there was a need for concentrated apostolic teaching to clarify the faith for the hundred and twenty plus three thousand catapulted into an electrifying experience without having the totality of the teachings of Jesus. They needed to learn all that Jesus taught, before the Holy Spirit used persecution to move them out of Jerusalem to begin to reach the world (8:1).

While they were still in Jerusalem, they met daily in the Temple and in their homes (2:46). They mingled with the festival crowds in the Temple courts and had a ready-made audience for their accounts of God’s wonderful work, just as they had had on the day of Pentecost. In their homes they “broke bread.” They shared meals together. This phrase “broke bread” came to refer to the observance of the Lord’s Table (20:7,11; 1 Cor. 10:16).

Problems At Corinth

It was no ritual meal with ritual, token portions of bread and wine that the Early Christians had at their communion services. It was a potluck meal and apparently in Corinth, rich Christians were not sharing what they had brought to the potluck meals. Instead, they were going ahead in dining well enough to get drunk, while poorer Christians were still hungry and waiting for the rich to move away from the table so that they could have whatever was left over (11 :21-22). During the course of this full meal, the leader would rise and say, “Let us remember our Lord Jesus Christ: He is the Bread of Life. His body was given that we might have life. His blood was shed that we might have forgiveness.”

Unbelievers did frequent the worship services of the Early Church (14:23-25). Early Christians could not have refused to share their food with unbelievers who came to their services. How could they have said to the seekers, “We are sorry, you will have to leave now; we are going to have our fellowship meal and we cannot allow you to take part in it”? They could not have said that sort of thing and continued to be winsome. People would have left, never to return.

Incidentally, since it was a full meal, and the Lord’s Table arose out of the Passover tradition, I am sure that children also partook at the Early Church’s communion services. It was only when the church permitted the rise of priestcraft, that the agape (love feast) was separated from the observance of the Lord’s Table. Communion became a ritualised affair from which unbelievers and children had to be debarred.

Those who maintain that Christians need to be discriminating about whom they allow to participate at the Lord’s Table, would argue that the above inferences from Scripture are merely wishful thinking and that in fact the biblical evidence favours discernment in this matter of the observance of the Lord’s Table (11 :27-29). Sure, the Bible calls for participation in a worthy manner, but the onus of self-examination is with the participants. The elders are not required to examine them and be the judges in the matter. The elders are not to debar any from participation at the Lord’s Table. The right of debarring anyone, as at any meal, rests with the Host, and he has not disqualified anyone.

Jesus allowed even Judas to participate in that first communion service (Luke 22: 19-23). He could have waited till Judas left the room before He instituted the fellowship meal of the Church. But He did not, and Paul thought that that was so significant, as to include it in the course of his teaching about the observance of the Lord’s Table, and participation at it (1 Cor. II :23).

JESUS FRIENDLY WITH PROSTITUTE

Last night the popular rabbi who has been taking all Judea by storm, was found in a compromising situation. A Woman of the night got very emotional in his company. There was a scandalous, public display of affection. The woman wiped his feet with her hair and kissed his feet. The Guild of Rabbis has strongly condemned such behaviour. They are meeting in an emergency session to take definite steps to discredit Jesus as a rabbi. Whatever action the Guild takes is justifiable. How can a man of God allow a disreputable woman to show such physical affection? Jesus has shown utter contempt for all of polite society.

But Jesus never apologised or made amends. He went on being friendly with publicans and harlots. In fact, Pharisees called Him “Friend of Sinners” (v.34). As far as Jesus was concerned, that was a compliment. Precisely because sinners could touch this Jesus, and not experience rejection, He could touch them and move them. They rushed to join His kingdom (Matt. 21 :31,32).

The open communion table is the surest sign that it is the Lord’s Table we keep. When we close the Table, we say to everyone else, “This is not the Lord’s Table; this is our table. He is not the Host, we are the hosts. We open it to those who find favour with us and you are not one of those.”

The open table is evangelistic. At the open table, “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say ‘Come!’ Whoever is thirsty, let him come; whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life” (Rev. 22: 17).

A woman told me this story recently. She does not remember the name of the preacher. It happened when she was a little girl and left a lasting impression on her. At one of the services in her church, when the preacher gave the invitation for people to come to the communion table, one man came forward with sacred ashes marking his forehead. The preacher did not turn him away. He simply took his stole, wiped off the ashes from the man’s forehead and gave him communion.

Beautiful! And I am sure the angels in heaven began picking up their harps and trumpets to be ready to start the music when that man would become a Christian, and I am sure he did eventually become a Christian. For I can still hear the heavenly music!

THE WIDOW’S LARGE MITE

We have given the lie to Jesus’ comment on the widow’s mite. He drew attention to its largeness, but we liken it to the paltry sums we give to God’s work.

Rich men had given larger amounts, but they ·gave out of abundance. Men would praise them, but Jesus thought nothing of their giving. After giving they could still live in luxury on even a part of what was left. Their gifts would make no difference to their way of life.

The widow was in need. Not only did she have no one, but she was in utter want. To part with even a small amount would put her in difficulty. But those two mites were not just a portion of her ·small living, but “all that she had, even all her living.” She lived daily from hand to mouth; but on that day, as Jesus stood by, she gave away all she had earned for the day. Giving one mite would still have been commendable and extravagant, but she gave the two, which were all she had. That night did she go to bed hungry? For all we know, she did.

How we have been priding ourselves on giving as the widow did, because we give a little. Jesus commended her for her large giving, and we have regarded it an excuse for small giving. The widow’s mite, when given away, left her with nothing. Giving “our mite” leaves us with much. Our situation is just as pleasant as before we gave. No, the Lord did not commend her on the smallness of her gift, but on its largeness. Give little, if you will; but do not call your gift the “widow’s mite” and by that render Jesus’ commendation false. Give largely, for small giving is reluctant giving.

EVERY TENTH MAN

If all Christians would simply tithe (giving one-tenth of their income), then every nine earning Christians could support one Christian worker. There need not be a dependence on foreign sources to finance Christian ministries in our country.

Beyond Legalism

However, some Christians find tithing objectionable. They argue that tithing is not commanded in the New Testament, and Christians are not bound to the Law of the Old Testament. So, tithing would be a reversion to legalism—the very thing from which Christ has set us free.

However, Jesus saw himself as having come to fulfil the Law. He expected His disciples to keep the Law and teach others to keep it too (Matt. 5:17-19). He did not reject all law as useless and unobligatory. What Jesus objected to was the legalism that characterised Pharisaism. This made its observance burdensome, instead of it being a delightful response to the God who initiated the covenant and keeps it. When Jesus demolished legalism, He did not usher in an anarchic community. He initiated a new covenant that displaced the old. He took the new community of God further in love than the old legalism could. And He expected His disciples to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees: “I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (v.20).

So the Christian should not only tithe, but should give out of gratitude and love (1 John 5:2-3). It is obligatory and yet the attitude is not to be that of legalism, compulsion and fear (Rom. 8: 15; 1 John 4: 18).

To say that the Christian response is merely to give more than the Jew would be to reintroduce legalism. In fact, the Jew gave more than a mere tithe. He gave all his firstlings and first fruits, even having to redeem his firstborn son. He also made several offerings: burnt, grain, peace and sin offerings (Exo. 13:12; 23: 19; 13:13; Lev. 1:1-6: 7). He gave the annual tithe to Levites who owned no land in Israel (Num. 18:21-24). This tithe consisted of a tenth of the crop and a tenth of the flock (Lev. 27:30-33). If, for convenience (to save the cost and bother of transportation), a man wanted to give money in lieu of the tenth of the crop, he had to add a fifth of its value. This means, instead of 10%, he had to give 12%.

In addition to all this, he separated a tithe on the remaining nine­tenths (or 9% more after the tithe). This was to be spent on the perpetuation and celebration of religious life in the community. Every third year this tithe was to be given for the welfare of the poor and needy (Deut. 14:22-28).

The Jew was to harvest in such a way as to leave gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9-10). Even this was not enough. Every fiftieth year he was to return free to the original owner(s) any land he had acquired because of the other’s need for immediate monetary aid (Lev. 25:9-17, 23).

First fruits plus offerings plus 10% plus 9% plus gleanings! How much is all that? I would put it at about 25%. If every Christian gave as much, not only would it be possible for every tenth man to be in a Christian ministry, but the tenth man would also have one-and-a-half times his personal living allowance to finance the needs and projects of his particular ministry. Let us not mock the legalism of the Jews until we can surpass their giving and their commitment to keeping covenant with God.

Christian ministries in India can be well supported by Indian Christians. The problem is that we seem to believe in an easy kind of discipleship. True discipleship involves the hardship of the Calvary road, following a poor Carpenter who believed in serving, instead of enjoying the perks of position and power.

The flow of money for Christian ministries from within is hindered by the problem of many claimants and an unhealthy rivalry that erodes confidence. There are many churches and too many parachurch organisations.

Church and Parachurch

Barring fierce denominationalism, there ought to be many churches. Every neighbourhood could do with the witness of a worshipping community. Large churches which draw away their members from other neighbourhoods, leaving them without witness, is not the ideal. We tend to measure everything by size and appearance.

There is no similar justification for the multiplication of parachurch organisations. The variety is essential, but the multitude for each type of ministry is harmful. Instead of multiplying resources and dividing labour, the Christian community is divided by the new denominationalism of parachurches. Each of them seek to gather supporters who will swear an exclusive loyalty to it . There are at least four evangelical groups working with children, two with college students and a good number involved in church-planting ministries. There is, no doubt, enough work for all. However, each seeks the responsive, especially for financial support, instead of breaking new ground. So the rivalry for a limited number. Serving the same Lord, having the same ministry, can they not join forces?

Churches also provide natural “hunting grounds” for parachurches to find adherents and supporters. Church people feel resentful about parachurch bodies treating churches as their “fields.” Many people in these organisations are not members of any one church. Their plea is that they have got to have links with all churches. Public relations is alright, but to view churches as useful only for that purpose is to reduce churches, and therefore people, to the level of objects. No one likes being used and that is how church people feel about the way parachurch bodies relate to them.

Parachurches with their specialised ministries are necessary to the Church. They are a form of the biblical idea that the body of Christ is equipped with different gifts. Every human body has its full complement of parts. Similarly, ideally, all the gifts and ministries should be represented in every church. Parachurch groups fill the gaps that exist in all churches, ·since none is on par with the ideal. The need is for both churches and parachurches to recognise this relationship.

If churches are suspicious of parachurch groups, it is also because the groups do not behave as part of the body. They exist and function independently, and even undermine the churches in two ways. They spread the word that churches are not interested in evangelism and try thereby to gain funds from church members. When church members begin to make parachurch groups their reference point, then the churches quite naturally feel threatened. It is but normal for a person to identify with the group that was instrumental in discipling him. But the task of discipling is incomplete if the umbilical cord is not cut, and the person fails to join the family of the church. The parachurch is not a church. They must engage in building the Church. If they are not doing that, they are not involved in the mission of Christ.

One way of fostering a healthy relationship is for parachurches to seek finances through the churches, instead of tapping individual members. The members can channel designated gifts through their churches. It will increase book keeping for the churches, but it will also increase fraternity between churches and parachurch bodies

Faithful Stewardship

The most serious setback to Christian giving is the lack of stewardship of what is received. The extravagant lifestyle of leaders in Christian organisations is a byword in the Christian community. They supposedly receive “sacrificial salaries.” Air-conditioning and travelling by air are, for instance, common place, on the plea of being enabled to achieve more. Perhaps, Christ should have come in our time to achieve more instead of having come as an itinerant preacher long ago! If He had an air-conditioned office and jetted about, He would have done more than reach a very small nation. But then, would He have been incarnate?

Surely, most people in Christian ministries started with good intentions. How then did they lose their idealism and faithfulness to the sacred? I believe it is because they lack fellowship in suffering.

Our Lord Jesus calls us to a sacrificial life-style. He calls us to follow Him, the Servant of all, the Supreme Cross-bearer. Self-denial is essential for true spirituality. The apostles were conscious of this need to be in the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings (Phil. 3: 10; 1 Pet. 4: 13). In fact, Paul talks of making up for what was left unfinished by Christ’s sufferings for His body, the Church (Col. 1:24). This fellowship of Christ’s sufferings is no longer there in the Church . And the faithfulness we seek will not be found apart from this fellowship

A new recruit of the China Inland Mission (now Overseas Missionary Fellowship), visited the founder Hudson Taylor in his Spartan quarters and wrote, “He never used his position as Director of the Mission to purchase for himself the least advantage or ease. However hard his lot might be in China, every missionary knew that Hudson Taylor had suffered in the same way, and was ready to do so again. No man could suspect, at any time, that while he himself was bearing the cross, his leader, under more favourable circumstances was shirking it.”

He sought to be truly “incarnate”. He became as Chinese, as His Lord had become human. While in Sweden, on deputation work for the Mission, a fellow traveller discovered that he was “very simple, and without pretensions.” We need more such “eccentric men,” more such fools for Christ.

During the past few years there has been much talk about simpler lifestyles. It is easy to talk of the need for others to be simple from the vantage point of privileges. And it is just as easy for the unprivileged to reject it as cheap talk that one can afford on reaching a certain position in life. We cannot teach spirituality and faithfulness to the sacred without being incarnate and participating in the fellowship of Christ’s sufferings in India. That is not easy. Nor was it for Christ. He had occasion to pray, “Father if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless not my will, but Thine be done.”

The Church in India not only has the capacity to support existing ministries, but the potential to expand its ministries. The sense of stewardship, however, comes not simply with teaching, but by being demonstrated and given tangibility.

THE CHURCH UNFREE

Why was the organised church in India silent during the Emergency? It even gave its official approval to it. Can it be because the church itself practises totalitarianism and therefore sensed nothing amiss? It must be because we believe in the establishment and, its smooth running being more important than individual liberty, we sanctioned such a repressive system. Thus, there are still many who prefer Emergency conditions to the present freedom that permits spiralling prices and societal unrest. What we do not realise is that the establishment belongs to those in power and that by letting them be unopposed in their totalitarianism we provide the kind of atmosphere that permitted the Congress government to reframe the Constitution in such a way as to place those in power above the law—having the legal right to act illegally.

The reason for such a total submission is that the Church has been schooled to accept authority even in its dictatorial forms. Unquestioning submission is both advocated and applauded, and those who dare to question are declared to be “unchristian.” It starts with parents telling Christian children, “You say you’re a Christian, but don’t you know that the Bible says, ‘Obey your parents’?” (And they usually resort to this argument when the children question the validity of their directives). They are saying, “Obey me—right or wrong.” (They forget that the Bible teaches qualified obedience to parents—obedience “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1). And this same dictatorial attitude is seen in most persons in authority. The “small fry” among us give in because we believe that the Bible sanctions all authority and advocates unquestioning obedience. And so Hitler succeeded in his genocidal plans.

Standing Up

Questioning the rightness of an action of those above you, or standing up for your rights, is regarded as unchristian. Every attempt is made to crush such a bucking of authority. The Church is engaged in actions for the conservation of the power of the establishment over the individual.

A classic example of this happened in one of our seminaries. A boy was on the carpet for supposedly being in love with a girl at the seminary, that being against the rules. The fellow demanded that he be told the identity of his accuser, and that he face him. The confrontation was set for the evening. In the meantime, seeing the girl in question at the girls’ hostel gate, and also seeing the Registrar pass by, the accused took the official up to the girl, and asked her to say whether or not she was in love with him. The day came to an end with the accuser apologising and everybody knowing of the discomfiture of the establishment. However, the matter did not end there. At the end of the academic year, the student was given a resolution passed by the faculty suspending him for insubordination.

The same sort of thing happened with some senior staff of one of our Christian colleges being handed an unfavourable resolution for daring to contend for legitimate seniority rights.

Power Structures

This kind of bulldozing is characteristic of both evangelical and liberal power structures in the Church. If, on the other hand, the individual should flex his muscles and take the authorities to court, the latter play the Christian martyr and say, “Didn’t we say, you don’t abide by Christian principles?” (I am not here justifying litigation among Christians, but merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the establishment). Of course, many do not go to court because the individual with limited resources is weak against an organisation with unlimited resources that can engage him in a long drawn out legal battle that he cannot afford.

Then some resort to anonymous letters which are cheaper. The ethics of such persons is always questioned. But I think that we should view this tactic a little more sympathetically. Not all can be said to have slanderous or spiteful intentions. Sometimes it is only the expression of an impotent anger at an unjust situation, and a plea—a hopeless plea?—for someone with better resources to fight for a fair deal.

In all cases, other than those of spite (which are recognisable by rambling, pointless slander), anonymous letters amount to an accusation that there is no just court of appeal. Thus some Christians did bring out a cyclostyled anonymous newsletter against the Indira regime during the Emergency, and I don’t think we can condemn them for acting in anonymity under the repressive circumstances.

Public Opinion

The press should be the common man’s court of appeal, public opinion being the judge. However, the Christian press is maintained by various organisations only as an organ to project their organisational image. The Christian newspaper or magazine is the place where we can report on the fantastic programmes that may be placed to our credit that we feel all should know about. Nothing anti-establishmentarian is published. I once wrote a critical evaluation of a Christian youth convention. When it was published, all the critical points were dropped and it was an article of whole-sale approval. Censorship has always been present with us.

But criticism should be allowed, and even sponsored by the Christian press for the sake of its cathartic and therapeutic value. In 1975, Harper & Row published Richard Ostling’s book Secrecy In The Church. Ostling’s case studies showed that there is very little difference between the lifestyle of the religious professionals in the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Both, he discovered, were suspicious of the laity’s intelligence, ·and strongly motivated to “protect our own.” Some excused secrecy because they don’t want to “damage the work.”

Free Press

Are we overwhelmingly concerned about fellowship and witness and work, but unconcerned about ethics and morality? We should free the Christian press. If we did, we would have an agency that forces us to self-examination by holding up a mirror before us. Journalists of the Christian press should struggle for such freedom. We must become a force for righteousness.

I was never more impressed than with a British publication about the triumphs of investigative journalism. The title of the work was First With The Truth. The various journalists cited in this work came out for the truth even jeopardising their very lives. I have admired our Hindu friends for exposing corruption in their temples through articles published in the Illustrated Weekly. But the Christian press is a blow-your-own-trumpet affair.

Power structures in the church or related organisations have brooked neither opposition nor criticism. I believe that this is because the Protestant church, while not subscribing to papal infallibility, certainly believes in the infallibility of the hierarchies of our various organisations. We may not say it in so many words, but act so. The imposition of the Emergency has shown how the Church in India remained undisturbed by the loss of human rights and freedom, though our biblical and ecclesiastical heritage is that of crusading for rights and liberties. The question is, have we ceased to be the Church.

III

Ministry

VIEW FROM THE PULPIT

A seminary is a place where they teach the myths of the particular people for whom the seminary is training a priesthood. Maybe, all that a seminary teaches is not mythological, but certainly some of the teaching belongs to the realm of myth.

The Myths

When was in seminary there were two myths about ministry in the local church that we were taught. One was that if there was solid biblical preaching from the pulpit, people would flock to hear. Now that I have been on the other side of the pulpit for twenty years, I have stopped believing that myth. I have not given up preaching biblically, though. I just do not have numerical expectations for biblical preaching anymore.

After three years in the pulpit, the going got tough finding topics to preach on. There are just so many ideas one can come up with week after week. Mondays to Saturdays became traumatic as I could hardly breathe a sigh of relief about a week’s service being over, before I was in a panic about the next week. At first I thought that it was time for a change of scene. The subconscious idea was that I could redo the sermons of the previous years for a new congregation. I will confess that I did try some twists and turns, but at the end of it all, I was still in the same place. Then I decided to preach expositorily.

In seminary, expository preaching had been touted much. The professors kept saying it was the best method, but in my experience I had never known anyone preach in that fashion. Now and then someone would take an isolated passage and preach through it. But I had never known anyone resort to consistent expository preaching in the context of the local church. I decided to try it. I preached through the letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Then through John’s first Epistle, Acts, the Sermon on the Mount, Philippians and through the Psalms. Occasionally, in between, I would preach topically, even a topical series.

People appreciated my preaching. Some parachurch workers, attending the church, even invited me to give Bible expositions at their seminars and camps. But, for all that, the attendance has remained at just between 80 and 100. There has been no significant change.

Another myth was about pastoral visitation. We were taught that if one kept up with this form of ministry, people would be in church. That is a lot of nonsense. There are some homes I visited as much as they attended church in one year. On examination of this method, I find that there is no biblical validation for it. Nowhere in the Bible is visiting described as a pastoral duty. I do not believe in pastoral visitation for its own sake. There is place for crisis-visiting in response to calls. One can expect to truly minister in such circumstances. But routine visiting does not necessarily achieve anything. And it is specially difficult in homes where the pastor has to both initiate and carry on the conversation, when the people in the home merely answer him in monosyllables

On considering why these two myths are perpetuated, I have come to the conclusion that these are clear examples of how seminary training is unsuited to ministry in the church. It is rather academic. In these cases, the teaching is based on North American experience rather than the Indian situation. In North America, where there has been an erosion of faith and a consequent destabilization of life and ethics, biblical preaching that affirms some objective standards exerts an attraction all its own. Similarly, in a society that has experienced the disintegration of family and social ties due to the alienation that urbanisation causes, the pastoral visit fulfils a need, and therefore works. But in the Indian situation of conservatism in the realm of faith, and the maintenance of close ties with families, extended families and neighbourhoods, biblical preaching and pastoral visitation are not as effective because they fulfil no felt needs

What we were not taught is how to cope with problems. A problem affecting a church’s size is the existence of sheep stealers. I had heard about their existence, but in seminary it was assumed that evangelicals did not have to resort to such means. From this side of the pulpit, I now realise that sheep stealers are evangelicals, as only they have a compulsive desire for numerical growth.

I have no objections to anyone fishing among our dropouts. For personal reasons, such as, a dislike for me as pastor or other reasons, there have been dropouts. These persons are never going to allow themselves to be influenced by my preaching, because they are not there to hear it. When such people come under the sound of the Gospel elsewhere, I rejoice in that fact and pray that they will respond to the ministry of the other church.

However, it is not so much among dropouts that evangelicals fish. They approach those that are actively involved, telling them to leave a dead church and join a live one. Many do not respond to such invitations, but some do, and that hurts. How does the so-called dead church become alive, if all those who become alive, leave it?

It is my observation that, far too often, when “church growth” takes place among evangelicals, another church has suffered a loss. It is not the unchurched that have been brought into the growing evangelical church. It is the churched, and so it may be said that evangelical church growth makes no contribution to the growth of the Church of Christ.

As a pastor, I have also had to cope with the competition of parachurch agencies which is also essentially an evangelical phenomenon. Despite all the claims to being an arm of the church, parachurch agencies make demands on the time and money of church folks for their programmes.

The requirement of participation in their programmes has meant that the church members involved have not been available for taking part in similar programmes at the church. Bible study groups and youth groups do not get off the ground because the enthusiasm of large numbers is missing. More people would be involved if they did not have to attend similar programmes of parachurch agencies that they feel committed to. Why must a programme exist as a distinctly parachurch work? Why cannot those involved with the parachurch act as catalysts in similar programmes at local churches?

Direct tapping of members of churches for their money may be the reason for churches not supporting so many parachurch agencies. Without direct collection, the incomes of parachurch agencies would no doubt go down. But there is a theological problem. The tithes are to be brought into “God’s house” so that there might be food in God’s house (Mal. 3: 10). I do believe that means the local church should receive the full tithe. Parachurch agencies making collections should therefore urge people to give to parachurch work after they have given their tithes to the local church. But parachurch workers do not say that specifically. Far too often, the impression is given that churches are not evangelistically oriented and, as a result, members manifest a tendency to support parachurch agencies at the expense of local churches. So clergymen do not feel enthusiastic about parachurch agencies; they view them as financial threats. I personally think that giving to parachurch work must also be a corporate action of the local church. There is far too much individualism among Christians. Body-life of the church is not encouraged by individual giving. It is the Body that must be built up. An individual growth in holiness is not Christian growth from a biblical point of view. The Apostle Paul viewed Christian maturity as an aspect of the body-life of the church (Eph. 2:21-22; 4:12-16; Rom. 14:19; 1 Cor. 14:3-5, 12, 17, 26). We must affirm that there can be no Christian maturity that is private. Christian maturity always involves the total Body of Christ.

The Essential Ingredient

Life begets life. That is how an element of life entered our church. A young couple, involved with a parachurch organisation, came into our church. They are deeply committed to the local church as God’s agent in mission. They began to work on other evangelicals who had been casually linked with our church, but were not deeply involved in the life of the church. Today evangelicals are not exactly on the fringe of our church. Life has begun, and it all began because just one couple, other than the pastor and his wife, began to practise belief in the notion that it was about the church that Jesus said that He would build it, and not about the parachurch at all.

There has to be a good-sized core group for church activities. John Mason in his article “Exploring the size Dynamics of the Local Congregation” in the New England Journal of Ministry (Sept. 1981, pp. 39-52) argues that small group activities require a “critical mass” for success. This is the “social-psychological make up” of youth and other special groups. Where such a critical mass is absent, there is no consistency in the group’s well-being. There will be good years and lean years. Only a nucleus can attract others and make growth possible.

The programme content may be good, but without a nucleus of people to carry it out, it is ineffective. People are the essential ingredient. They make the group. Without people a group cannot exist. But when there are people, even if they start with a bad programme, there is hope that they will develop a good programme.

For this reason there is a need for small, struggling groups to consider uniting with others facing the same problem of smallness. In Lucknow there are three Protestant English language churches. All three are small-sized congregations. According to John Mason, a congregation must consist of at least 100 to 300 active members, and the “threshold” level for the church to operate at its healthiest is around 200. By “active” is meant those who are consistent in their attendance and involvement. When there is such a membership, sufficient numbers for an effective core group are thrown up for special group activities. When the threshold level has not been reached in size, a church cannot successfully conduct group activities. In such situations, it is better for youth and Bible study groups to be co-operative ventures so that there can be a good-sized core group. Then, when growth takes place, the groups could be divided for further growth.

C

o-operation such as this calls for a loss of denominational identity, and that is a problem. The human tendency to be possessive extends to groups. The desire to have denominationally identifiable group activities makes it difficult for the three Lucknow churches to cooperate together. Such an attitude is against the whole tenor of Christ’s teachings. It was His firm conviction that only as His disciples manifest unity will the world come to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah of God (John 17:23). It is only when the seed falls into the ground and suffers the death of individual identity, that there is reproduction and growth. It is not when denominational identity is maintained, but when Christ alone is lifted up, that all men are drawn to Jesus (John 12:24, 32). When will we ever believe and practise the belief that Jesus alone matters and that therefore being a Christian beyond denominational identity is all that counts?

The view from the pulpit is quite different from what one has in a seminary. One has to give up myths, cope with problems, and learn to distinguish between excess baggage that can be jettisoned and essential life-saving gear that will not only keep the ship of the Church afloat, but moving towards the shore.

THE NAKED EMPEROR

Once upon a time there was an emperor. One day a couple of con men offered to weave him very fine cloth, so that he could have clothes made with it and be the most finely clothed man in all the empire. The vain emperor financed the project. Whenever the emperor enquired how the cloth was coming along, the men said, “Very well” and then they would ask for more money. After many months, the men came to the court. They seemed to be carrying heavy loads on their backs; but no one could see anything. When the emperor asked for the cloth, they made an elaborate show of unrolling a bale of cloth. The emperor complained that he could not see anything. The men simply replied that the cloth was so fine that no one could see it. Everybody nodded their heads and “ooh”ed and “aah”ed over the invisible cloth. The tailors began to cut the invisible cloth and stitched the emperor’s clothes with it. The emperor tried on his new clothes and decided to show off by parading through the city. All the people “ooh”ed and “aah”ed. No one wanted to appear to lack sophistication. But as the emperor walked on, suddenly a little child said, “But the emperor has no clothes on!”

The Serampore Emperor

For years this naked emperor has been sitting in the town of Serampore. The Senate of the Serampore University has no clothes on. It is not a university. There is no vice chancellor. The colleges affiliated to this so-called university are all theological colleges. There are no other disciplines in this university. And as for the charter constituting the university, it is not even of Indian origin. It was issued by the Danish court in 1827. The so called university is only one department of the Serampore College. All the other departments of the Serampore College are in fact affiliated to the University of Calcutta, because the Serampore University itself does not exist.

Over the years, many theological colleges all over the country have eagerly got affiliated to the Serampore University to be clothed in the garb of the University. As a result, the Serampore emperor has been dictating what ought to be taught in theological colleges and seminaries. The senate of the Serampore empire has denied the acceptability of any ministerial studies that are not prescribed, regulated and monitored by it. It is a case of blatant empire-building.

This matter of acceptability is a funny thing. The last twenty years have seen the spawning of many undergraduate Bible schools and colleges all over India. Those who have theological degrees look down on these schools, even if their own degree was not issued by the great Serampore emperor. I was one of them. Also, many of the Bible schools that were started on the grounds that the particular form of training imparted by them was not given by the ones awarding degrees, sooner or later have climbed on to the bandwagon and upgraded the curriculum, and awarded degrees. Some even surrender in the court of the Serampore emperor.

Soon after I joined the ministry of the church, I came to the conclusion that I was “qualified unfit.” I had the required qualification, but the qualification was unfit for ministry. No doubt, I had acquired a lot of knowledge, but much of it had no value or relevance. For example, two of the most boring subjects we were taught are called “Introduction to the Old Testament” and “Introduction to the New Testament.” We were required to learn all about who wrote a book and when it was written and so on.

Many “scholars” are not believers, but sceptics. They are in awe of the sacred cow of science and study the Bible sceptically. So, the books of the Bible are deemed to have been written by people of later generations, rather than the persons after whom the books are named. By doing this they deny the possibility of prophecy. It is claimed that the authors pretended that events were prophesied to give authoritativeness to their writings. Do not ask me how people of that generation would ascribe authority to what they knew to be only the pretensions of persons in their own time; but that is the theory.

The miracles of the Bible are also debunked. That should not be thought surprising. When they say that Jesus was not born of a virgin, and He never rose up from the dead, and will not be coming back bodily, they have after all denied the Incarnation or divine intervention in human affairs. When this most significant miracle is denied, it is not difficult to deny the rest. After denying all the divine elements in the Bible, seminarians are left with nothing but tripe to study. So they learn about such obscurantist questions as the date and authorship of the books of the Bible because, it is argued, there will be people who ask such questions. But no one has asked me these questions. Not the old. Not the young. Not then, when I started my ministry. Not now, twenty years afterward. I had answers to questions no one was asking. People in the pews have no trouble regarding the Bible as the Word of God. Their question is rather, “What does God have to say about my particular situation, my concerns, my attitudes, my actions, my goals?”

Diverted From The Bible

As a result of the time spent in studying irrelevant subjects, most seminaries divert their students from studying the Bible itself. Instead of getting to know the text of the Bible itself they get to know information about the Bible. In no other discipline would people study the subject this way. For instance, in English literature it is William Shakespeare’s plays that are studied rather than raising questions about the authorship. The text of his plays are studied to gain understanding, whereas in theological colleges, students are taught the art of being critical of the Bible. Instead of accepting the biblical message as the Word of God, people in theological colleges are busy challenging its validity. As James said, “When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it” (4: 11).

Once the Word of God is denied, morality is debunked. Liberal theology it was that spawned “situation ethics.” According to this ethical theory, there are no more moral absolutes. Ethics is a relative matter. Sometimes it is right to lie and cheat, according to the situational ethicist. That is now the ethic of the organised church. So, for instance, despite the Word of God prohibiting Christians taking each other to court, situation ethics allows the church to go to court against an erring member (I Cor. 6:1-8).

Some Benefits

Knowledge of biblical criticism, liberal theology and situation ethics were not all that I got from my time in seminary. I did gain some useful knowledge also. For instance, I got an overview of church history and learnt that a lot of the apparently modern beliefs, heresies and practices have precedents in the history of the church. I also learnt some Greek, the language of the New Testament. But I have always felt that a lot of time is wasted unnecessarily in language study. Most students are never going to be experts or major in it. It is far better to introduce them to Greek and Hebrew helps that will supply the needed information adequately.

Most theological college students are not going to end up as teachers in theological colleges. They are going to be involved in non-academic ministries, and so this academic kind of knowledge serves no purpose. On the other hand, even the ones who will become lecturers and professors in seminaries do not need to come to grips with dead issues. They may need only to be informed about them. The concerns of a generation that suffered an identity crisis when evolutionary theory and rationalism raised their heads are not the issues that moderns grapple with. To touch the people of our generation, we need to be relevant. There is no other group that talks as much about relevance as theologians and yet, judging by the content of theological studies, we must conclude that no other group is as irrelevant as them.

lndigenising Theological Education

It is with a view to being relevant that theologians have talked of the need to indigenise theology and worship. Thus far the attempts in these areas have, however, been departures from orthodoxy. Hindu philosophical concepts, rather than the Bible, have given the input in Indian Christian theology and the ritualism of Hinduism has made inroads into Christian worship. If l had the space, I would take issue with these trends. But what is pertinent is the fact that no one has talked of an indigenisation of theological education. Theological colleges are the most un-indigenous entities one can find in our country. Their curriculum and methods are all foreign. Why is the syllabus of theological studies in India an exact copy of western theological studies, except for the addition of lndian Christian Theology as a subject? Why is the classroom method used instead of the guru-shishya model, which incidentally is the method that Jesus the Rabbi used to teach His disciples? Role modelling and on-the-job training are what are really needed to prepare one for ministry. Of course, one cannot get a degree doing that. But is a degree essential to ministry?

If anything, degrees have been a hindrance to ministry, because degrees and stratification go together. Degrees are linked to pay-rises and promotions. By present day standards even Jesus would not qualify. But then, He was a willing servant to His disciples. Degrees distance us from the poor Carpenter-turned-Rabbi. Maybe, that is why we fail to be ministers or servants, and we go climbing the corporate ladder of the church, the parachurch and Christian institutions.

Most pastors of urban churches who have a theological degree do not remain pastors. It is not always because they seek greener pastures. Too often it is because they have run out of something to say. After all, how many topics can a person come up with, Sunday after Sunday, year after year? Sooner or later, he quits the pastoral ministry to be involved in a ministry where he need preach only occasionally and since the audience will be different on each occasion, he can give repeat performances of his sermons.

The drying up of the wellsprings of ministry would therefore indicate the lack of durability of present day theological education. Theological colleges all over the world were founded for training people for the ministry of the church. No one thought of administrative and executive positions then. The shift from ministry to management is the fault of theological education today. It has failed. It has failed the Master. It has failed the people. Worse, it has dispossessed the people and turned the Church into a corporation, whereas originally the people were the Church.

We also fail to be indigenous when we imagine that an academic degree is linked to spirituality. An academic degree is never the basis on which spiritual leaders are chosen in Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, etc. That is not to say that they do not have factionalism and power struggles. Those are there, but spirituality is not academically determined. Charisma and spirituality do have significance in how spiritual leaders come to the fore. Maybe, it is because of the academic training of preachers that Christianity has become such a cerebral faith and we reproduce those who give mental assent to the faith, but are not emotionally charged in their dedication to Christ.

Place of Academics

All this is, of course, not to say that there is no place for the academic training of Christian ministers. I believe there is a need. After all, Moses was trained in the court of Pharaoh, and Paul at the feet of Gamaliel. But, it needs to be remembered that their training alone was not sufficient. Both had to personally encounter God, be reclaimed by God and transformed by Him, before God could use them. But when that happened, they played key roles in the foundation of the nation of Israel and the Early Church respectively. It cannot be doubted that their training was used of God.

Today we live in a world that sets great store by academic training and degrees. The would-be-minister may not be able to get his feet in the door without some academic credentials. Of course, his effectiveness thereafter will depend on whether or not he continues to keep up with his reading and study on his own, and brings a freshness to the proclamation of God’s Word.

However, theological education need not be standardised and regulated by any emperor. That is not to say that academic standards are not to be maintained. There needs to be accrediting bodies that prescribe the standard. But, whether a monolith such as the Serampore University should be allowed to dictate the content of all theological education is another matter, especially when it is packed mostly with those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God, and Jesus is the Son of God, who was born of a virgin, died vicariously for the salvation of all humanity, rose from the dead, will come back at the end, and is the only way of salvation for humankind. Maybe, it can ·be the accrediting body for the maintenance of academic standards in scepticism, but surely there needs to be another accrediting body for those who academically and rationally believe in Jesus.

Moreover, the curriculum should not concentrate on dead issues, but deal with contemporary issues, and live concerns. Finally, there must be a return to role-modelling of spirituality and on-the-job training in ministry. Spirituality, after all, is not a purely academic affair. It is both the state and the pursuit of the heart, and he who would be spiritual must let the heart rule the mind. The mind is to serve the spirit, but not kill it or suppress it. Mind over matter, and spirit over mind let that be the order.

IN STEP WITH FISHERMEN

I have just finished reading Morris West’s The Shoes of the Fisherman a second time. West’s story has to do with the election of a Ukrainian cardinal as the Pope, at a time when the Soviet Union did not have perestroika or glasnost. As I read this story of a papal election, my thoughts were turned toward the election of our bishops.

For The People

There are no elections without electioneering. There is bound to be some human consultation, some manoeuvring, some machination, some shifting, centring and grouping. Two of the cardinals, in key positions, consult to introduce the young Ukrainian and to promote him as the candidate for the office. The Ukrainian was the youngest in the conclave of cardinals, but they set their minds on him because they felt that most of the cardinals were too old, and what the church needed at that moment was a person who could bring to the office “personality, a decisive policy, time and continuity to make the policy work.” They felt that they should choose the man “for the people and not for ourselves,” nor for the preservation of their own sphere of influence and power. Later, when one of these old men expresses discomfort at having a much younger man wearing the papal crown and holding the office, the other responds saying, “… there is nothing in the faith which prescribes that the Church must be a gerontocracy a government of old men … and I am sure age doesn’t always make us wiser.”

Without suggesting at the time that the Ukrainian be considered for the position of the Pope, the man was asked to address the conclave instead of the usual homily being read on the importance of the election and the moral obligation to be honest. Kiril Lakota, the Ukrainian cardinal, declared that he spoke “for the lost ones, for those who walk in darkness and in the valley of the shadow of death. It is for them and not for ourselves we must elect a pontiff.” Can we get hold of that thought? Offices in the Church are not to be treated as the private preserve of those who seek election and those who have voting rights. No office of the Church exists for personal benefit, but for the good of the Church. The good conspirators, the two cardinals who introduced the Ukrainian, had also taken recourse to their strategy for the same reason. When talking of the Church they defined the Church as consisting of Christ and His people. This is a Pauline thought. The Church has one Head and one body. Since only Christ is the Head, all others must be part of the body. There are no entities separate from that body. The hierarchy is not a body apart from the Church.

Close To Christ

In his address Kiril said further, “Those who have best served the Church and the faithful are those who have been closest to Christ and to the people who are the image of Christ.” It is not enough that one should give mental assent to the idea that the Church is Christ and His people. There must be a practical outworking of such a belief. In our consideration of who is fit for the episcopal role, quite apart from the human qualifications for the job, is there any thought given to the spiritual dimension? A person may have the necessary educational qualifications and work experience. The real test is spiritual. Does the candidate know Jesus Christ personally? Is the person in love with Christ and His Church, or is he an ecclesiastical bureaucrat who is only interested in climbing to the highest rung in the ladder of the church? One who loves the Church will serve the Church and be the image of the Master Servant, but one who is climbing ladders is exploitative and steps on the fingers of those who are below him.

Kiril reflects on power in the Church. “We have power in our hands. We must use the power as servants and not as masters.” There can never be perfect equality in any human organisation. There will always be persons who have power over others. That is an inescapable reality of life on earth. The temptation is to accept that as normative for the Church. It is not a conscious, but a subconscious or unconscious acceptance, evidenced by seeking the prestige and power of position. It will take conscious effort to guard against this natural human tendency and to acquire a lifestyle and way of functioning that deliberately seek to do the task that diminishes prestige and power. Like deliberately washing the feet of disciples. Not only does it demean, but it leaves one disadvantaged and open to exploitation by those who do view the Church as a power structure and try to get the upper hand. Can bishops leave themselves open to abuse and exploitation? Can they suffer loss of power and be bishops?

In Touch

Soon after his election Kiril goes incognito among his people in the city of Rome. His face was not as yet well known and he went to see how his people lived and what they experienced, felt and thought. All bishops must do this. They must go among their people without being identified and treated as bishops all the time. It is good for their souls to be reminded that they are, after all, only mortals and must never forget how other mortals feel. The relevance of the episcopacy to the church depends on bishops being in touch with people, and being as touched by human conditions as other people, and they will never know that as long as they insist on their episcopal identities being observed. Bishops, we hope, are not like the Minister for Railways, who knows nothing of the travails of the second class long distance passengers, because even if he were to travel in the second class it would be a clinically sterile situation that safeguards him from what others experience. Kiril, with honesty, wrote in his diary that while the Church “was founded by a Nazarene carpenter who owned no place to rest His head, yet. . . it is surrounded by more pomp and panoply than is seemly in this hungry world.” Do we ever feel any discomfort from our comforts? Kiril wrote of the person who gets to be in the highest office of the Church, “If he says he is not tempted by autocracy and ambition, he is a liar. If he does not walk sometimes in terror, and pray often in darkness, then he is a fool.”

Belief in Infallibility

As Protestants, we deny the doctrine of papal infallibility. But in practice, all Christians have a doctrine of infallibility. Both in the church and in parachurch bodies, executive heads may not be charged with error by any individual—at least, not without impunity. The papacy exists in all Christian organisations. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic does not believe in the infallibility per se of the Pope. He is supposed to be infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra (for the church). The doctrine of papal infallibility goes hand in hand with the idea of collegiality. Kiril consulted his cardinals and is advised by other hierarchs of the church. He did not speak or act ex cathedra by himself, though the final decision was his and at times it differed from the advice given.

The belief in the fallibility of the human being holding the office of Pope, is also evidenced by Kiril having a personal confessor. Again we despise the notion of confessing our sins to priests. But in our dispisal we have gone to the extreme of not confessing at all, and above all, pastors and bishops do not have father confessors. But we need them.

There is a lot of unconfessed sin in the Church, and our sins block us from having spiritual power. Without the presence of divine power in the Church it has become irrelevant in the spatio-temporal world that demands evidence of the spiritual. How can we expect people to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, if there is no manifestation of that power raising us from the deadness of our lives?

In Kiril’s consultations with his cardinals one man in particular seemed to stand in his way. Kiril was tempted to shift him to another office of no consequence. He wrote of this temptation in his diary. “Yet this, I think, would be a mistake, and the beginning of greater ones. If I surround myself with weak and compliant men, I shall rob the church of noble servants…and in the end I shall be left without counsellors.” Those in power attract sycophants. That is unavoidable. But what is avoidable is seeking and promoting sycophancy. Open challenges to one’s authority must be welcomed. The open challenger is trustworthy. He holds no knife ready to stab in the back. But the person who is willing to compromise and view wrong as right is not to be trusted. He serves himself and shifts loyalties according to his perception of where the centres of power are.

Without Favour

Soon after Kiril became Pope he gained the friendship of a young Jesuit scientist and thinker. Jean was a seminal thinker trying to correlate his studies in palaeontology with a metaphysical view of the cosmos. His first enunciations had been viewed critically and he had been placed under a ban and not allowed to preach, teach or write. When Kiril called for men who would blaze new paths for the church, the Father General of the Jesuits recalled him. After twenty years of study and reflection, Jean gave the memorial lecture on Ignatius Loyola when the Pope was present. Kiril was quite taken up with Jean’s lecture and became his friend. Still Jean’s writings had to be submitted for scrutiny by the Holy Office. For all his friendship the Pope never afforded Jean any protection from that scrutiny, nor interfered with it.

Can people in authority learn that loyal friendship is not evidenced by protectionism? Being someone’s friend involves getting him or her out of error because the concern is that the friend should be or become right. While becoming rich by corrupt means may bring some pleasure, the depth of joy that comes from being and doing right is more durable. A sense of rightness is essential for that peace which passes all understanding and which the world cannot give. As the psalmist says, “Righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (85:10). They are bosom pals, and peace will not come where righteousness has no place. So it is that friends do not protect friends from correction.

The Heart of A Steward

In his talk to the cardinals, on the eve of his elections, Kiril told them to use their power as servants, remembering that they are pastors who are dedicated to the people of Christ. To keep the right perspective of what their relationship to the people was, he told them, “What we possess, even to the clothes on our backs, comes to us out of their charity. The whole material fabric of the church was raised stone on stone, gold on gold offering, by the sweat of the faithful, and they have given it into our hands for stewardship. It is they who have educated us so that we may teach them and their children. It is they who humble themselves before our priesthood of Christ. It is for them that we exercise the sacramental and the sacrificial powers which are given to us in the anointing and the laying on of hands. If, in our deliberations, we serve any other cause but this, then we are traitors.” How evangelicals need to heed that word! Many have not been careful stewards of the offerings of the people.

Kiril said to his brethren, “It is not asked of us that we shall agree on what is best for the Church, but only that we shall deliberate in charity and humility…We are asked to act swiftly so that the Church may not be left without a head. In all this we must be…servants of the servants of God. Let us in these final moments resign ourselves as willing instruments for His hands, Amen.”

As we exercise choice of who are the men to give us leadership, we need to be reminded that the men we choose must stand and walk in the shoes of the fishermen of Christ. Only they will take us closer to the Master Servant, that Friend of Sinners, for in the words of Kiril, “Those who need us most are those who are bowed the lowest under the burden of existence—whose life is a daily struggle for simple sustenance, who lack talent and opportunity, who live in fear of officials and tax-gatherers and debt-collectors, so that they have no time and hardly any strength to spend on the care of their souls.” The Church has a mission to such. Fishermen feel for such people because they share the same experiences. On the other hand, as the American cardinal assessing the Church said, “We’re losing our grip of people” for “two reasons: prosperity and respectability. We’re not persecuted anymore. We pay our way. We can wear the faith like a Rotary badge and with as little social consequence. We collect our dues like a club, shout down the communists, and make the biggest contribution…But it isn’t enough. There’s no heart in it…”

And Christianity has all to do with the heart being strangely warmed. If we choose us men who have no fire in their hearts, how shall we ourselves have our hearts warmed?

BISHOP’S GAMBIT

Some months ago on the Yes, Prime Minister show there was an episode entitled “Bishop’s Gambit”.

The word ‘gambit’ is from the world of chess and involves sacrificing a chessman for the sake of some advantage. On the show, the Prime Minister offers a bishopric to a clergyman who would otherwise have made an embarrassing exposure that the Prime Minister was allowing credit to be given him for something he did not do.

The story in synopsis is that an Englishwoman was caught with a bottle of liquor, while entering a Middle Eastern country, charged with smuggling and was to be whipped. The Foreign Office prevents the Premier from rescuing her as they were trying to negotiate for a politically advantageous deal. Meanwhile, the Premier’s Secretary, who is due to retire, is manoeuvring for a chair in the University, but the Dean is against him. So he and his fellow plotters send the Dean, who is an authority on the Middle East, to rescue the girl, but the Press is given the story that the P.M. has sent him. After the Dean successfully negotiates for the young woman’s liberty, he is annoyed that the church gets no credit and threatens to expose the P.M. That is when the Premier’s Secretary suggests that the bishopric be given to the Dean instead of one of the candidates recommended by the government department handling appointments of bishops. That is the gambit.

In “Bishop’s Gambit” we are given an idea as to what others think of the church and its clergy. One of the original candidates for the episcopacy is described as being a ‘Modernist.’ The P.M., not being conversant with this term is given an explanation. A “modernist” is described as one who believes that some of the Bible’s stories are not literally true, but are only metaphors or legends or myths with a moral to the story. The modernist is a non-believer. The P.M. asks whether the modernist is an atheist. He is told that a modernist is not described as an atheist because an atheist could not draw his financial support from the church. So when churchmen stop believing, they call themselves modernists.

The P.M. then asks how the department could recommend for the episcopal vacancy one who is obviously an atheist behind all the pretensions. The church, he is told, is now primarily a social organisation and not a religious one. So it has to be someone who speaks properly and knows which knife and fork to use. The P.M. then understands that being a bishop is a matter of status and dressing up in cassocks. He is informed that they no longer dress in cassocks, except for highly religious events like the Royal Garden Party. The P.M. wonders why cassocks have gone out of style and is told that the clergy are trying to be ‘relevant.’ “To God?” he asks, and. is scornfully told that the term was to be understood sociologically. The P.M. says that he understands that a bishop must be one who is a cross between a ‘socialite’ and a ‘socialist.’ His advisers then give him an example of relevance. The candidate being considered for the episcopacy had designed a church building for all kinds of social activities, but without a communion table. There was to be an annexe where the Eucharist could be celebrated. His design was approved because, says the Premier’s Secretary, the church is run by theologians, and he defines theology as ‘a device for agnostics to stay in the church.’ God was only an ‘optional extra’ in the whole scheme of the church.

Maybe, that whole scenario is Western, but the Church in India is tarred with the same brush. Theological colleges in India are largely manned by people whose theological education is academic and can match the best of the west. They are schooled in the art of dismissing the teaching of the Bible in the name of relevance. They pass on, not faith, but doubts and criticisms. As a result, our churchmen too are not always believers. Some are agnostics using the device of theology to stay on in the church and draw a salary. When they stop believing, they hide behind the sophistication of being ‘modernists.

The authors of Yes, Prime Minister are telling the church that they have seen through the charade. They are calling the clergy hypocrites, who do not have the courage of their convictions of unbelief, but are purely mercenary and will prostitute themselves for a living.

“Bishop’s Gambit” identifies the biblical events that are disbelieved by modernists as those of Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. They are also identified as not believing in heaven and hell. In the understanding of the story writers, these are basic to Christianity: the uniqueness of being human, the centrality of the Incarnation, the presence of the Risen Jesus, and the consequences of ethical behaviour. Anybody who does not believe in these and yet stays in the Church is nothing but a hustler. It is significant that such is the assessment, not of one school of theology about another school, but of secular media men.

Interestingly, in chess, the bishop’s move is diagonal to the board. That is, it is a side-stepping one. There are some in the Church who are engaged in side-stepping the issues of faith. You cannot pin them down and identify them. Are they believers or are they not?

In “Bishop’s Gambit” when the P.M. tells his wife that he is choosing the man who will be bishop she is amused. The P.M. responds that religion has nothing to do with it. “Bishops are just managers in fancy dress.” Again the writers have hit the nail on the head. The bishopric is no longer a spiritual office. A bishop does not pastor pastors. His time is consumed in running power structures. Trouble is, power-structures demand power plays and most bishops are too busy exerting their power to have caring relationships. It is also observable that where there is a predilection to abuse power, the abusiveness is greatest toward the weakest, because the abuser can enjoy the full extent of his abusiveness. In other words, when bishops are abusers of power, pastors bear the brunt of it because pastors are among the weakest in ecclesiastical structures.

As the P.M. concludes his conversation with his wife, he says he needs an episcopal candidate “who gets on with all.” She says that he means one “who has no strong views on anything.” The courage of conviction is not much admired these days. Compromise is touted as the mark of the sophisticate. The P.M. says that a bishop must be merely inclined toward Christianity. His preference is a “closet Christian.”

Across the centuries I hear a voice ask, “Does anyone light a candle and put it under a bushel?” (Mark 4:21 ). If we are Christian, let us not be ashamed to confess the Name. Let us be Christian boldly. Let us tell the world that Jesus alone is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, and that no one can reach God apart from Jesus. If that is being bigotted, the bigottedness is derived from Jesus who said that of Himself (John 14:6). What Jesus said can neither be deleted nor amended. To reject His stand is to reject Him.

Either we have faith or we do not have faith. We are either committed to the Lordship of Jesus or are opposed to Him. We do not fool anyone with pretensions to faith. Those outside the Church see through us and whenever we stay in the Church pretending faith they call us hustlers. At the most we fool ourselves thinking we are fooling others. But you can only fool some people, for some of the time. You cannot fool all the people all the time. And you certainly cannot fool the Lord.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP

The boss bites the man’s head off at work, he snarls at his wife on reaching home, she takes it out on their little son, he goes out and kicks the pet dog which goes and bites the neighbour’s cat. Leadership in human society is all about the pecking order. Hierarchy is viewed as the right of domination.

The boss is at the top and the entire organisation is his support base. No one actually says that the organisation exists to support the boss, except one man. D .K. Barooah said, “Indira is India. India is Indira.” Everyone was disgusted. But the fact is that whenever the pyramid is enshrined in the subconscious of a group, that is how everyone views the leader at the top.

Surprisingly, the business world is giving up this concept of a pyramid of power. In her article, “Beyond Hierarchy: The Search for High Performance”, Patricia Galagan wrote, “The hard lessons of today’s economy are pushing organisations to try innovations they would never have considered a short time ago. The classic icon of business—the pyramid-shaped organisational chart —has been turned upside down, pulled inside out, and even tossed in the trash.” (Quoted by Becky Brodin in, “Five Habits Of Highly Effective Leaders”, Discipleship Journal, Colorado Springs, USA, July/ August 1993. p.30)

Guess what? The pundits of business management are rediscovering the Man who said, “Let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest and the leader as the servant” (Lk.22:26 NASB). And they discovered Jesus without any help from the people called Christians. Officially, they are described as His followers, but official Christians left the upside down kingdom of Jesus a very long time ago.

How did it Happen?

It happened this way. The conversion of Emperor Constantine brought prestige and power to Christians, who had until then been worse off than second class citizens. They had been persecuted and were deprived of property, livelihood and liberty with no recourse to the law. All that changed with the emperor’s conversion. Suddenly, it was not just acceptable, but advantageous to be Christians. And those who had lived in caves and tombs, were ridiculed, flogged and chained, found themselves to be the toast of the empire. They welcomed the reprieve. They then got accustomed to the pomp and circumstance of the emperor’s court, and very soon fell in love with all that. The teaching of the Poor Carpenter-turned-wandering-preacher was forgotten, and the leaders of the church began to look more and more like the rulers of the world.

Christ’s Teaching

The remarkable thing is that Christs, teaching about servanthood was considered to be so important that all of the Gospels record it.

Christ on Servant hood

Mathew 18:1-6 Luke 9:46-48

20:25-28 22:24-37

23:6-12 John 13:1-16

Mark 9:33-37 13:1-16

10:42-43

Note this: Neither the beatitudes nor the popular parables find a place in all the Gospels. Only servanthood finds such honourable mention. It is significant too, that the only time Jesus said that He personally was setting an example was in the matter of servanthood (Jn. i3:15). He did not say that He was setting an example by His prayer-life or preaching, though He is in fact our example in these matters. It was only in the case of servanthood that Jesus emphasised His exemplary status. It was this example that the Church abandoned when it aped Rome’s monarchical power structure.

Hierarchy is, of course, inevitable when humans organise themselves. The larger the organisation, the greater the hierarchy. Hierarchy has traditionally been understood as power over others. Jesus said that the kings of the nations “lord it over them” (Lk. 22 :25). He observed further that they sometimes pretend to serve others. They play at being benefactors so that people will call them “Benefactors.”

First Law

The question is, how can a leader be a servant if hierarchy is inevitable? The first law of Christian servant leadership is that no one is to seek higher positions. Jesus said, “Do not be called leaders; for one is your leader, that is Christ” (Matt. 23: 10). The disciple is one who is aware of who his or her leader is. That awareness displaces any notion of one’s own importance or advancement.

All of God’s servants were reluctant leaders. They considered themselves to be weak or unworthy. It was precisely because of their humility that God chose to use them. For example, as long as Moses tried to arrogate leadership among the Hebrews, God would not use him. God chose to use him only when Moses was no longer cocksure. Later, Aaron and Miriam dared to challenge his leadership. God then remarked about his humility.

The prophet Jeremiah said to the young Baruch, “Seekest thou great things for thyself? Seek them not” (45:5). The prophet said that seeking temporal greatness is pointless in the face of God’s will.

It is a fact of life that those who seek higher offices invariably have to strike deals or be manipulative. This is true both in national and church politics. When position, power and prestige are the be-all and end-all of one’s existence, he is like an obsessed person. Then it does not matter how one gets to be above others. Ah that matters is being above others, anyhow.

When hierarchy comes to a servant leader, it is a gift from God, He does not need to scheme or fight for it. It may never come to him. That too does not matter, because for the servant leader, being servant is more important than being leader.

If hierarchy is seen as a gift from God, there would be no arrogance and other people will not be made victims of brutal power “For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you d id receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7).

Servanthood and leadership are contrary to each other. Not only so, servanthood goes against the very grain of the creature whose first temptation was that of attaining the same status as God. The human tendency to seek selfish aggrandisement comes through in the way the disciples quarrelled again and again over the issue of greatness in the kingdom of God. First, they quarrelled and brought the question to Jesus expecting to hear Him name His successor (Matt. 18: 1-6). Then, they quarrelled when James and John tried to steal a march on the others by getting their mother to emotionally twist Christ’s arm (20:20-28). Finally, they quarrelled over who would wash feet. No one wanted to lose the race for power and so no one would wash feet. That is why Jesus had to do it (Lk. 22:24-27). Pride, arrogance and seeking greatness comes naturally to humans. Not servanthood. We need help.

The Spirit of Servanthood

Paul wrote, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant …” (Phil. 2:5-7). The mental attitude of Jesus will come to us only as we are possessed by the Spirit of God. The servant motif in prophecies about Christ was woven by the prophet Isaiah in what is now known as the “Servant Songs” (42:1-4; 49:1-13; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12). The very first song says, “Behold My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him…” Jesus was possessed by the Servant Spirit. God is the one who served His people by tending them as the sheep of His flock. He gathered them in His arms. He bore them (40:11).

Jesus also quoted Isaiah’s prophecy, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me…” (Isa. 61:1-3). This is known as the Nazareth Manifesto and we mistake it as the detailed strategy for services by Christians. We forget that the subject is the Spirit of the Lord. It is the endowment of the Spirit that makes Christ-like service possible.

The Sentiments of Servanthood

The story of Christ washing the feet of His disciples tells us what the sentiments of servanthood are. First, there is the acceptance of God’s plan (Jn. 13:1). Jesus had a sense of God’s timing. Isaiah described the Servant as one who had a sense of call (50:4), and was firm as flint in His commitment to God’s plan for Him (vv.6-7). Godly submission is integral to servanthood.

Second, there is affection for God’s people (Jn. 13:1). It was to show the full extent of His love that Jesus washed the feet of His disciples.

All across the gospels is a recurring clause that describes Jesus. He was “moved to compassion.” Preserving the sanctity of His role in the Kingdom of God was not as important as saving the disciples. By His actions, Jesus clearly indicated that people matter more than projects.

When Paul went to Troas, God opened a door for preaching. What would you do? What would you say about a person who walks away from God’s open door? You would say that such a person had greatly disobeyed God. But that is exactly what Paul did. He left God’s open door because His brother Titus was not there (2 Cor. 2:12-13). Could you turn away from God’s work for no other reason than caring for a brother or sister? God preserved this account in Scripture, indicating that people matter more than our work projects.

Third, Jesus had the assurance of God’s providence (Jn. 13:3). There was a total absence of fear. He had no need to protect His turf. He did not feel that the disciples were a threat to His position.

It is a fact that in many Christian institutions the Christian members of the staff are subjected to more abuse, harassment, and misrepresentation than non-Christians. The reason may be that the head of a Christian institution regards Christians as potential aspirants for his or her job. Non-Christians are no threat. But Christians could be. So, before they have a chance to get close to the chairman and the board, misrepresent them, undermine them, terrorise them. Only when a person is assured about his or her abilities for the position held and the job to be done, will a person be able to accept other people.

The Signs of Servanthood

When Christ’s disciples disputed about who would be the greatest in God’s kingdom, Jesus took a child on His knee and said that the very entry into heaven depended on being child-like. He was talking about humility, trust and love that characterise a child. Not of spoilt childishness (Matt. 18: 1- 6).

From then on Jesus taught about the need for servanthood—the mind-set that is alien to the world. He stated it negatively. They must not lord it over others (Matt. 20:25), not want to be served (v.28), not love hierarchy (23:6), not regard hierarchy slavishly (v.8), nor want recognition (v.10). If we follow Jesus in servanthood, we develop a leadership style that is not domineering.

The Hierarchy of Servanthood

Servant leaders do not maintain any hierarchy in relationships. There is only a hierarchy of function. Hierarchy in servanthood is manifested in three areas in particular. First, the servant leader has hierarchy in the area of imparting a sense of direction to a group. Servant leaders are primarily visionaries. With the eyes of faith they are able to envision things as they could be, and they are able to communicate that to those who are short­sighted. A domineering leader, on the other hand, lacking vision, demands only immediate results. A servant leader with far-sightedness is able to see the potential of fellow workers, while a domineering leader hobbles fellow workers to just get the job done (so that a report of success can be made), and does not care if workers are permanently damaged by being hobbled .

Visionaries are not efficient people, because they believe in the potential of the presently inefficient. They are not like today’s prestigious schools that admit the privileged, and cull (something that is done to animals, according to the dictionary) those who are not doing well, so that they can claim that they produce only first class results. They do not take the backward and the failure and turn them into first class material. They take the first class and say we produce only first class material. Big deal! But the servant leader works with third class material, believing that they can be made first class. That is how Jesus did it. Only He would choose fishermen, street fighters, and outcasts to start a movement. But then it was the movement of the upside down kingdom

It is not that the visionary does not know what efficiency is. He suffers an itch to take over and accomplish what needs to be done, but will not take over. When laity or youth conduct a worship service, I have to fight the urge to run the service more efficiently. Jesus could no doubt have spread the gospel more efficiently than a bunch of uneducated fishermen. But He absented Himself so that they would be empowered to do the work (Jn. 16:7-11).

Secondly, servant leaders take the lead in responsibility and accountability. They do not pass the buck (though they are eager to pass the baton). They have a sharper sense of duty and are stricter with themselves than they are with others. Domineering leaders, on the other hand, believe that they are above the law, and find fault with others in the very areas in which they break the laws of the group.

The bane of our country is that all those who are leaders in any walk of life, believe in their right to do wrong. This is the new ethic of our country. I was shocked the first time I heard it proclaimed. I was at the offices of the Lucknow Electric Supply Undertaking and was witness to a Union meeting. The speaker said, “If the Executive Engineer has a right to come to work half an hour late, we have a right to come one hour late.” Since then I have come across this new ethic again and again. If the boss believes in a right to do wrong, it will not be too long before the workers believe they have a similar right to do wrong.

Lastly, a servant leader has hierarchy in caring for fellow labourers. He cares for people more than projects. He has compassion. Domineering leaders care first of all for themselves, and then for their projects (and they care for their projects because it affects their own status and future). But a servant leader is not like that. He knows that, ultimately, the goal is not success and profit, but people. A servant leader serves the people. He is not a headman, but a heart-man. He may appear foolish in a hard-nosed world, but he will do what is loving. He will kneel before a subordinate and take his dirty feet and wash them tenderly. He does not need to protect his status, or upstage his fellows.

In a nutshell, the Christian servant leader affirms, “Not I, but Jesus is Lord: The Kingdom is not mine, but God’s.”

HITLER IS COMING

In 1988 Horst Hirschler, the Lutheran bishop of Hanover, Federal Republic of Germany, visited the site of the Nazi concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen. At that time he preached to those accompanying him. After the war, the activities of those in charge of concentration camps was regarded as having been crimes against humanity. But when Bishop Hirschler read their biographies, he discovered that “they were normal people. Some of them had high ideals. But then they had given in to that criminal conception of man which Hitler and others had taught them. People were divided into valuable ones and worthless ones. The worthless ones were to be exterminated. They had to starve. That this had been possible in the land of Martin Luther will remain a burden for me. Even more, I always keep in my mind that I myself, if I had been older, might have become part of all this” (Ecumenical Press Service, hereafter EPS)

What if you and I had been Germans living in Germany in the time of Hitler? As Beatte Ruhm von Open, a tutor at St. John’s College, Annapolis, wrote, “Hindsight is not perspicacity. Neither is there merit in not having been led into certain temptations by the grace of geography or chronology…” (“Revisionism and Counterrevisionism in the Historiography of the Church Struggle” in The German Church Struggle and the Holocaust edited by Franklin H Littell and Hubert G Locke, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1974, p. 60. Hereafter this book will be cited as GCSH). Conditions and attitudes prevalent in the time of Hitler could prevail again. The Bible says that in the end the Antichrist will come. He will be one who demands the total subservience of everyone. It will be a time of persecution for Jews and those who bear the mark of the Lamb (Rev. 13:7-8, 12-17). Author George Orwell only echoed the Bible when he predicted in his novel 1984 that there would be a “Big Brother watching.” Aldous Huxley also viewed the world as heading toward totalitarianism, in his book Brave New World.

As Hirschler observed, it is disturbing to note that it was in a country that was identified with the birth of Protestantism that Hitler found support. Is there something in the Christian psyche that will welcome one like Hitler again?

Nexus Between Antichrist and Liberalism

Dietrich Bonhoeffer identified Hitler as the Antichrist. Commenting on this, in his article “Church Struggle And The Holocaust,” Franklin H. Littell said that the key to understanding what happened is the word Antichrist: “for the Antichrist is not the honest and open adversary but the one who was once numbered within and has gone over to the opposition. The misery of the Church Struggle is not first to battle with an open opposition: it is to face the apostasy of the baptised…” (“Church Struggle and the Holocaust”, GCSH, p. 15). There are many antichrists (I John 2: 18). As John says the antichrist is always one who was part of the Church and then embraces apostasy. In this sense the church succumbed to Nazism not because of external pressure, but because of a tendency from within.

It was the failure of liberal theology. Josef Hromadka described it as theology that “was willing to compromise on the essential points of divine law and of the ‘law of nature’.” (GCSH, p. 22) Littell puts the blame on the academic aloofness of German universities, and the doctrinal uncertainty of churches. They could “have been the chief barriers to the Nazi system” but had been fatally weakened (GCSH, p. 24).

The church in Germany had no theological rationale for opposing Nazism. The original tenets of the faith had been denied. Dogmatic religion was looked down upon. Sacred history as recorded in the Bible was rejected. Thereafter it was possible to legitimise Antisemitism. Religion became culturally based and many people became “German Christians.” Fabricius, a German Christian said, “The living religion of the Volk cannot be confined within a narrow scheme…” (GCSH, p. 25). By “narrow scheme” he meant biblical history or doctrinal definition that would tie Germans to the historic faith of the Church.

The Theology of Christian Resistance

On the other hand, those who belonged to the Christian resistance did not view biblical history or doctrine lightly. To them the equation between Christianity and the narrowness of a nationalistic faith was anathema. The Lutheran theologian Herman Sasse said, “The Evangelical Church has to start every discussion with the avowal that its doctrine is a permanent affront to the morality and ethical feeling of the German race” (GCSH, p. 25). For asserting that doctrine is not negotiable, they were branded Fundamentalists, a term that implied that those who bore it were obscurantists.

Holding on to the historic faith was indeed fundamental. The faith as handed down by the apostles is at the heart of Christianity. The Christian resistance of Nazism “was theological, not political. It was a resistance, directed in the first place, not against National Socialism, but against the teaching of German Christians” (E H Robertson, Christians Against Hitler, SCM Press, London, 1962, p. 12). It was in defence of the faith of the apostles that the Christian resistance was born and grew. If they had not believed that apostolic teaching and the biblical history of salvation was not important they would not have had reason to oppose Nazism, for after all, it was nationalism.

On May 29, 1934, when the first organised synod of the German Evangelical Church was convened, Superintendent Hahn of Dresden, who was the preacher for the evening, said, “In these days we shall speak about many things, but we must take care that in all this talking we direct our gaze constantly toward Him who alone is Lord of the Church, and who has received absolute power from the Father and who speaks to His Church” (Robertson, p. 44).

This synod of the German Evangelical Church issued “The Barmen Declaration” which included Article I of the church’s constitution. The article affirmed: “The impregnable foundation of the German Evangelical Church is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in Holy Scripture and came again to the light in the creeds of the Reformation. In this way the authorities, which the Church needs for her mission, are defined and limited” (Robertson, op cit., p. 48). The declaration further said, “We repudiate the false teaching that the Church can and must recognise yet other happenings and powers, personalities and truths as divine revelation alongside this one Word of God, as a source of her preaching” (Robertson, p. 50).

The Bible in Post-War Germany

In the aftermath of the War, the Bible continued to be the German Evangelical Church’s source of strength and solace. Farmers troubled about the black market and the hunger of thousands looked to the Bible for their guidance. Journalists enjoying a new freedom of the press also turned to the Bible for direction in responsibility to the truth. “They met in earnest Conferences…rooted and grounded in daily Bible study. No one thought it strange to search the Scriptures for guidance in such matters. Twelve years of using the Bible as the main weapon against Hitler and the German Christians bred a confidence no academic theory could produce” (Robertson, p. 127).

In East Germany, where the totalitarianism of Nazism was replaced by that of Communism, churchmen have been forced to re-examine the preparation for confirmation, because the Communist regime attempted to substitute a secular youth dedication in place of the Church’s confirmation service. They now “have a very careful, and very long preparation.” Even in West Germany children have to attend classes twice a week, regularly, for two years. They do this so that while “the thorough training may not keep the children in churches…it will give them principles and ideas that will prevent Germany from falling back again into barbarism.” Though apparently lost to the Church, young people still flock to Germany’s Bible Weeks to find answers to their questions. Robertson attributes today’s biblical renewal, even “the Roman Catholic rediscovery of the Bible in liturgy” to the Christian resistance to Hitler having been rooted in Scripture (Robertson, pp. 128-129).

Where Liberalism Stands

Still the door has once again been opened. Hitler could come again. Mainline Protestantism is a church that discards the Bible as its source of authority, and denies the incarnation, death, resurrection and the bodily return of Jesus. It will have no difficulty in compromising with the Antichrist, nay in welcoming him.

When the Antichrist comes, he will not begin by persecuting the established church. He will sweet talk the church into unguardedness. After that, perversion of the church would not be difficult. Indeed that was how the Nazis did it. “The Nazis did not, at least in the earlier years, persecute the Church, they sought to pervert it” (Robertson, p. 8). But will there be any need to pervert a church that has already given up the original tenets?

In Franklin Littell’s opinion, “…Liberal Protestantism is sick, and the theological form of its sickness can be summarised by saying that it stands solidly on ground but lately vacated by the German Christians (Deutsche Christians) who collaborated with Nazism” (GCSH, p. 24).

A Cultured Christianity

The first phase of the Nazi campaign against the church was to assimilate it, and make it part of the national stream. Jeremy C. Jackson said in his book No Other Foundation: The Church Through Twenty Centuries: “…once the church has a political, social locus, an earthly citizenship, it is tempted to miss the wood for the trees. It is tempted to become a service organisation, gratifying human egos, human mores, human traditions. The Gospel is adapted to society, instead of society being adapted to the Gospel” (Cornerstone Books, Westchester, Illinois, 1989, p. 64).

When the church became integrated with German society, it was possible to get the church to subscribe to the notion that the church existed as a compartment within the government structure and as such the church would be subservient to the government. It was this notion that The Barmen Declaration of 1934 opposed: “We repudiate the false teaching that there are areas of our life in which we belong not to Jesus Christ, but to another lord” (Robertson, p. 23).

German Christians, on the other hand, did accept another lord. Very soon even faithful Christians “had neither the courage nor the strength to decide to be unequivocally against a man whom they recognised more and more as the Antichrist, but who represented after all their country and their nation” (GCSH, p. 246). While in 1933, the Christian rather than the German identity was central for many German Christians when the radical wing moved into ascendancy, the German became more important than the Christian identity. Hitler openly favoured the German Christian movement. Through Bishop Ludwig Muller, who was his man, Hitler “sought complete control of the Evangelical church as one of his best propaganda machines. At home and abroad, he used it to commend his policies , dressed in the prestige of the Christian Church and with God as his deputy” (Robertson, p. 23). As Littell observed, “the most awful figure of this century is the technically competent barbarian – especially when he claims the sanction of religion for his politics of pride” (GCSH, pp. 28-29)

Law, Order and Totalitarianism

Once faith and nationalism are mixed up, then it is possible for the church to get all upset about the breakdown of law and order, and wish for the totalitarian control of people. Order is preferred to individual liberty. That was how Nazism was acceptable, and that was how there were Christians in India who applauded the Emergency under the late Indira Gandhi because strikes were banned and trains ran on time. Typically, when the Emergency was lifted and Mrs. Gandhi sought to be re-elected, some of the hierarchy of the various churches assured her of the support of the Church in India and were totally out of touch with the feelings of the common people of India, for whom liberty had become more significant than bread.

In his paper “What can America Learn from the Church struggle?” Theodore A. Gill, professor of philosophy at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, drew a parallel between the chief priests of Judaism in the time of Jesus and the princes of the churches today. Chief priests had been hand-in-hand with the chiefs of state. “…ecclesiastical authorities acted as the servants of the state in the confrontation with Jesus. In one version, the chief priests protest that Caesar is our King, we have no King but Caesar…ecclesiastics were, practically speaking, agents of the state. That is an all too familiar situation for chief priests to be found in.” Gill went on to say that in America “white denominations and sects can be fairly viewed as the religious arm of the political establishment” (GCSH, pp. 283-284). Princes will always be concerned with the protection of princedoms. The hierarchy may not be trusted to value the spiritual over the temporal. To princes, power will always matter more than justice, and privilege than grace.

The Church’s Elitism

In fact, the Church by and large is a believer in elitism and the practice of it. At the synod that came out with The Barmen Declaration, one of those attending had to warn of the danger of the “leadership principle” that was raising its head in the Church, as much as in the State. “If the leaders of the provincial churches act as masters rather than servants, this spirit will infect the local churches too” (Robertson, p. 47).

Many pastors and leaders of the Church were deaf to the cries of anguish that rose from the ghetto. As Gill says, “We have little to learn from any church or any prophet who cannot recognise murder until it is murder in the cathedral. We have enough of those” (GCSH, p. 286)

Only the rare person like Bishop Wurm of Wurttemburg, not only protected his own ministers, but championed other enemies of the state, in spite of being threatened and arrested. He developed a theory of “natural rights” and pleaded that resistance should not be limited to the concerns of the Church alone. His theory of natural rights dislodged the official position of the Lutheran Church which was that of co-operation with authority (Frederick Bonkovsk, “The German State and Protestant Elites”, GCSH, p. 142). In fact, “since German political theory was lacking in a theory of natural rights, the work of the Confessing Church in this regard was particularly valuable” (GCSH, p. 144).

But, while the nation functioned without such a conception of natural or human rights, it was possible for those in power to rationalise their acts of injustice and even “to present its injustice as true justice…This masking of injustice ‘is the main source of the present moral confusion’…all the concessions made to Hitler by the statesmen of the world up to 1939 aided him greatly in his masquerade as an angel of light” (Robertson, p. 90).

Church and nation came to believe that, if the right kind of people had power, they ‘would do right. Communism being atheistic, whatever was opposed to communism had to be right. This is nothing but the “senseless assumption of demagogues of every ilk that righteousness will come automatically when the right righteous are in, that the empowered ‘people’ will naturally make things right.” Gill referred to “the criminal potentiality in a conservatism that would clamp the lid on the status quo” (GCSH, p. 280). When maintaining the status quo becomes the be all and end all, protectionism sets in, and then the first casualty is justice. Righteousness is never a matter of being in the right camp.

Refusing Involvement

In the final analysis, Hitler succeeded only because others actively collaborated with him or permitted injustices by their silence. “Crimes of such terrible scope in time, in place, and in the number of victims were practically possible only with the more or less ready collaboration of many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of functionaries policemen, soldiers, technicians, doctors, workmen and with the tacit acquiescence of millions more. I feel terribly ashamed to admit that this has been possible in a so-called Christian country! Moreover, I am disinclined to believe in the usual excuse, that most people had been unaware of what was going on. Of course, those who wilfully closed eyes and ears were afterwards able to assert that they had neither seen nor heard anything” (GCSH, pp. 253-254).Some simply obeyed orders. Others simply did not get involved. The “…more painful part of the truth is that most men (and most women and children) cared less than they should have cared. They did not love their neighbour as themselves, particularly not the neighbour who had been classified as not-a-neighbour or the millions of Jews outside Germany in occupied Europe—especially in Eastern Europe where they were so numerous and so segregated” (GCSH, p. 67).

Getting involved would no doubt have been personally costly. Position and privilege would have all had to be given up. Some did pay these costs as they identified with the condemned and oppressed and spoke out against the new laws that dehumanised certain types of people .

While there is time, injustice must be fought. Even when it touches another, it touches us. On October I 8, 1954, Pastor Martin Niemöller put it thus: “The Nazis first came for the Communists; and I didn’t speak up because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I was a Protestant, so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for me…by that time there was no one to speak up for anyone.”

Siding with Marxist Oppression

Years passed. The Church forgot. It allowed itself to be bewitched by another form of totalitarianism. The whole world was agog with the wonder and success of Marxism. First, it had swept through so many lands, and displaced the feudalism of oppressive monarchies and captured the imagination of newly independent nations and those people reaching and struggling for liberty. In just a few decades from its birth as a movement it had succeeded in gaining more adherents than most other philosophies. Certainly it was the fastest growing movement in the Twentieth Century.

Christians began to theologise with reference to Marxism, and even affirmed the Marxist agenda and methodology as the Mission of the Church.

Then Mikhail Gorbachov brought new hope to people who lived in the shadow of nuclear doom. Once again, Marxism had stolen a march on exploitative Capitalism and seemed to prove itself to be the better way of life.

Sure, there were still rumours of violations of human rights in Communist lands. The first reaction to such rumours was that dismissing their veracity and attributing them to the rumour mongering and propaganda of Capitalism. If there was incontrovertible evidence of violations, they were regarded lightly as a necessary and lesser evil in the course of achieving justice for all. Anyway, all that began to belong to the past. Gorbachov had shown the world the new face of Communism.

Betrayal of Romanian Christians

Just when the world got ready for a new honeymoon with Marxism, the disenchantment began. First, satellite nations in the Soviet camp began to reject Communism. Soon Communist governments started falling like nine pins, until even the Soviet Union disintegrated. The first to go was the Ceaușescu regime in Romania. But the World Church failed the Christians in that country.

László Tőkés is the Reformed pastor whose struggles with the Romanian authorities came to a head late in 1989 during the uprising in Timisoara, which led to the downfall of Nicolae Ceaușescu. However, such resistance is not the record of most Romanian church leaders. On January 10, 1990, in a letter addressed to “churches, international Christian organisations and to all our Romanian brothers and sisters living abroad”, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church admitting that the preceding decades have been those of slavery under the communist dictatorship and immense suffering inflicted by the Ceaușescu regime, confessed that “under the dictatorship some of us may not always have shown the courage of the martyrs, and have not publicly acknowledged the hidden pain and suffering of the Romanian people…many of the church’s positive achievements had to be obtained at the cost of paying the obligatory tribute of artificial praise to the dictator”. The Synod referred to being “delivered…from fear and from the tissue of falsehood presented as the official truth.” It went on to cancel “sanctions and prohibitions which the dictatorship forced It to pronounce against certain priests or churches of political reactions” (EPS, Jan. 1990).

On March 7, Tőkés in an interview with Aftenposten (the leading Norwegian daily) specifically criticised the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC). Both these world bodies are headquartered in Geneva. Tőkés said, “…one of the biggest disappointments of my life was the total lack of support from official church bodies.” The then WCC General Secretary Emilio Castro protested: “We never praised the Ceaușescu regime, we never affirmed that he was an instrument of God’s purpose in history.” That seems more like an argument based on silence. The question is did they condemn Ceaușescu’s oppressive Communism? Castro said that without documenting it, “…we have been critical of the regime…Before the final events last December, I intervened with the Ceaușescu government, and with the churches interceding for the situation of… Tőkés. I protested when he was not allowed to be pastor of his local church, and when he was forced to leave.” It would appear that Castro was referring to personal letters written by him: “I intervened…I protested…” It does not seem to have had the sanction of WCC as a body.

That is why Tőkés is unaware of any of the efforts of WCC and WARC. He said, “…In Geneva, they were not interested in the fight for freedom of this lone pastor.” Tőkés said that his own former bishop László Papp “could destroy church work…with the help of the secret police”, and still be “received with honour” abroad. Any protest would have helped. Ceaușescu may have fallen earlier “had an international wave of protest been established” such as over South Africa, but instead 23 million in Romania “were left in the backyard of history” without international church attention. He said, “…Ecumenical heavyweights let us down” (EPS, 16-20, March 1990).

Confessions

There has been some self-examination and confession by some church bodies. But not enough. The Council on Foreign Relations of the Church of Norway admitted that “on some occasions we have been too careful in speaking up publicly.” But Bishop Fredrik Guningaeter was not satisfied. He wanted the admission that the staff has been too influenced by Marxism (EPS, 21-25, March 1990).

When the WCC Central Committee met between March 25 to 30 in 1990, on the very first day, Romania was major topic. Marja van der Veen-Schenkeveld (Reformed, Netherlands) said that WCC listened too much to those in power in the church in Romania and was “not alert to crying people in local congregations.” Karoly Toth (Reformed, Hungary) said that WCC has to learn the painful lesson that it must not confuse the identity of a church with the leaders of that church, and more so when the leaders have links with the government. He said that the WCC’s weakness was that it was only ambiguously negative of Ceaușescu’s government.

But the WCC’s leaders were not ready to make anything but half-hearted admissions to having failed the Church in Romania. Moderator Heiz Joachim Held would only say, “We could have done some things better than we did.” He admitted only that they had “spoken about Romania too indirectly” and should have exposed its negative points “more clearly”. Emilio Castro hesitantly said that the WCC “made a mistake perhaps” in the policy on Romania, but was quick to justify the policy by saying that one of the WCC’s aims was “to keep the channel of communication with our member churches open.” He noted that after the WARC made a strong statement on the Romanian situation it had not been able to continue functioning there.

But the WCC has had to maintain silence consistently because delegates from nations that were liable to criticism and condemnation for oppression would threaten to leave meetings and the WCC would desist. For instance, the Central Committee had asked Emilio Castro in August 1988 to convene church leader and to propose action to be taken in regard to Romania. Immediately a Romanian member of the Committee threatened to leave if discussion on Romania continued (EPS, 26-31, March 1990).

When Tőkés, who is now bishop, appeared before the Central Committee he told them to break “the straitjacket of ecumenical diplomacy”. He said that Romanian churches were burdened with the hangovers from a “compromised relationship with the dictatorship”. He observed that “the opportunism of the clerical hierarchy also seeks to salvage and preserve the privileges of position and rank into the new era” (EPS, 1-5, April 1990).

Liberalism’s Lust for Power

There were striking parallels between the performance of church leaders under Hitler and Ceaușescu. Both times it was the failure of liberal theology. It was only when the church in Germany denied the original tenets of the faith and rejected sacred history as recorded in the Bible that anti-Semitism could be justified and national pride could gain transcendence. And it was because they had a theology of resistance based on apostolic teaching and biblical history that the Christian resistance in Germany could oppose Nazism, which after all was posing to be nothing but nationalism.

How soon the Church forgot that the denial of the biblical affirmations is characteristic of the Antichrist (1 Jn. 4:3)! It should not surprise us that the WCC has so readily embraced Marx as the new Messiah, because, starting with regarding science as a sacred cow, Liberalism debunked the authority of divine revelation and the finality of the Incarnation (Heb. 1:1-2). Instead, every generation could formulate its own theology, and, of course, its own ethics. Franklin Littell’s opinion will bear repeating: “Liberal Protestantism is sick, and the theological form of its sickness can be summarised by saying that it stands solidly on ground but lately vacated by the German Christians…who collaborated with Nazism” (GCSH, p. 24).

For a long time the WCC has looked to populist ideologies for its theological basis. Those who climb on to bandwagons do so for the sake of not being left out. The WCC has a consistent record for adopting the most popular theological stance in its approach to the world. Instead of confronting the world with the claims of Christ, it has watered down the Gospel and claimed to engage in dialogue. In the name of tolerance in a pluralistic world it has confessed that there were other ways than the way of the Christ who claimed to be the only way.

While the WCC has propagated liberation theologies, especially in regard to the poor, its own record in its dealings with the churches under Communist rule are the true index of its preferential option. As the Romanian Tőkés said, it was not interested in a lone pastor. It identified rather with churches that had links with power structures. The WCC has been more interested in being a world body by claiming to have member churches from all over the world. It has compromised with member church and failed to condemn their participation in evil governments.

Some years ago the World Division of the United Methodist Church (UMC), a member of the WCC issued a document claiming that it had a concern for the poor and the oppressed and would participate in people’s struggles for justice. At that time was in correspondence with an official in the World Division. He had engaged in correspondence so that he could gain a non-establishmentarian and non-hierarchical of what was happening in the Methodist Church in India. When the document appeared, I wrote to him and asked if the UMC would side with the oppressed staff of Methodist institutions in India against the hierarchy of the church in India. He replied to my letter on all points except this one. I wrote again and remarked on his evasion of my question. There was no further correspondence from the man. That is typical of the WCC and the power structures of its members.

Come Hitler, Come Antichrist

The conditions are right for the Antichrist to come. Hitler could have come in our time. He would find Liberalism rampant. He would find the Mainline Church so enjoying power and privilege that it is quite at home in corrupt and oppressive societies, and playing the Scarlet Woman (Rev. 17:1-18:24; in the Bible apostasy is described as adultery because God is the husband of His covenant people. The Scarlet Woman of Revelation represents the church in apostasy). For the sake of order, the Church is willing to surrender liberty and permit totalitarian rule. In fact, the Church itself is a totalitarian order with its powerful princes, the bishops. Even the parachurch is totalitarian. A chief executive’s word is law.

When Yehiel Dinur, a concentration camp survivor, walked into the courtroom where Adolf Eichmann stood trial, on seeing Eichmann for the first time eighteen years after the Nazi had sent him to Auschwitz, Dinur stopped in his tracks, began to sob uncontrollably and then fainted. It was not terror or hatred that caused this. It was the realisation that the Nazi who had held the power of life and death over so many was not after all a god, but an ordinary human. Dinur later said, “I was afraid about myself…I saw that I am capable to do this. I am… exactly like he.” Mike Wallace of the American television show 60 Minutes concluded from this, “Eichmann is in all of us” (Cited by Charles Colson, Who Speaks for God? Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1985, pp. 136-137). If the potential to be like Hitler’s stooges is in all of us, Hitler cannot be far behind. Yes, the Church that ought to be praying, “Come Lord Jesus!” is ready for Hitler if he will come. She is waiting for the Antichrist.

DISPOSSESSED CHILDREN

At Lal Bagh Methodist Church, Sunday School meets during the latter part of the church service. Since the Sunday School teachers were thus regularly missing out on participation at the Lord’s Table, we decided that on the first Sunday we would not hold Sunday School, and instead, the children and teachers would all attend the whole service.

One day, a father remarked that he had to take his little son out because he would not stay in church. The way he put it made me think about this problem of children not feeling comfortable in church. In the scheme of the Lord Jesus, the church was to have belonged to them. We the adults have dispossessed them.

Theirs Is the Kingdom

The disciples of Jesus were being protective, no doubt. Their Master led a very rigorous life as a wandering rabbi. He had no place to lay His head. His teaching ministry alone was enough to sap His strength. Moreover, He was on call all the time, ministering to people who were sick in body, mind and spirit. They had observed how He felt the power go out of Him. He had so often fallen asleep in the most unlikely circumstances out of sheer exhaustion, like the time even rough weather and a turbulent lake could not keep Him awake. Must mere children, who were hale and hearty, who had no great need of Him, be allowed to disturb the few snatched moments of quiet that their Master was having? So they drove mothers and their children away when they came for His blessing. But Jesus scolded His disciples for their misplaced concern. He told them, “Don’t keep them away. The Kingdom of God belongs to them.”

The Kingdom of Jesus by His own declaration belongs to children. But what place do our children have in the church? Does the church belong to them?

Rather we treat them as appendages. We do not grant them full rights: they are not “full members.” We have Sunday School and other programmes for them. But in so many ways we let them know that church itself is for older people. We sing hymns and read responsively in words that they do not understand. Why, we do not even hold the hymnal at their level and help them to follow whatever is happening.

Children at Love Feasts

Some very young children at Lal Bagh told their parents that they thought the pastor was not very fair because he gave “sherbath (juice)” (that is what they could observe) only to grownups. As I reflected on the problem of our dispossessed children and what parents told me as one of the amusing anecdotes about their children, the Lord inspired me to consider a way of making the children feel that they were not barred from the Lord’s Table. After all, there is no scriptural teaching requiring the barring of children from Communion. Historically, because the Lord’s Table was inseparable from the Agape (the love feasts of the Early Church), we must infer that children also took part. Children would not have been kept hungry while the adults ate full meals. It was only when the church ritualised its observance of the Lord’s Table, separated it from the Agape, and in time rendered the Agape extinct, that children were denied participation. My predicament was that the church rules do not permit the inclusion of children at the Lord’s Table. The Lord inspired me to find a way around human traditions that had maimed the teaching of Christ Himself that the Kingdom belonged to children.

I invited children to the Table, explaining that because of church rules I could not give them the communion wafer and grape juice, but I would give them a sweet, and they were to think about Jesus, and that, just like we needed food for our bodies, Jesus Christ was the food for our hearts. As a result, sometimes it is the children who are now dragging their parents to church. I am aware that the sweet is an attraction, but the opportunity to participate is also an attraction. Children are innately godly and, with a little encouragement, can be nurtured to love Jesus and, if they learn to love Him from their childhood, they will be Christian disciples for life.

Children and Church

Let the children come. The Kingdom belongs to them. Adults are the ones who are being done a favour by being admitted to the church by children. The children never needed admission. They belonged, but the adults have conspired against them, and then thrown them out of the church. Or maybe, what we call “church” is not really the Church. How could it be, when we have modelled it like the power structures of the world, when the cut-throat competition of the world finds scope within this structure, when property and money are our major concerns, instead of compassion for people our God loved and died for? Maybe the Church exists only where the children are, and as Jesus said, unless all of us are converted and become as little children—artless, humble and trusting—we shall not have the experience of being the Church, the body of Jesus.

What if children constituted our pastorate committees, and boards and councils? We would have no cases of prestige issues, no legal wranglings and no doctrinal or ethical compromises.

All this is, of course, very simplistic. The Church at this juncture owns property and there is a weekly inflow of money. Property has to be managed according to the laws of the land, and money has to be accounted for. These and similar reasons exist for adult management of the temporal affairs of the Church. Granting that, by what right have we denied the children full rights in the Church and treated them as mere appendages to the Church? We should at least have let the children set the tone of our churches, and had pastorate committees as the executives, the servants, of children, carrying out what the children feel is right, for children are literalists and would be more obedient to the Word of Christ than we who have acquired a sophistication that alienates us from the simple Carpenter of Nazareth.

IV

MISSION

NEITHER GOSPEL, NOR HEALING

Lalbagh Methodist Church, Lucknow, had evangelistic meetings at which a ‘faith healer’ was the preacher. I share my reactions with the larger church in India so that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be kept from further dishonour. .

There was neither the preaching of the Gospel, nor did any healing take place. I was deeply disturbed that the preaching was not evangelistic at all. Never had I seen so many non-Christians at any evangelistic meeting that I had attended. Of the nearly 450 people packed into our small building that could seat only 280, more than two-thirds of the audience consisted of non-Christians, and they seemed to have no aversion to be sitting in a Christian church. For once I saw non-Christians sitting in readiness to hear about Jesus and all that they heard about was the “exploits” of the preacher. From time to time the preacher would punctuate her message with the words, “All glory to the Lord: I am the dust of his feet.” Apart from that, it was entirely an exercise in self-glorification. Even that could have been excused, but for the total failure to preach the Gospel of salvation in Jesus alone. There was not even a passing reference to the fact of Jesus being uniquely the Incarnation of God, of His vicarious death on the cross for the salvation of the world, of there being no other way to know God than through Jesus. This was not merely disturbing, but saddening because a rare opportunity to have non-Christians under the sound of the Gospel was lost. They were within reach, but were not reached.

At the end of an extended time of preaching up faith in her personal healing touch, the time of praying for sick people would begin. She almost invariably called first for people with pains to stand up, place their hands in the region of their pain, and she would pray for them. Quite a number claimed to experience relief immediately. More apparent cases of illness—such as the blind, the paralysed, the deformed , the mentally retarded—did not experience any healing after her prayers. A Pentecostal minister said to me, “I know I shouldn’t say this, as a Pentecostal. But pains are so often simply psycho-somatic and so the relief from pain could be explained as a mere psychological phenomenon with the possibility of the pain recurring.”

The “healer” used to ask people to come fasting. There is no warrant for laying that burden on the seeker. According to Scripture, the onus of preparation by prayer and fasting is on the servant of God. Instead, our preacher was in fact having more than what the institutional mess offered, and the addition was at her request.

Assembly Line

There was a manifest lack of compassion. The large numbers of those seeking healing were perfunctorily touched by her with not even a thought about them individually. It was literally like having people in need of prayer on an assembly line. “Healings” were stage managed. People would be bullied into testifying o (healings as a sign of their faith. But there were also more definite attempts to deceive people as in claiming instant healing in the case of a young man whose right leg was shorter than his left. He was asked to sit on the floor. The preacher’s husband held the person by the waist, while she arranged the legs in such a way that, at the end of her prayer, when she jerked the short leg it “lengthened” to equal the other. The feet were twisted and grotesquely deformed. The preacher prayed only for a lengthening and very blatantly claimed healing for that shortened condition while simply ignoring the continuance of the other deformities. When the young man got up to walk away, the shorter leg was still short and he walked away with a pronounced limp.

A number of unwell persons—epileptics, a cancer patient, some who were in the preacher’s opinion “resistant” to healing—were described as being demon-possessed. Remarkably, unlike the demons described in the Bible, these refused to acknowledge being in the presence of God. None shouted out and said, “Jesus, leave us alone!” Instead, there was one man who said with a very loud voice that all in the church could hear, “I am innocent. I am a Bhakth of Hanuman. I will tear my chest open and show you that Hanuman lives there.” In this instance, the preacher failed to even attempt casting out the demon. She just quietly moved to the next person. Thus, Hindus came to a church of Jesus Christ and heard the name of their own god. ·

The total effect of these meetings is that the work of evangelism has been set back in Lucknow. Instead of manifesting the power of Jesus’ name, His name has been linked with deception, impotence and failure. Those who came will be very resistant to any future approaches in the name of Jesus. Their blood is on us.

I wanted to know how the meetings would be reported to the preacher’s supporters. I asked that I be sent copies of her newsletter. The cancer patient is reported to be healed, as also the young man whose leg was supposedly lengthened . A young man who came from Nepal had lost the use of his legs. He went back the way he came: carried on the back of a friend. His legs had been stiff. With a little effort he was able to stretch them and bend them. He is described as healed. Every instance can be verified as a false claim.

The Church needs to be wary of projecting such persons. Jesus did say that in the last days there would be many false prophets. No doubt some of them would appear to be angels of light and seem to have orthodoxy. But their fruits will show them to be false. The cause of Christ is not promoted, but hindered by their activities.

God Heals

However, I do believe God can and does heal. I believe that the Church, the body of Jesus, must be the vehicle of His healing, saving power in a sin-sick world. Christians must provide the evidence that Jesus is alive today in all His power (John 14:14). Every local church, as the manifestation of Christ’s body, must manifest all the different gifts of the Spirit. Without all the gifts, the body of Jesus is deficient. It is maimed. The body needs every function (I Cor. 12:14-30). By all means let there be the affirmation of the spoken word of the Gospel with the tangible evidence of God’s miraculous power (Heb. 2:4; Mark 16:20).

IS THIS PROSELYTIZATION?

In 1981 mass conversions of Harijans to Islam projected an otherwise unknown village called Meenakshipuram in Tamil Nadu into the news.

In Christian circles, when conversion is ulteriorly motivated, it is described as “proselytization.” Originally the verbs “proselytise” and “convert” were synonymous. However, now the former has come to be associated with converting people by means of material incentives. Increasingly, there has been a tendency to ascribe all religious conversions to such causes.

There have been allegations that the Meenakshipuram Harijans were offered Rs. 500 each for turning to Islam. Some who supposedly repented of such a mercenary attitude towards matters of faith are the only witnesses to testify to such motives. The veracity of confessedly purchasable people should at least be suspect. If they could have been bought once, they must have been bought again. Their recon­ version can be no more genuine than their conversion. If they received Rs. 509- for embracing Islam, how much did they take to make these accusations? Come to think of it, did they even get converted in the first place? Are they simply claiming to have been converted, for a price? However, even Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, the M.P. who reportedly belonged to the militant R.S.S at that time, had been unable to establish such malpractices. He described the conversions as a “vote against Hindu Society.” He was not alone in thinking this way. In the opinion of a number of journalists and news analysts the converts were motivated simply by a desire to improve their social status. They sought to escape the oppressive conditions they were subjected to by the upper castes. One editor described the move as an act of “social rebellion.” A good number of Hindus have taken cognisance of this and have made moves to end unjust conditions that Harijans suffer. On the other hand, a greater number persist in alleging mercenary motives on the part of the converts, and undue influence being exerted by Muslim workers.

Conversion in Hinduism

The refusal to admit the possibility of genuine conversions is in part an inability to see the issue in proper perspective. The Hindu faith, as it devolves itself in practice, repels those who suffer. Given the notions of karma and castes, no hope is offered to the down­trodden and oppressed. There is no way of escape from the “fate” they were born to. They must only be resigned to it. However, modern education has opened the door to critical thought and the down­ trodden are unwilling to submit to an apparently unjust classification of peoples. But opting out of the Hindu system of castes, is at once to reject Hinduism itself because one cannot be a Hindu and casteless.

It is for this reason that Hinduism itself cannot have any converts, except in the case of modern movements in Hinduism, such as the Ramakrishna group and those centred around the godmen of today. But people cannot be converted to popular Hinduism because belonging to a caste is a matter of birth.

Why should the exit of despised low caste persons agitate the high caste leaders of Hinduism? If contact with them contaminates the higher castes, would it not be better to be rid of them from the Hindu fold? The question that forces itself to be asked is whether there are vested interests in keeping “untouchables” at that level of despair and hopelessness. People are needed for cleaning dry toilets and carrying out the night soil. If the untouchables begin to have notions of equality and refuse to do anything that demeans them, the burden of these tasks will have to be borne equally by all.

Evangelism and conversion are regarded by some as manifestations of religious intolerance. These activities necessarily indicate an attitude that the propagated faith is superior to the one that is to be given up. Such “triumphalism” is viewed as obnoxious intolerance. However, rejecting the validity of propagation of another’s religious persuasions is in itself an intolerance. It denies the right of free expression. (Incidentally, why should the propagation of religious views alone be frowned upon, while all other views may be promoted freely?) Another liberty that is taken away by this intolerance of religious propagation is the freedom of the person who is the object of the propagation. The person is denied that right to have a change of convictions.

Propagation of Religion

A lot of heat was generated in the discussions leading to the adoption of the Constitution of India by the word “propagate” in Article 25 guaranteeing religious freedom. A submission had been made to the Sub-Committee on Minorities that the right to “preach and propagate” was an important one that needed safeguarding for the minorities. However, K.M. Munshi, who drafted the article on behalf of the Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee, left out the words. Objections were raised to the omission. It was then pointed out that “certain religions such as Christianity and Islam, were essentially proselytising religions, and provision should be made to permit them to propagate their faith in accordance with their tenets.” The Advisory Committee, The Drafting Committee and finally the Constituent Assembly favoured the retention of the word “propagate”.

Munshi had hesitated to include the word “propagate” because, if it were not defined, it could grant protection to forced conversions. He recognised though, that even if the word were dropped, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and therefore permits the persuasion of others to join one’s religion. He observed that Christians had stressed the word because propagation was a “fundamental part of their tenet…So long as religion is religion, conversion by free exercise of the conscience has to be recognised.” It was after this speech that Article 25 became a part of the Constitution on December 6, 1948.

In view of the reservations about the word “propagate” it was sought to qualify Article 25 by restricting, (1) conversion of minors without the permission of guardians, and, (2) conversion “by coercion, undue influence, or the offering of material inducement.” While Munshi could not explain what was meant by “undue influence,” C. Rajagopalachari, later the first Indian Governor General, questioned the necessity of the second qualifying clause because it was covered by the Indian Penal Code. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, opined that the restrictive clauses were both unnecessary. The recognition of conversion was not considered to be a matter that is essentially not under the purview of the law, but of society. After further consideration by the Committee, Patel informed the Constituent Assembly that it was recommended to drop the controversial clause because it “enunciates a rather obvious doctrine which it is unnecessary to introduce in the Constitution.”

Debate On Constitution

But these apprehensions about “undue influence” never remained buried. From time to time they would surface. In 1968 the Orissa Government promulgated its Freedom of Religion Act banning conversion by “use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means.” Under the Act three catechists and a priest were prosecuted by the Magistrate of Gunupur. Appealing to the High Court of Orissa, Christians contended in the case of Yulitha Hyde vs. State of Orissa that the Act was unconstitutional. Delivering the judgment, Justice R.N. Misra, with Justice K.B. Panda’s concurrence, admitted “the religious duty of every Christian to propagate his religion.” The counsel for the defence had not disputed this assertion of the appellants. Only the methods employed were in question. In the Act, the definition of “force” included a show of force in terms of threatening divine displeasure and “inducement” was described as including any kind of gift or gratification, and the grant of any benefit, pecuniary or otherwise. Mr. Misra agreed that these definitions extended the meanings of the words as given in the Penal Code, but held that the Legislature was in the right to spell out the implications. However, the Court agreed with the defence that the meaning of the word “inducement” was too vague and would cover too many proselytising activities. The Act was declared ultra vires the Constitution, though, on the basis of the State Legislature not having the right to legislate on matters of religion.

The Madhya Pradesh Government also passed a Freedom of Religion Act in 1968. It was on the same lines as the Orissa Act, except that the Madhya Pradesh Law required that district authorities be notified of conversions. On March 14,1969, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Bhopal issued a statement on behalf of Christians regarding the compulsory registration of conversions. “These requirements contain measures which will cause great psychological and practical harassment to the people concerned and thus curtail the full exercise of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, the Act implies a false assumption as to the motivation of religious conversions.” In conclusion, it was asserted that “on the ground of conscientious objection, they are not obliged to comply with the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act and Rules framed there under in the matter of ministers of religion .and the faithful having to report con­ versions …. ‘We must obey God rather than man’ (Acts 5:29).”

Defiance of Orders

Incidentally, there was an actual instance of defying prohibitory orders in the matter of evangelism. In 1874 a Methodist preacher by the name of Benjamin Peters was in jail for the “crime of preaching the Gospel.” His preaching had resulted in some confrontations with Muslims in Bangalore, and so the Magistrate had banned preaching in public places. But Peters had kept at it in defiance because he felt that the only way to test the validity of such a law was by violating it and appealing against it. The Judicial Commissioner ruled that there could be no sweeping prohibition of public preaching. On being released, Peters returned immediately to street preaching.

The matter of the Madhya Pradesh Act came up in court in 1974. The case was that of Rev. Stanislaus vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. Chief Justice P.K. Tare delivered the judgment with the concurrence of Justice U.N. Bachawat. He ruled that freedom of religion was not the monopoly of one individual, but of all and that the Act guaranteed it to all. Further, he rejected the notion that the State was not competent to legislate on religious matters, because it was certainly authorised to legislate for the maintenance of “public order” which was what was involved in the case of offensive activities because they tended to “public disorder.” The Court overlooked the Orissa High Court’s Judgment that the term “inducement” was defined too vaguely.

The Orissa and Madhya Pradesh laws were further upheld by the Supreme Court. The five member bench made more far-reaching statements on the issues involved. Chief Justice A.N. Ray, delivering the judgment, observed that “there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion.” He defined the constitutional right of propagation in terms of transmission of ideas. Julian Saldhana, S.J., observes that while the definition agrees with the meaning of the word as given in dictionaries, “this general definition must be further specified by the sense in which the term was used in the Constituent Assembly. That the term was there understood to include conversion is borne out in the Constituent Assembly debates. This is the reason why the word ‘propagate’ aroused such a heated exchange in the Assembly; it would not have met with opposition if it were understood to exclude conversion. Saldhana also notes that the Constitution not only guarantees propagation but also the practice of religion, which for Christians includes engaging in converting others.

Saldhana observes further that the denial of a “fundamental right to convert” another contradicts a basic principle of democracy. It would disallow many other forms of change in society. The same should then be applicable to converting politicians of one party to another, more so when benefits and allurements are more prevalent in this field than in any other.

No Anti-Conversion Laws

It is to be noted that the Central Government has to date not introduced any anti-conversion laws. In 1970 Parliament rejected a Bill seeking to prohibit the conversion of minors. In 1978 after Arunachal Pradesh passed its Freedom of Religion Act, the infamous Tyagi Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha. Not long thereafter the Janata regime collapsed.

Noting the agitated feelings of the minorities, Ram Jethmalani introduced a Freedom of Religion Bill for the “Removal of Restrictions.” Jethmalani observes in his preamble that “the right to propagate is incomplete without winning adherents to the religion.” He notes also that new crimes have been created by the States that have passed Freedom of Religion Acts, whereas the Indian Penal Code is sufficient for dealing with force or fraud. He admits further as fact that in practice such laws have been abused and have simply “led to persecution and inhibition of legitimate religious activity.”

All of the reservations about conversions point to the fact of there being concomitants to conversion that are not necessarily spiritual in character. When Harijan Hindus became Muslims, their new-found Islamic brethren, came to their aid. For instance, it was reported by Jawahar Raj of the then Minorities Commission, that a Muslim businessman had provided a new bore-well fitted with a one horse power motor pump. While they had been Harijans they had been required to go one mile away to collect their drinking water. Also, in a press release in early 1981 by the Islamic Cultural Centre, London, the director said that over 50 Hindu families in India had secretly embraced Islam, and that an agricultural project was set up at a cost of Rs. 4 lakhs to facilitate livelihood. Is this proselytization?

Plight of Converts

It must first be noted that there are some negative concomitants to conversion. A convert can be socially ostracised. Legally, he can also be deprived of maintenance and lose the right of inheritance. E.D.Devadason in the preface of his book Christian Law in India has argued that there should be no punitive measure against conversion since legal consequences in matters of religion have no justification in a secular State. However, “Hindu Law has introduced too many disabilities in the case of converts; for instance, even a minor who has been converted from Hinduism has no right to claim maintenance from his father. This is a retrograde step nullifying the earliest salutary principles introduced under the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1950.”

Saldhana also makes the same point when he says that “many Hindus are prevented from changing their religion due to force understood as including the threat of social ex-communication (as defined by the Orissa and Madhya Pradesh Acts) .

“Converts from the Scheduled Castes are deprived of their special rights. In other words, a shortcoming of the said Acts is that, while they purport to safeguard the liberty of one who does not wish to change his religion, in the case of a person, who decides, to change his religion, they do not protect from the unjust vexations of his co­religionists.”

It is because of the deprivations which converts suffer that their new brethren must needs come to their aid. In fact, for the Christian community it is a matter of practising faith. Such succour of brethren is commanded. It is not optional for disciples of Christ. Such caring concern and charitable aid therefore actually has the protection of the constitutionally guaranteed right of practising one’s religion.

On the other hand, the M .P. Syed Shahabuddin has well argued that the provision of concessions to depressed classes is by the same token tantamount to offering inducements for the prevention of conversion. Shahabuddin deplores the fact that “…the official machinery is being used and official promises are being dangled like carrots to prevent conversions to Islam or to encourage reconversion. One would like to ask, if it is wrong to promote conversion to a religion, is it not equally wrong to prevent conversion? And does it not amount to a clear violation of Article 27 which forbids taxation for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion?”

In fact, a spokesman for the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Harijan Welfare has disclosed that new converts will be treated as a forward community and would therefore lose government concessions. If such action is taken, it will only confirm the fears of minorities that the constitutional secularism is mythological.

A Speech in Parliament

Thirty nine years ago a man addressed the Lok Sabha on December 3, 1955, when there had been talk of imposing regulations on conversions. He said, “There should be no regulations of religious conversions. Such curbs will only lead to other evils…There could be no doubt that in the name of conversion, or religious activity much evil was done. This was not confined however, to the votaries of any one particular religion. Votaries of every religion sometimes overstepped the limits of decency, not all of them, but some votaries. A private member’s bill seeking to regulate religious conversions was rejected by an overwhelming majority in the Lok Sabha… No one wanted coercion and deception to be practised, but in practice this attempt to prevent them might give rise to other forms of coercion.”

Recognising that the regulations were aimed at Christian missionaries, he went on to say, “Christianity is as old in India as Christianity itself. Christianity found its roots in India before it went to countries like England, Portugal and Spain. Christianity is as much a religion of Indian soil as any other religion in India.” The man who gave that speech in Parliament was none other than Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

Mrs. Gandhi’s Sacrifice

More recently, however much we may disapprove of some of Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s actions, her refusal, in spite of threats to her life, to change her Sikh guard, must be hailed as her ultimate contribution to the cause of secularism.

Surely Nehru did not lead the nation to secularism, and Indira Gandhi did not lay her life down for that principle, in vain? Indeed, they did not, for the Constitution still describes India as a secular state, and here all religions have equal rights of profession, practice and propagation.

BRINGING INDIA TO CHRIST

In a pluralistic world there is a need for tolerance of those who differ from us ideologically. By all means let us be tolerant of those who do not know Christ. By all means let us “become all things to all” who have no knowledge of Christ. Let us find areas of commonness. Let us love them, care for them and serve them. But let us never forget that the entire purpose of becoming all things to all men or being accommodating is that of “winning” and “saving” them (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

There are those who think that the notion that others need to be “saved” smacks of spiritual arrogance and bigottedness. The first charge is illogical for the Christian Gospel is one of grace. There can be no arrogance or conceit in the belief that salvation is not by meritorious effort and that the Christian is nothing but a beggar before the throne of grace.

It was Jesus who insisted that there is no other way to the Father than Him (John 14:6), and it was He who required that Christians proclaim this message with a view to discipling people for Him (Matt. 28: 18-20). The Christian has no option in the matter. Being a Christian is a matter of being a disciple of Jesus, and a disciple is one who chooses a master to be obeyed in all things. He exercises an option only in choosing to have a master or not to have one. But once a master is chosen, there is no further option whether to submit or not. Without the submission of the disciple, the master would just not be master.

The Mandate

The mandate of the Master to His disciples was clearly for them to be His witnesses (Acts 1:8) and to make disciples of all nations (peoples or races) by baptising them in the name of the Triune God, and teaching them the way of Christ (Matt. 28:19-20). The task is taking Christ to all humans and bringing all humans to Christ.

This task of taking Christ to people is what evangelism is all about. Evangelism is simply the proclamation of the good news of Christ. It is important that we emphasise that the Gospel is of Christ. The content of the message is prescribed by Him. It is His self-understanding we are to proclaim and not our speculations about Him.

Some would split hairs and say that it is only our understanding of His self-understanding that we can declare. That would simply mean that the Gospel is open to different interpretations. If that were true, revelation has not taken place. God has not disclosed Himself. He has hidden Himself. Even His best revelation of Himself, namely, the Incarnation, is not really revelation. God has simply teased us with glimpses of Himself and humans do nothing but grope in darkness. There is then no hope of God ever being discovered.

But the Gospel is that God has revealed Himself in creation, in His Word and above all in His Son. God has revealed His essence to us in the person of Jesus.

It is true that we look at things from our own points of view. Between communicator and receiver there is very often a gap in communication. The intended content of the message of the communicator is not necessarily the perceived content of the message by the receiver. Each brings a background full of differences to the processing of information. For instance, the term “staple food” will mean one thing to a person from Punjab, and another thing to someone from Andhra Pradesh. The differences in perception and understanding of life are due to our religious, political, cultural, social and economic experiences being different. But it seems to me that differences that are perceptual are only superficial. For example, though the term “staple food” may mean different things to different people, the concept itself is clearly comprehended. In fact, the differences can be perceived only because of the comprehension of the basic concept.

Since the comprehension of the Gospel is the aim of all proclamation of the Gospel, it may indeed need to be communicated with a view to perceptual differences. But if the literal sense of the words of the Gospel is taken, the comprehension of the basics of the Gospel is possible. It is basic to this Gospel of the revelation of God’s grace in the person of Jesus, that the revelation must go on. The Gospel must be communicated to people who have not heard the Gospel. Those who do not know Christ must be introduced to Him.

Whether or not the proclamation of the evangel has actually taken place can thus be measured by assessing the comprehension of the Gospel by those preached to. Those who hear the Gospel need to be able to understand that Jesus does not call them to conformity to any earthly body of His believers, but does call for a renunciation of other gods, messiahs and saviours, and an understanding that He claims to be the only way to God, the Father.

The criteria for judging the effectiveness of our evangelistic efforts are thus, firstly, whether or not the audience we target for and reach out to is of those who were not previously committed to being followers of Christ, and secondly, whether our audience comprehends Christ’s claims clearly, to be able to either choose Him or reject Him.

Evangelism Scenarios

During my college days I began to question the efficiency of the efforts while continuing to subscribe to the doctrine that people need salvation, and must be reached with the good news that Jesus will redeem them from sin and its consequences.

My first observation was that we were only pretending to reach the unchurched, but in fact drew only those who are already churched. Evangelistic crusades and rallies in tents were being attended mainly by Christians

Many were no doubt nominal Christians and were indeed won for Christ when they went forward at altar calls given at these crusades. Evangelism did take place, but by and large among nominal Christians. On the other hand, the very fact that they were at an evangelistic meeting could very well indicate that they were already on the way and the meeting merely nudged them into the Kingdom.

At the same time I noticed that a sizable number of those attending such meetings were in fact Bible-toting sermon-tasters. They were already committed Christians, some of whom from time to time would respond to altar calls out of a sense of having grown cold in their love for the Lord. No doubt there is value in such a revival of faith and zeal, but the fact still is that we are not reaching the unreached. We hold “outreach” meetings that are essentially a type of church service with special music and a special speaker. It is more a case of attempting to “in-drag.” While Jesus had said, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” Christians seemed to be saying, “Come to our meeting if you wish to hear about Jesus.”

Since becoming a pastor I have observed another form of this business of evangelising the already evangelised. Churches that claim an evangelical identity are notorious for poaching on mainline churches, and sheep-stealing from them.

No doubt many of those who are drawn into evangelical churches find new life in Christ in their new churches. On the other hand, some who find new life in their old churches are drawn away by persuading them that they need good Bible teaching or good fellowship even when there is evangelical preaching in the old church. But if all those who find life desert their so-called dead churches, how will life ever come to those who remain in deadness?

While in college, I went with a team from the church to engage in “street preaching” among the pavement dwellers at Moore Market in Madras. I was asked to preach I spoke in English and was translated into Tamil. This and the fact that I spoke to pavement dwellers who lived in dire straits, made me feel terribly out of place. Some (though not pavement dwellers), on other occasions had come to the Lord through this effort. But to me it seemed like an excursion. ! did not go again until I had gone to seminary and was back in Madras on vacation. I joined the street preachers again and discovered that my feelings remained the same about street preaching. I never went again.

In seminary, students used to go for outreach. Some were assigned to village evangelism. I joined one such team once. Most in the team did not know the local language and could only clap during the singing. One person preached in much the same way as he would in a church situation and then they returned to the campus. Once again I felt that village evangelism was only an excursion. I thought also that it was a manifestation of ritual legalism in the matter of fulfilling Christ’s mandate to preach the Gospel. No thought was given to communicating efficiently. Jargon, that only Christians could understand, was used.

The Absent Audience

We do have some inklings of not achieving evangelisation. However, we are prone to think that all that is needed is increasing the tempo of our activities or aping every innovative method that has succeeded elsewhere in the world—especially what has been bred in America, that land of commercially successful Christianity. But we never seem to have any question about the effectiveness of our methods. We refuse to recognise that our efforts do not merely fail to touch the unevangelised, but that we do not even have an audience of the unevangelised.

The problem is not one of irrelevance. It is not that “man has come of age” and that the world has become secularised, so that for the sake of relevance what we need is a “secular religion.” Lenny Bruce, that iconoclast of establishmentarianism once said, “The people are leaving the Church and going back to God.” It has not been God or “God – talk” that people have rejected, but institutionalised religion. The problem is not of not being understood; but of not being heard at all.

While claims have been made by various organisations for the success of their methods, there is not a corresponding increase in the number of Christ’s disciples. The methods are not as productive as one would expect. The results are not proportionate to the efforts. In my opinion, the root problem is that of not touching the unevangelised. The Gospel is preached, but in a vacuum. There is no one listening.

Confessions

Before our evangelistic efforts can be made effective, there must be an admission that our traditional methods are not making any headway. No doubt some are coming to Christ even through these methods; but if the efficiency is not increased, the population growth will only outstrip the evangelisation of the nation.

As Christians we must give up the numbers game. We are not marketing a brand of toothpaste. If we were, we could afford to engage in cut-throat competition. We are to present Christ. It is the growth of His Kingdom we are to seek, not the growth of our own little kingdoms. If we gave up the numbers game, we could co-operate in our missional task. When the mission of Christ gains importance, Christian unity will gain importance. The Ecumenical Movement came into being, not for the sake of ecumenicity, but because of a desire to remove the barriers to evangelisation. “It was from the mission field that the demand for Christian unity came. It was among missionaries that the denominational barriers were first overleaped, and it was the great World Missionary Conference of 1910 that created the modern movement for Christian unity” (Leslie Newbigin, Is Christ Divided? Eerdmans, 1961, p 22). Bishop Azariah of Dornakal said at the first World Conference of Faith and Order, “By our divisions we not only waste our resources, but also diminish our effectiveness for righteousness and purity in non-Christian lands” (J. Robert Nelson, One Lord, One Church, Lutterworth Press, U.K. 1958, p 61).

International conferences permit the quick and easy transmission of ideas internationally. While there definitely is a need to share insights and report on methods and achievements at a transnational level, I question the value of having so many international meets as we do in our time. The first problem with international gatherings is that a western model gets presented, one way or the other. Methodology inappropriate to the non-literate societies of the world is under consideration. We assume that what has succeeded in. one situation will succeed in another.

Secondly, international meets are just that. They are international and you collect at one more place. You meet more people. You feel like you are on a mountaintop. A good time is had by all. But nothing else happens, except you catch the “conference syndrome.” It is a disease.

In 1968 the World Congress on Evangelism was held in West Berlin. When it was over, an Asian Congress on Evangelism was held at Singapore, and an Indian Congress at Deolali. Indians who were at Berlin, attended at Singapore and Deolali, and that was all.

In 1974 the cycle was repeated after the World Conference on Evangelisation was held at Lausanne. There has been a continuing committee, however, and it has been disseminating a lot of ideas through its literature. But, otherwise, many of those who attended the Berlin-Singapore-Deolali congresses did nothing else than attend the Laussanne-Singapore-Deolali conferences. If the roll of those who went to Amsterdam to attend the first World Conference of ltinerant Evangelists is scrutinised, it will be seen to have a great many of the names of those who were at Berlin and Lausanne, though they were in settled ministries and were not the ones targeted by the conference. Many of them probably attended Lausanne II in Manila also. But, tell me, how has the mission of Christ made headway at the grassroots of human societies precisely because of conferences? Conferences never evangelised the world. They gain high visibility for evangelicals competing with ecumenicals. But that is all.

“This is the age of the conference and study group—people talking about what they know they should be doing. In a subtle way talking about something becomes an excuse for not doing it…We have a welter of reports, commissions, surveys, liaison bodies and so on. They have the appearance of progressive thinking and the readiness to face change, combined with the function of being delaying devices. They are the sacraments of current Christianity and its dilemma” (Gavin Reid, The Gagging of God, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1969, p. 91 .)

Fishermen’s Dilemma

Both evangelicals and ecumenicals will do well to heed a modern parable about waxing eloquent on the subject of evangelism, without getting down to it.

“Now it came to pass that a group existed who called themselves fishermen and organised themselves into a club. And lo, there were many fish in the water all around. And the fish were hungry. Month after month and year after year these fishermen gathered in their club to talk about their call to fish, the abundance of fish, and the methodology of fishing. Continually they did research for new and better ways to fish. They sponsored costly nationwide and worldwide conferences to discuss fishing to promote fishing and brainstorm on fishing. Large training centres were set up and courses were offered on the needs of fish, the culture of fish and where to fish. Those who taught had doctorates on fishiology, but had little experience in actual fishing. They just taught others how to fish. And those who were sent out to fish did exactly as those who sent them. They organised more clubs. They analysed the fish and discussed what was necessary in order to catch fish. But one thing they did not do. They did not fish. Imagine their hurt when one day a person suggested that those who don’t catch fish are not really fishermen. By definition, a fisherman is one who catches fish. Some of them began to advocate change and renewal. But soon they found out that a change of mind and tradition is no easy matter. Indeed it is downright painful and threatening” (World Evangelization, Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, January- February 1988, p .36). .

When the history of our generation is written up, we will be remembered for our conferences where we passed many emphatic resolutions and then passed some more resolutions. We have resolved many things by mere resolution. But, honestly, who listens to the resolutions of international gatherings? Does any nation listen to the United Nations Organisation, unless it is nationally convenient and advantageous? It is definite that those who do not attend conferences remain untouched by them. They are not listening.

Incidental Evangelism

In contrast, the Primitive Church never lacked an audience. They did not shout from the roof tops merely hoping that someone out there would be listening. They proclaimed the Gospel because they had an audience of unevangelised people. Yet unlike us they did not engage in skirmishing in enemy territory and blitzing the lost with the Gospel. Their efforts were not like bolts “out of the blue.” Evangelism was not forced or unnatural. Their methodology developed out of the situations they found themselves in. Their evangelism was incidental to their situations.

Peter did not begin to preach as soon as the Holy Spirit came on him on the day of Pentecost, but he preached because the people who gathered asked for an explanation for the peculiar behaviour of Christians (Acts 2:7-13). Peter and John began to preach at the Gate Beautiful because the people wanted to know how the man who was born lame was suddenly walking (3:9-11). It would not be improbable to assume that preaching was initiated again by people wanting to know how Peter and John were freed from prison while the Sanhedrin was still deliberating about how they were to be dealt with (5:25). Philip was heard because of the miraculous happenings in Samaria (8:6). The Gospel was thus the answer, for questions that were actually asked, unlike the Church today having answers to questions that no one asks.

It is no wonder then that their audiences were responsive. In fact, on the day of Pentecost, even before Peter could give an “altar call” they asked to be told what they needed to do (2:37). The Philippian jailer asked to know what he must do to be saved. One wonders if the altar call is also not a forced thing. The fact that “decisions” are successfully gathered by this method does not in itself indicate that it necessarily has biblical warrant. Further, by and large the decisions are made by those from a nominal Christian background, so that the effectiveness of the method is limited, in India at least, to the “churched.”

Every instance of preaching recorded in the New Testament reveals itself to be a natural eventuality in the course of certain things happening to provoke questions that required answers. People just wanted to know what made the early Christians tick. The proclamation of the Gospel was simply the called for explanation. This is no mere inference. There is an actual scriptural statement of this principle. “In your hearts acknowledge Christ as the holy Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that is in you” (I Pet. 3:15).

Evangelism was not an activity that the Early Church engaged in compulsively with a sense of guilt. There was no feeling of being duty-bound to evangelise. Rather, it was incidental to their being Christian. They simply stirred things up by their presence forcing people to ask what possessed them. The world recognised them as remarkable and asked to know the secret. Their answer was simply that they were “witnesses of Christ”—that they were the exemplification of the Gospel and the power of the Risen Christ. His resurrection was all that they offered by way of explanation for the remarkable happenings (Acts 1:22; 3: 15; 5:32).

Materialism and Loss of Power

Today no one asks to know what possesses the followers of Christ. There is nothing remarkably different. We do not seem to be possessed by anything supernatural. We tell people that we are different. We tell them that we have experienced the power of Christ. But people have not noticed the difference to make them ask to know our secret.

Many Protestants tell the story of the pilgrim in St. Peter’s at Rome. The guide pointed to the splendid wealth of the cathedral and said, “The Church no longer needs to say like Peter, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’ To which the pilgrim replied, “True, but neither can the Church say as Peter did, ‘In the name of Jesus, rise up and walk’.” But the story is as much applicable to any institutionalised church, as to the Roman Catholic. It applies to Anglicans, Methodists and even Pentecostals. Money power has replaced spiritual power. Money power brings us a sense of self-sufficiency and removes the sense of dependence on God, at least up to the limits of what money can buy. All of today’s churches had small beginnings—except for state churches. For instance, the Methodist Church had its beginning as an outcast in the world of religion. But those were the days of its power. Today we have gained respectability and lost spiritual vitality.

The Primitive Church was characterised by lowliness and poverty (1 Cor. 1:20, 26-29). The Roman statesman Celsus could say disparagingly that the propagators of the Christian faith were commoners: smiths, wool dyers, cobblers and the like. But that was the day of power for the Church. It was precisely because of their weakness that they had recourse to the power of God (of II Cor. 12:5, 9, 10).

In his novel The Shoes of the Fisherman, Morris West says that the Church is losing its grip for reasons of its prosperity and respectability. “We’re not persecuted anymore. We pay our way. We can wear the faith like a Rotary badge—and with as little social consequence.”

Certainly, we have what Peter did not have. But it is equally certain that the Church can no longer manifest the kind of power that could say to a lame man, “Rise up and walk!” Without the incidence of Christ’s power, how shall we evidence the risenness of Jesus our Lord? Jesus did say, “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go to my Father” (John 14:12). The Early Church gave evidence of His risenness and so they were heard and believed (Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:4; Acts 3:15, 16).

If He is risen, and if “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8), where is the evidence of His risenness? If His touch has still its ancient power, we should continue to see miracles.

In every local community of the faith, the presence and power of the Holy Spirit must become manifest. The gifts of the Holy Spirit would be manifest in community, even if no one is a special person. Each local community of faith as the Body of Christ would exercise the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul juxtaposed his teaching on the Holy Spirit’s gifts with the idea that the church is like a body—the Body of Jesus Christ (1 Cor.12). That means that each local community of believers should manifest all the gifts as a matter of wholeness of the body. There cannot be just one part (or some parts) in a body. If there is only one part (or some parts) how could it be a body? (cf. 1 Cor. 12: 17-20). When all the gifts are present in every local body of believers, it will not be all mouth and no healing hands.

The power is returning to local bodies of Christians who are opening themselves to the fullness of the Holy Spirit. In the Charismatic Movement the wind of the Holy Spirit is blowing through the Church. There is a need to place ourselves in the path of that wind, and let the Spirit blow away our hidebound traditions and rituals and bring the freshness of God’s redemptive presence and creative power.

The Prepared People

Another aspect of the incidental manner in which the Early Church engaged in evangelism is that of their going “the synagogue route.” The evangelists of the New Testament period went with their message to the gatherings of the Jews (Acts 13:5, 14). Even after declaring himself to be an apostle of the Gentiles this continued to be Paul’s modus operandi (14: 1; 17:1-2). The Jewish people were a prepared people. They had the revelation of God. The Gospel was preached in that context of preparedness.

The same principle of proclaiming the good news in a prepared situation is seen in the case of Paul preaching at Athens. His preaching fitted the context. It was not strange in that much, because it was drawn from the local cultural setting, though he did not reduce the distinctiveness of Christianity to accommodate and assimilate Gentile beliefs for the sake of facilitating easy conversions (17:22-32).

This points to the need for preparing the ground to receive the seed of the Gospel. In the matter of evangelism, one of the lessons of the parable of the four kinds of soil (Matt. 13:19-22) must surely be that of the necessity of ensuring that the ground is dug and weeded to guarantee good growth for the seed. This calls for pre-evangelism; for cultivating personal contacts and for an infectious Christian presence. One does not catch an infection in a sterile atmosphere. Neither can the Christian faith be infectious if the unevangelised are thrust into situations that have not been infected with the Christian presence.

Sandwiched between two sections of Paul’s thoughts on the gifts of the Holy Spirit is what he described as “the most excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:31). He went on to talk of love as the essential in being Christian. Elsewhere he does say that “the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6). Nothing else matters in being a Christian, as much as practising love. This essential is not unconnected with the Spirit. It is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and it is essential that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not divorced from love (1 Cor. 13:1-3).

“See how they love one another,” was how the Early Church was described by a watching world. That was winsome Christianity. People became Christian to be part of this community. It was a colony of heaven. It was the Kingdom of God come to earth. It was a community of faith and love.

Witnessing Communities

There will be no end to the proliferation of plans and methods of evangelism. But it is not a sophisticated method, a steady supply of finances or highly trained professionals that we need. We need people who will live in love and give credibility to the way of Jesus and demonstrate in their lives that He is alive in all His power. In the final analysis it is not newer methods and more money we need as much as people. The task of evangelism remains largely untouched, due to the lack of witnessing communities placed strategically.

When I travel by train, I am troubled by the absence of a church spire on the skyline (except in highly urban situations), while the roofs of temples and the minars of mosques are observable in the most obscure village. I know that church spires do not always mark the location of churches. There are churches that meet in homes. I wish that were true in the villages in India. But the fact is that there is in fact no witnessing community of our faith in most Indian villages. There is no Christian presence.

The one desperate need of the moment is the establishment of Christian communities in the remote villages of our country. There needs to be a demonstration of the way of Christ and a model of the Kingdom of Christ. Only a community of the faith will serve the purpose. In the context of development Ron Sider, the author of Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, has said “I want to suggest that the Church’s unique contribution to development is the people of God…a visible model now of what the corning kingdom will be like….” He then went on to reflect on the Pauline instruction that the abundance enjoyed by one segment of Christians should be shared with other Christians in need, up to the point of there being a levelling of resources, “that there may be equality” (2 Cor. 8: 13,14). Sider said, “If the worldwide Body of Christ would have the courage to implement that Pauline principle today, we would so startle the world, dangerously divided as it is between rich and poor, that we would probably precipitate the largest movement of conversion in the history of Christianity. At the very least we would be able to incarnate a new model of economic sharing so desperately needed in our global village. We need new visible models of development and sharing in every corner of the world…Christian development agencies should work more consciously and explicitly than in the past with and through local Christian communities in developing countries…The goal of Christian development agencies then would be the nurturing and empowering of Christian communities where all relationships, including economic ones, are so transformed that they present a new model of sharing and development which would be a witness to those around them…A new model of development would be lived out before the eyes of the community’s neighbours” (“God and the Poor” in The Minislly of Development in Evangelical Perspective, edited by Robert Lincoln Hancock, William Carey Library, Pasadena, California, 1979, pp . 55-56) .

House Churches

Where there are Christians, people experience, not their presence, but their withdrawal. Almost every locality in an Indian city would have a temple and a mosque, but churches are not found in every locality where Christians are resident. Every Sunday all over India, Christians leave their residential localities and gather for worship in a building in another locality. As a result, they have no lines of communication with the societies around them. Their residential localities are left without a witness, and, in the place where they gather, they are unable to meaningfully bear witness to Christ.

A return to “house churches,” as in the New Testament period, would restore contact with the human societies in our places of residence. When Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, He said that a time was coming when true worshippers would not be so concerned with holy places, but with worship that is spiritual (John 4:21-24). That time came when the Early Church did not erect holy places such as temples and cathedrals, but worshipped in their homes (Acts 2:46-47). The phenomenal growth of that early period must in part be attributed to the community life of Christians being a visible demonstration of the Gospel. “One of the most important methods of spreading the Gospel in antiquity was by the use of homes. It had positive advantages: comparatively small numbers involved made real interchange of views and informal discussion among the participants possible…the sheer informality and relaxed atmosphere of the home, not to mention the hospitality which must often have gone with it, all helped to make this form of evangelism particularly successful” (Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, p. 208) .

Green cites Richard Baxter, the author of The Reformed Pastor, who after years of “faithful preaching” turning to house meetings observed, “…I find more outward signs of success with most that do come than from all my public preaching to them” (p 218 f).

When the Methodist awakening swept through England, it was observed that the majority of the conversions occurred in the class meetings rather than the preaching services.

Gavin Reid, wrote, “…the best chances of any real communication taking place are where there are still meaningful communities. This in turn boils down to contacts within the family, the immediate neighbourhood, the place of work, and the leisure in-groups.” Reid feels that it is therefore disastrous to tie up the membership of a church in church activities. “They are often so busy talking about the gospel among themselves and rejoicing in it, that they have little time or opportunity left to go out and proclaim it to others (The Gagging of God, p.25).

In his book Open House, John Tanburn analyses New Testament Church practice and chronicles the efforts of his own group to return to the house church model as described in the New Testament. He feels that there is an urgent need for a revaluation of local church structures. “…The corporate life of the church was an integral part of its proclamation. God’s ability to reconcile sinners to Himself was to be shown by His power to reconcile sinners to each other. The internal nature and quality of the Church’s life and fellowship, the way its members cared and took responsibility for each other, was what made the gospel compelling….” (Falcon Books, London, 1970, p.28) .

Tanburn quotes from Julian Charley’s article “The Church in Industrial Areas”. The evangelical stress on the mission of the church can easily cause compassionate care to become a mere appendage. Charley argues that caring for the mentally retarded or the progressively senile is often felt to be wasted time because it offers no platform for direct evangelism, and asked the reason for evangelicals having a much better record in youth work than in ministry to the elderly.

According to Tanburn, the reason is that we are most interested in those forms of evangelism that offer a prospect of new members for our churches, whereas true evangelism, arising from a genuine concern to carry the Gospel to people where they are for their own sake, will arise naturally in a church that is taught aright about the meaning of the Gospel and about its own internal dynamics. Tanburn quotes a study: “We contend that if there were less evangelism and more concern that the corporate life of the local church should be of New Testament standard, evangelism would take care of itself” (pp. 43-44).

That was how it happened in Andhra Pradesh. “Through house churches, we demonstrate Christianity in the midst of the non-Christian community. Each new house exposes a new set of intimates and relatives. In Andhra, when any religious programme goes on in the neighbourhood, crowds are certain to attend it…these crowds will be composed of all kinds of persons” (B.V. Subamma, New Patterns for Discipling Hindus, p .3).

The Incarnated Christ

The witness of a house church depends on its people. It is not the witnessing of professionals and paid workers. That was how it was in the Early Church. “Everyone thought of himself as a disciple and a witness. All were not platform speakers, but all were called to share their faith. Peter could preach only because there were a hundred and twenty people possessed by the Holy spirit who provided him with an occasion to explain things to the curious. When seven men were chosen for menial service, they performed their tasks, but did not neglect witnessing, even though they were not ordained as preachers (Acts 6:2-3 with 6:8, 10; 8:5-6). While the Apostles went underground at Jerusalem in the face of opposition, the rank and file among Christians, who were dispersed by the persecution, were the ones who spread the Gospel during that period (8:1,4).

The Early Church definitely had the notion that all the saints were to be equally engaged in doing Christ’s work. Paul’s concern was not only that his children in the faith should know Christ better (Eph. 1:17), nor simply that Christ may dwell in their hearts (3: 17), but that they should be prepared for works of service that build the body of Christ (4: 12). Paul charged Timothy to teach others to teach yet others (2 Tim. 2:2). And we also have the testimony of Celsus that Christian propagators were simple, ordinary people.

Today we have the notion that there are “full-time workers” and “part-time workers.” The moment we accept those categories we admit the possibility that such a creature as a “no-time Christian” could also exist. When stated that way we find the idea obnoxious, but in practice our institutional churches allow the existence of Christians who have no time for witnessing to their faith in Christ.

Until we stop projecting big names as the promoters of the Gospel, and let Christ be seen in the ordinariness of Christians, we shall not draw all men. It is Christ who must draw them, not His big time agents, who without exception, intentionally or unintentionally, draw attention to themselves and their glamour.

Elaborate and costly programmes, and professionals doing a job are not going to win this country for Christ. In the final analysis, evangelism is not a programme, but a way of life involving a community acting as a counter-culture.

Commenting on the current fascination with mass media communications, Professor James Engel, formerly of Wheaton Graduate School, Illinois, USA, said, “Some leaders of the missionary and evangelistic movements of our time seem to imply that we can produce significant church growth and the evangelisation of the world in our generation simply by a faithful use of such methods.” Engel was of the opinion that by these methods no significant impact had been made on the unevangelised world. He said, “…evangelistic successes and church growth must be outcomes, not goals…building of a church that will function as salt and light in the world must be the key to world evangelisation…The message of the Gospel is not an abstraction. Christ becomes known in the best sense as He is incarnated in His Church and people. The ammunition is the incarnated Christ” (“Great Commission or Great Commotion” Christianity Today, April 20, 1984, p. 52) From rural to urban situations the basic need is for people of God to embody the Gospel of Christ, and be the Kingdom of God now.

Even considering the failure of our service institutions to lead people to Christ, it becomes clear that our basic lack is a vital Christian presence. Mission hospitals in rural India remain unmanned because Christian doctors are unavailable to work in them though many availed of sponsorship in Christian medical colleges by claiming to have a desire to serve God, the Church and the poor. Similarly, in our educational institutions, the overwhelming majority of staff and students belong to other communities. It is precisely because we are a minority in our own institutions that we have had to give up our identity. For a Christian institution it is the community of faith that gives it its character.

Presence Is Essential

All over the world the Spirit is moving. There are tremendous movements towards Christ taking place. But the Church in India is not making a similar impact in India. We are not lacking in highly trained professionals. We employ methods successful elsewhere. We do not lack money, at least a great deal is being spent on the disproportionately high salaries and excessive perks of mission executives, property maintenance and the legal expenses of a community that is torn by selfishness, jealousies and in-fighting.

Look at it from any angle. The real problem is a deformed or deficient community of believers that is failing in providing a Christian presence. When evangelism is incidental, normal and as continuous as the way of life of a community, the people of India will be able to see the incidence of Christ in the Christian presence. The infectiousness of Christianity depends on it.

THE CHRISTIAN CONTRIBUTION TO INDIA

When a community is less than 3% of the entire population, a Devi Lal can arrogantly say that the members of this community should depart from the land of their birth to live in exile among others who share their faith. But if the same Devi Lal were to enforce the exodus of Christians, he would discover that he had only cut off his nose to spite his face. If every single Christian was banished from India, most of the educational, medical and social work in the country would collapse. And even then he would not have eradicated Christian influence in India. For that, he would have to turn the clock back

Thank God that the tantrums of a mortal politician cannot undo the good that has already been done. Thank God that minds that have been enlightened cannot be sent back into darkness. Thank God that bodies that have been healed by medicine and surgery cannot now be unhealed. Thank God that women saved from sati and infants saved from being sacrificed in the Ganges bloomed and blossomed while these practices largely withered away simply because the Gospel was preached by missionaries and the Christian ethic legislated by Christians in the British House of Commons.

Missionary Spirit

The vocabulary of India today includes the terms “missionary spirit and zeal.” That is an acknowledgement and a tribute to the impact of the Christian presence in India. There have been those who have denigrated the contribution of Christian missionaries by identifying their efforts as having consisted of softening the people of India for an invasion by British imperialism and traders. But missionaries were never the agents for imperial or commercial ventures. In fact, history bears record that the East India Company was bitterly opposed to the entry of the missionaries in India. The mute testimony of the graves of many of the pioneering missionaries and their families who lie buried throughout India witness to the fact that they served no self-interest. They paid a heavy price to be here.

There was, of course, the connection between Christian missionaries and British Raj. It was not so much the connection of patronage as that of their access to the makers of law. As British subjects they would be heard in the British Parliament. They made the best use of the hearing they had and agitated for reform. Evangelicals like William Wilberforce took up their cry and kept up the pressure in the House of Commons until reforms came. That advantage explains their social impact on the sub-continent, but it brought them no personal benefits.

When no one else cared for the low caste person and the untouchable, Christian missionaries did. In 1822, missionaries belonging to the Church Missionary Society and the London Missionary Society began to teach the equality of castes. There was a concern that people of high caste would object to their boys being associated with those of lower caste, but they did not desist from carrying out their belief by opening up their schools to all. In 1833, the Anglican Bishop Daniel Wilson issued a pastoral letter when confronted by the prevalence of caste distinctions among South Indian Christians.

The mass conversions in North India from the 1800s to the first part of this century were an acknowledgement that people of low caste viewed the Christian faith as affording them social upliftment. Louis D’Silva in his book The Christian Community And The National Mainstream (page 50) quotes an unnamed non­Christian leader: “The heroism of raising the low from the slough of degradation and debasement was an element unknown to ancient India. The action of the missionary was an entirely original idea.”

Similarly, uplift and welfare came to the tribals, the forgotten people of India, primarily and largely through the efforts of Christian missionaries. That is why most tribes in the North Eastern region are predominantly Christian, and why there is a high percentage of Christians among many other tribes in other parts of the country. Tribes that lived in fear of evil spirits have been liberated. Head-hunting tribes have been converted to peace-lovers. While the government enacted a Criminal Tribes Act in 1871 to protect the general public from tribes that practised dacoity, it took Salvation Army workers living among them to humanise them by putting them “under the spell of kindness and the magic of Christian love”. As Dr. Venkatta Rao, Professor Emeritus of Gauhati University has said, “The Christian missionaries helped the tribals to proceed from savagery to modernity and thereby took off a heavy load from the shoulders of the Government of India.”

Abolition of Sati

It was William Carey’s concern at the practice by some parents of sacrificing their babies to the gods in the Ganges that led to outlawing the practice. Similarly, the crusade against sati began when Wilberforce made a speech in the British Parliament based on statistics compiled by an Anglican chaplain’s analysis of reports by the Serampore missionaries. That was in 1813. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, enlightened by Christian teaching and associations, began his agitation against this cruel custom only in 1818. Another Evangelical, Fowell Buxton, joined in the crusade in 1821. The Society for Promoting the Abolition of Human Sacrifices in India was formed. Finally, in 1829 Lord William Bentick banned sati in the Bengal Presidency, and Madras and Bombay followed suit.

During their fight against sati Christian missionaries became aware of the downtrodden state and sufferings of Indian women. They began to oppose the purdah system; and child marriage. They were convinced more than ever before that only education in Christian values and ethics would impel Indians to seek reform for themselves. There had been earlier attempts by Europeans to initiate an European-style education for Indian children, but it was almost totally the work of missionaries.

Education in India

In 1813, Christians in Britain prevailed on the British Parliament to allot Rs. 100,000 from East India Company revenue. But the missionary effort surpassed the government’s. Later, the Evangelical party in England, of which Wilberforce and Zachary Macaulay were members, was instrumental in getting the East India company to designate a sum of Rs. 100,000 annually for the revival of literature and the study of science, and thus began an official system of education in India. Alexander Duff’s educational work in Calcutta, John Anderson’s founding of the Madras Christian College, and Steven Hislop’s College in Nagpur are all memorials to the missionary contribution to educational excellence in India.

The education of girls began in 1824 as a result of missionary concern at the plight of Indian women. The premier institution for women’s higher education in all Asia is the Isabella Thoburn College in Lucknow, named after the Methodist missionary who founded it. The first medical school for women was founded by Ida Scudder in 1918 at Vellore, and St. Christopher’s at Madras is the first training college for women (1923). Dr. (Mrs) Muthulakshmi Reddy, President of All India Women’s Conference, said in 1913: “I honestly believe that missionaries have done more for women’s education in this country than government itself. The women population of this country has been placed under a deep debt of gratitude to the several missionary agencies for their valuable contribution to the educational uplift of Indian women…In the past the Christian missionaries were the only agencies in that field…Had it not been for these noble bands of Christian women teachers, who are the products of missionary training schools, even this advancement in the education of the Indian women would not have been possible….”

Notable in the field of women’s upliftment is the work of Pandita Ramabai who started her home with the sole aim of sheltering and educating child widows. Soon destitute girls and women who were not widows were also admitted to her home. Her work was phenomenal. More so, when it is observed as the work of an Indian woman, in a land of timid women. The genuine admiration for this daughter of India is evidenced by the number of books written about her. At last count, some hundred and twenty books had been written by Hindus and Christians.

Even today the largest and most significant contribution made by the Christian community is in the field of education. Everybody’s first preference is for a Christian mission school or college for their children’s education. Even the fraudulent efforts of some non-Christians in running schools with the name of Christian saints bear mute testimony to the standing of Christian institutions!

Mission Hospitals

Health services run by Christians are their next most valued service. The Christian Medical Colleges and Hospitals in Vellore and Ludhiana are world renowned for their excellence. But there are several other Christian mission hospitals, clinics and dispensaries that form a network that serves the rural poor as well as the urbanite. As with Christian educational institutions, people prefer the treatment and health care given at mission hospitals.

Louis D’Silva, writing in 1985 said that “it may be noted, more leprosy work is done by the Christian community than by the Government.” As against the Government’s 71 hospitals, there were only 50 Christian hospitals. But the bed-strength of Christian hospitals was 8,401 outstripping the Government’s 7,799. These statistics are only for hospital work and do not include the vast amount of work done by Christian social service organisations, nor do they include nutritional and medical care in asylums, mobile clinics and rehabilitation centres.

Mother Teresa’s efforts are admired by modern India and the world. The self-less dedication and the simplicity of her Order have caught the imagination of all. Hostels, orphanages, homes for the destitute and the aged, and rehabilitation of the handicapped are some of the areas in which Christians render service disproportionate to their numbers in India.

Pioneers in Development

No recounting of such efforts would be complete without special reference to the unique contribution of William Carey, the Father of the modern missionary movement. He masterminded the first complete or partial translation of the Bible in 40 languages and dialects of India, China and Central Asia, contributing to the literature of these languages. Because he made his own ink and paper, he was also one of the pioneers in the paper industry and printing. The first people’s savings bank in the country came into being by his efforts. The first translation of Ramayan and Mahabharat was his effort.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru recognised the pioneering work and tremendous contribution of Christian missionaries. He wrote about the Baptist Mission at Serampore in The Discovery of India.

It is the Christian presence that has even given birth to Hindu reform movements such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s Brahmo Samaj. Swami Dayanand’s Arya Samaj, for all its avowed “back to the Vedas” stance, was a response to the march of Christianity. It was to stop conversions that reform became imperative. The Ramkrishna Mission taking its cue from the missionary concerns of Christians has engaged in humanitarian work, breaking with orthodox Hinduism, which did not allow a sanyasi to engage in works of physical mercy.

The Independence Movement

But there is no single individual who has drawn more inspiration from the Gospel of Christ than the Father of the Nation. While ahimsa is taught only as a passive element of life in Hinduism, it was his reading of the Sermon on the Mount and Leo Tolstoy’s interpretation of the concept of non-resistance that led to Gandhi’s conception of ahimsa as an active element. His opposition to untouchability “gathered momentum owing to the fierce attack from Christian sources on this evil.” Of his aversion to child marriage he said, “My fierce hatred of child marriage, I gladly say is due to Christian influence.” In that much, some of the Gandhian thoughts are Christian contributions.

Patterned as it is after western democracies, which in turn have been influenced by Christian values and ethics, even The Constitution of India may be identified as, in part, a Christian contribution. The Constitution enshrines the Christian notion of all men being created equal and denies all ideas of inequalities. L.S.S. O’Malley wrote in Modem India And The West, “Although the influence of modern India on the West has been comparatively slight, Western civilisation has made a deep impression on the life of India, political , social, religious, economic and cultural.” The permanent content of that civilisation he identified as “the Christian ethic, the rule of law and the conquest of nature by science.” He then said, “The first has been introduced into India by the diffusion of Christian thought and a system of government embodying Christian principles. The rule of law, which is itself infused by the Christian ethic, has been established, and India has learnt that the weak have rights as well as the strong, that arbitrary force must give way to even justice, and that government is bound by law as much as the private citizen. Law has become the basis of civilisation to an extent to which there is no parallel in the previous history of India.”

How can we forget the contribution of Narayan Vaman Tilak, the noble Christian poet-patriot of Maharashtra? He inspired thousands to adopt “constitutional agitation” in seeking Swaraj. He was a member of the Home Rule League founded by Kaka Joseph Baptista and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The two Tilaks were contemporaries. Because of temperamental differences, Bal Gangadhar was called “Tilak, the lion” and Narayan Vaman was called “Tilak, the lamb”. Narayan Vaman Tilak won the confidence of the Christian community and urged it to walk in the path of Indian nationalism.

I wonder if Devi Lal would want to turn the clock back on all that. I also wonder if he butters his bread with Amul butter. The next time he reaches for just a little Amul butter, he should acknowledge that the vision of a person with a Christian background and upbringing lies behind the making of Amul butter. Varghese Kurian not only buttered his bread for him, but also gave a fair deal to many through his co-operative at Anand, Gujarat, so that they could have bread to eat. And the vision goes on, as also all the other visions of seeing people in India educated, healed and uplifted, for Christians have a mission to give to their people.

MISSIONARY SPIRIT, VISION AND NEW WINE

For the Church in India, the “missionary era” is coming to an end. The Church having come of age, nationals have been taking over the controls within the institutional structures of the Church. The process is being further speeded up by the Government’s refusal of visas to new missionaries, though such a discrimination is against the touted constitutional secularism of India. While the period of white missionaries is coming to an end, the institutions they founded are still with us. In the past, these institutions were identified by the general public as “mission schools,” “mission colleges” and “mission hospitals.” Even when the white personnel have long since departed from some institutions, that identification of being mission institutions has lingered on. That is not only a matter of identity, but it is indicative of the expectations of people in regard to our institutions. For those yearnings of our people, is there a fulfilment? Do our institutions still retain the missionary character?

Missionary Spirit

To answer those questions we must first determine what it was that made them mission institutions once. The fact that a school or college was founded or manned by a white person was not in itself what made an institution a mission institution. The white presence had nothing to do with it for the obvious reason that not all situations with a white presence are mission institutions. These institutions were characterised by what has been called a “missionary spirit” and it was this spirit that made them mission institutions.

The missionary spirit was manifested firstly in the missionary’s sense of being a servant of Jesus Christ. It was no whim or fancy that he or she served. He had a mandate from the Lord: that of discipling nations (Matt. 28 : 19-20). All his activity was thus a case of engaging in the mission of Christ. He was an avowed servant of Jesus, first and last. This notion of servanthood to the Lord Jesus is certainly missing among the personnel of our institutions.

Secondly, the missionary spirit was one of giving. This spirit is essential to all mission. It began with God. He “so loved the world that He gave” (John 3: 16). Christian mission is simply an extension of that movement that originated in God. When Jesus commissioned His disciples, He said to them, “Freely you have received, freely give” (Matt. 10:8). So the missionary gave. He did that through his service institutions teaching the untaught, healing the sick, and preaching the Gospel of Christ to the unenlightened.

At the closing of the missionary era, a question that the Church must face is whether mission institutions of learning and healing can continue as such? If the matter is simply to assess whether the institutional machinery is capable of functioning, the answer is “yes,” because it is not essential that there should be a white presence. It is necessary though to possess the spirit that I have been describing as a “missionary spirit.” Thus while mission institutions are physically capable of continuing as such, the fact that they do not may be attributed to a loss of the missionary spirit. Churchmen need to probe the causes of the erosion of this spirit.

Institutionalisation of Vision

Missionaries were visionaries. They dreamed of establishing Christ’s Kingdom. In order to give their vision shape and tangibility, they institutionalised their vision. The service institutions they established gave their vision substance. They needed the institutions for this purpose, but the institutionalisation of vision gives rise to a problem—the institutionalisation itself

Jesus referred to the problem of institutionalisation when He talked of new wine and wineskins. He said, “Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved” (Matt. 9:17). The wine of that time was just grape juice that was allowed to ferment. During fermentation there is formation of gases. Since old wineskins would lack elasticity they would not be able to expand to accommodate the gas formed during fermentation. While old wineskins are unsuitable for storage of new wine, it needs to be noted however that wine did need wineskins. Similarly, visions need to be channelled through the structures of institutions. However, just as the importance of wineskins is derived from the wine they contained and not found in themselves, institutions derive their importance from the visions that started them.

Another observation that can be made about grape juice is that when there is no more grape sugar left, no more fermentation takes place. It is then old wine. The wine making of ancient times was not such as to enable the wine to be kept indefinitely, as it would go bad. Thus the wine had to be consumed before that happened. That meant that wineskins always outlasted the wine. Since wine itself was consumable, there was a need to constantly go in for new wine and consequently new wineskins for the new wine. The Church too needs to get a fresh supply of new wine from the Divine Winemaker.

Newness in Christ

God is the maker of new wine. The God of the Bible is the God of newness. He gives His people a new song to sing (Psa. 40:3). He declares the arrival of the new (Isa. 42:9); in fact He initiates what is new (Isa. 43:19) recreating a completely new heaven and new earth (Isa. 65:17). He renews His people giving them new hearts and endowing them with a new spirit (Eze. 11:19). This newness is found in Christ (2 Cor. 5: 17) who opened a “new and living way” for people to enter into fellowship with God (Heb. 10:20). While we are already new creatures in Christ, we still look for a new heaven and a new earth (2 Pet. 3 : 13) because our hope is in the God who says “Behold I make all thing new!” (Rev. 21:5). Jesus is the new wine of the Gospel. It is on His blood that the New-Covenant is founded (Matt. 26:28). There is no other new wine than Jesus (of Gal. 1:6-9). So when we say that the Church needs a fresh supply of new wine, she should not forget that for her there are not many new wines, but only one. “The Church could present Christ, not an institution or a theology or a programme. The Church could present Jesus, not an antiquated and adulterated Christianity. But, of course, it doesn’t. It tries to brew a new wine instead of scrapping the old wineskins” (Howard Snyder, The Problem Of Wineskins, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, USA 1975, p. 22).

The trouble with many people is that there is a tendency to cling to the old because of its familiarity, and to try to pour the new into old moulds. “Every age knows the temptation to forget that the Gospel is ever new. We try to contain the new wine of the Gospel in old wineskins—outmoded traditions, obsolete philosophies, creaking institutions, old habits. But with time the old wineskins begin to bind the Gospel. Then they must burst, and the power of the Gospel pour forth once more. Many times this has happened in the history of the Church. Human nature wants to conserve, but the divine nature is to renew. It seems almost a law that things initially created to aid the Gospel eventually become obstacles—old wineskins. Then God has to destroy or abandon them so that the Gospel wine can renew men’s world once again” (Snyder, op cit., pp. 15-16).

The problem then with our institutional wineskins is that the vision gets institutionalised. It becomes old. With time, while ritual observances remain, the significance is lost sight of. There is a law about visions that has been ignored: they cannot be transferred. A person must have his or her own vision. No one can carry on work on another person’s vision. That is what has been happening in mission institutions that encapsulate a vision of some long ago visionary. But it cannot be done. There is biblical evidence to prove that vision cannot be transferred. Peter had a vision that enabled him to transcend cultural barriers (Acts 10:11-16). He tried to transfer his vision to Jewish Christians (Acts 11:2-3), but sacred history records that years later the first Church Council met to struggle with Judaising tendencies (Acts 15:5) and Paul had occasion to emphasise that “in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Ever since, the Church has tried to echo that and say there is no male nor female, no barbarian nor sophisticate, no white nor black, but somewhere along the line the Church forgot that the determining factor is the state of being “in Christ.” The modern Church has wanted to appear theologically sophisticated and therefore refuses to admit the existence of a category of persons who are “in Christ” because such an admission also infers that there is another category of persons who are “not in Christ.” Only those who do not wish to be sophisticated, would say like Sadhu Sundar Singh that he has known men and women who can be classified as “with and without Christ” (the title of one of the Sadhu’s books). Recognising such distinctions is of the essence.

Regaining Vision

It is because vision cannot be transferred that it is lost so often, and brings in a distortion in the character of our institutions. There was once a Pharaoh who knew Joseph to be a wise man who served Egypt well. During his time the Israelites were free and they prospered. But there came a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph and then the Israelites began to experience enslavement, abuse and harassment (Ex. 1:8-11). That still happens whenever the original vision is lost. Once there was a missionary spirit in our institutions and as people lose that spirit that looked to Jesus for inspiration and direction, our institutions become places of bondage where there are power-mongers who are bent on hurting people for there are new Pharaohs among us.

In the King James Version of the Bible, Proverbs 29:18 reads, “Where there is no vision the people perish.” That is an incorrect translation. In place of the word “perish” there should be the words “break loose” (New English Bible) or “cast off restraint” (Revised Standard Version and New International Version). Such a breaking loose happened at the foot of Mount Sinai. While Moses was up on the Mount, the people made themselves a golden calf, “broke loose” (Ex. 32:7-8) and had an orgy (v.6). Moses had contact with God, but they themselves had contact only with Moses and, with him gone, they were cast adrift. They had no personal encounter with God to hold them. Without a fresh vision, our mission institutions will break loose. Even though the translation is an incorrect one, the King James version is still correct in that the end product of a loss of vision is perishing. Without vision, our mission institutions will cease to be mission institutions.

The question is, where can we go for fresh vision? Amos spoke of a time of famine of hearing God’s Word (8: 11-12) because people had been rejecting God’s Word (7: 16). God closed down transmission of the revelation because it was rejected. Today’s loss of vision is similarly due to the negligence and rejection of the revealed Word of God. There are those who want none of God’s revelation like the Israelites who wished to have prophets who would tickle their ears, titillate their senses and say to them that there was no need to change themselves and that they could keep on being the way they were. “They say to the seers, ‘See no more visions!’ and to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!’”(Isa. 30: 10-11). Prophet after prophet was told to change their Word from the Lord or shut up (1 Chron. 18:7-27; Jer. 5:31; 11:21; Amos 2:12; 7:12-13; Micah 2:6). In fact, even after there had been a famine of God’s revelation through His prophets for some five hundred years, they still questioned Jesus about what human authorisation He had to say and do what He did (Matt. 21:23) and commanded His apostles to stop preaching in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:17; 5:28). Yet we are more fortunate than the Israelites. Though we have suffered a loss of vision it is not because God has stopped communicating. As Elizabeth Barrett Browning says, “Earth’s crammed with heaven and every common bush aflame with God, but only those who see take off their shoes. The rest sit around it and pluck black berries.” That is true. Stephen saw heaven opened and Jesus at God’s right hand, but others stoned him for his vision. On the road from Jerusalem to Damascus, Saul (later known as Paul) saw Jesus in a flash of light. He fell to the ground while his companions simply stood around. Jesus Himself, toward the end of His time on earth, prayed, “Father glorify Thy name,” and God said, “I have glorified it and will glorify it again .” Others stood around and said, “It was only thunder” (John 12:27-29).

Our loss of vision is due entirely to the fact that we have our spiritual eyes closed while “the lusts of the flesh and of the roving eye” (I John 2:16) have diverted us from giving in the missionary way. We now exist only for profit. We close down our village schools and stop doing charity in our mission hospitals because such activity is not financially viable . We have allowed the tempting sounds and dazzling sights of the alluring world of commerce to cloud our vision. As for God, His vision exists. His Word is there. The question is who has eyes to see and ears to hear? “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them'” (Matt. 13:13-15).

The vision that caught missionaries still exists. Only it cannot be caught from missionaries for visions are not transferable. There is a need to have one’s own vision of Jesus, without which men and women in power have a tendency to become abusive Pharaohs. When we catch the vision for ourselves, the vitality of new life will be restored to our institutions. The heady new wine of our visions might break up our age old institutions, introducing new forms and methods, but then wineskins are disposable and replaceable. The important thing is to get some new wine from the Divine Winemaker.

NOT WITHOUT MISSION

“I am proud that in the hundred years’ history of this college’s existence, none of our non-Christian students have been converted.” So spoke a principal who is touted by the college board for her Christian dedication.

For what purpose then does the Christian school or college exist? What Christian contribution do we make in the field of education?

The Discipline of the Methodist Church in Southern Asia, in its chapter on “Christian Education,” quotes the Great Commission of our Lord Jesus (“Go and make disciples of all”), while spelling out the purpose of Christian education (Supplement to 1965 edition, paragraph 1171). His charge was not that we engage in the task of organising a club of admirers and sympathisers, or be about the business of producing “products of mission schools.” The Church was commissioned to disciple the world and, if we are not in the field of education for this purpose, then we ought to quit the field or confess that we have disengaged from being Christians ourselves.

During the controversy over conversions generated by the “Freedom of Religions Bill” the contention of Christians was that the Indian Constitution guarantees Christians the right to practise our faith, and that for the Christian, practice involves propagation. Even otherwise, the right of propagation itself is assured separately in the Constitution.

For The Sake Of Practising

If our institutions are not run for the sake of practising our faith, why do we insist that we are operating under minority rights?

In this connection, E.D. Devadason makes some very significant comments in his book Christian Law In India. He writes: “It is certainly absurd to suggest that merely because the minority community has opened an institution ipso facto it is entitled to the constitutional guarantees. In order to invoke the constitutional guarantees, the institution should be designed to preserve cultural and religious tradition of the minorities. If in an institution the overwhelming part of the students and staff belong to a majority community and if the institution merely follows the curricula laid down by the appropriate authorities; it cannot claim to be a minority institution intended to preserve the culture and traditions of the minorities. In that case, it would appear to be only a device of the minority to take advantage of the provisions of the Constitution without any effort whatsoever to serve the authentic purpose for which the guarantee has been given. It will then be a misuse of the constitutional rights by the minority and is only an ingenious way of making use of the rights to establish and manage educational institutions without subjecting them to the restrictions that may be applicable to other educational institutions” (p.91f).

Implications

According to this analysis of the implications of the right of minorities to run institutions, the only Christian minority institutions in India are our theological colleges. All others are impostures on Indian society. The entire purpose of this fraudulent exercise is to be able to run institutions without being regulated by the government.

Nothing wrong with avoiding governmental interference, because the Indian bureaucracy, more than others of the species, has a way of entangling people and organisations in red tape that prevents functioning. But the question is, whether the service-motive is behind all our institutional work?

Once it cost the Church something to run its institutions of service. They were noted for their charitable work. No wonder, they were called “mission schools.” Today our institutions are not known as charitable institutions. We are not engaged in the task of salvaging the derelicts of our society. Today our services are largely for those who can pay for them. We run institutions at no cost to ourselves, but at profit. The profits may not necessarily be channelled to ordinary church work, but certainly afford the managerial class of Christians excessive perks.

Profit Motive

That the profit-motive reigns supreme may be seen from the fact that by allowing its staff to be mobilised for the holding of bank examinations on its premises on Sundays, a Christian college prevented its Christian staff from participation in the services of the local church. The staff no doubt opted for the duty. Who does not like income? But the point is that, instead of being instrumental in strengthening Christian character, the institution had served to undermine it. In effect it was the minority concern that was abandoned. The management has not been unhappy because, after all, the venture earned the college some money and nothing else matters as much. ·

The Onlooker (16-30 September 1979, p. 32) reported about happenings in the Holy Cross College of Trichy, Tamil Nadu, under the head “Minority Rights for Majority Profits.” The title is a give-away. The bag of tricks is comparable to those in Protestant institutions.

Next to profit, come prestige, and the power that prestige brings. Hundreds or thousands knock at our doors seeking schooling. People feel a desperate need for our agency and services. That is power. This power is ours because mission schools and colleges are reputed institutions that meet the highest educational standards—a matter of conformity to the prevailing norms. A reformer by that rule is a renegade, which is why educational reforms are talked about, but never implemented, because none of our schools is willing to reform at the expense of the state’s approval and suffer a loss of power.

Principles

Christian institutions were originally founded on missionary principles, but are now least concerned about a redemptive and reformative role in society, in spite of the fact that we are the trend-setters in education by virtue of our reputation. The primary interest in bringing education to the illiterate, the downtrodden, and the oppressed, has been given up; and increasingly, the concern now is to extend the facilities to the well-to-do, the well-placed and the ones with power in society, so that the ecclesiastical hierarchy will have that much of influence in the echelons of power.

The policy of admitting only “first class material” is a case in point. These are those who have been afforded learning opportunities that prepare them for school. The ones who fail to qualify are those whose parents could not afford them educational toys and picture books. Similarly, sending children with work to be completed at home is another way of continuing the denial of equal chances in learning. The child of uneducated parents, who cannot help him with his homework nor afford him private tuitions, is bound to fail in this system.

These are indirect results of a system that favours the “haves.” But there are even more blatant ways in which we ensure that we are “in” with the powerful. The authorities have also been known to thrust employment opportunities upon wives and grant admissions to children of government officials (or otherwise well-placed persons) in preference to the more needy and deserving of help. A total you­ scratch-my-back- I-scratch-yours exercise.

This refusal to be redemptive is an abandonment of a concern that was very specially the characteristic of the Christian minority community.

Who Benefits?

A question that must be considered is whether the profit and the power benefits the grass roots of the Christian community. The issue of Onlooker cited earlier, reporting about the happenings in the Muslim S.I.E.T. College, had made the point that a majority of the teachers who were adversely affected there were Muslim women. Similarly, it was Chrstians who were mainly affected in the Holy Cross College situation. Managements, irrespective of which community it is, have consistently acted against the members of the community itself.

The consistency is remarkable when you find the management arguing from both sides of the issue as it happened in one college. The university to which the college was affiliated had directed that in the absence of the principal, teachers be appointed in charge, by rotation according to seniority. It was argued that this infringed on the right of minorities to manage without interference. At the same time, a plea from some Christian teachers that a list of the Christian faculty members be drawn up according to seniority and that the senior-most Christian teacher be appointed the vice-principal was dismissed on the ground that it was not in accordance with the University Statutes.

Such deviousness of the managements cannot be reviewed by the government because it would be deemed a violation of the right of minorities to manage their institutions. The question is, can the management get away with injustice simply because it happened in the course of managing the institution? Is a management permitted to disqualify a member of the minority community from holding office, not on the basis of a lack of qualifications or experience, but on the intangible grounds of an assumed disloyalty?

(Incidentally, by the same token, the loyalty of many of our heads of institutions must be questioned in view of their lack of involvement in the local churches, both in terms of participation as well as giving. Perhaps if the area bishop, who also happens to be their board’s chairman, was the pastor, there would be a difference).

To claim a totally arbitrary right to appoint as the management fancies is to have ended up using the minority right against the minority community itself. All in the name of the interests of the minority!

Minority Character

Yet it is only the members of the community itself that can help an institution to maintain its minority character. Disenchanting the members of the community is the surest way of denuding our institutions of their minority character. Devadason, as cited earlier, makes the point that an institution, where the overwhelming number of students and staff belong to the majority community, cannot have a minority character. He goes on to say that in each state some institutions should be chosen to be subject to the provisions of minority rights.

The strength of Christians, both of staff and students, should be at least 50% (p.92. Note: He further suggests that there needs to be a theological faculty). A high percentage of Christian staff is necessary for the preservation and strengthening of Christian character and purpose. It is because we are a minority in our own institutions that we have had to silence the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The community of the faith is what gives an institution its minority character, not the management. On the other hand, managements have consistently abdicated from maintaining the peculiar minority character. Their concern has been only profit and power. For profit and power hang people and principles? Not if we wish to maintain our distinctiveness.

The conclusion then is that, if Devadason is to be given credence, our institutions have the minority right to be unashamedly declaring the faith with a view to discipling people and favouring the common people who constitute the community of our faith. Whenever we fail in this, we have ceased to have a truly minority character.

V

ETHICS

WANTED: INCORRUPTIBLE CHRISTIANS

There was a time when one would hear apocryphal stories of Nehru or some other renowned statesman preferring a particular Christian for a sensitive job, because a Christian could be trusted or was incorruptible. I believe there was some truth in those stories. But today very rarely does one hear such stories. Christians have changed and such stories just seem unreal.

The Failure of the Pulpit

As a pastor I wonder if the failure is that of the pulpit being silent about Christian ethics. Some pastors, of course, do not take their preaching seriously. They are ill-prepared when they stand in their pulpits. Some read the day’s reading from daily devotionals, ignoring the fact that several in the pews have also read the same.

Others seem to have taken their preaching seriously, yet have a single motif in all their preaching. They seem to be busy telling people who attend Church regularly that they are not Christians and must have a specified experience or go to hell, instead of leading them from where they are into the way of Jesus, and challenging them to practise the ethics of Jesus in their daily lives.

The Church in India does not impact Indian society, essentially because we are no different from society. Only a counter culture confronts society and is a challenge to prevailing norms. The Church, on the other hand, is so integrated with Indian society that it neither offends anyone by its stand nor is offended by anything. We make no difference in society, because we are no different. The apocryphal stories of honest Christians have for the most part been replaced by true stories of dishonest Christians.

Survival Baggage

Many new generation Christians would imply that Christian ethics is impractical in today’s world. Some compromises have to be made just to survive in society today. Of course, survival has been redefined. Whereas Paul said, “Having food and clothing let us be content therewith,” today’s Christian cannot survive without a whole lot of baggage such as fans, a refrigerator, a television set, motor transport; and, of course, several sets of clothing to suit different moods and styles. To get all these “essentials,” one needs to live by the rules of society, not by unearthly rules made by God in heaven. That is the argument.

There is a problem with that reasoning. Corruption is not a modern phenomenon. It is as ancient as humanity. The Bible is cognisant of the existence of corruption. So it talks of corruption such as bribery (Ex. 23:8), dishonest gain by driving hard bargains (Prov. 20:14), cheating by short weight and adulteration (Amos 8:5-6) and harassment of daily wage earners by delays in payments (James 5:4). God’s call to live in holiness does not reflect any unawareness of the realities of fallen human society. The challenge is to go against the corruption.

Holiness and Love

In the context of bribes being prohibited, God expresses the concern that justice would be subverted (Ex. 23:8). Both holiness and love are involved in the biblical notion of justice. God is just and the divine call is for us to be holy like Him. Holiness is not merely the practice of devotional exercises such as praying, meditation and fasting. They are the means, but holiness is ultimately a case of being apart from the world and being close to the God of justice.

It is also a matter of practising love toward neighbours. Corruption always deprives someone else of justice. Take the matter of buying a berth on a train by paying the ticket examiner a bribe. You may think you have done no one any harm, but some poor passenger, who was on the waiting list, has been harmed. Corruption is thus symptomatic of a lack of love for the God who is just and a lack of love of neighbour.

Corruption is rot or decay, and when it infects something, it destroys it. When a living organism is infected by the condition of corruption, there is an eating away of the vitals. That is exactly what is happening to Indian society. An erosion of society is taking place. This generation by its corruption makes life in the future difficult for our children. They will have to feed the ravenous beast of corruption in greater measure.

Living with Corruption

Still it must be recognised that the Bible’s realism nowhere prohibits the giving of bribes. The prohibitions are all against receiving bribes. I suppose that is because there is biblical recognition that some people are powerless and have no way of standing up for their rights before the powerful. Without any condemnation the Bible refers to how “a man’s gift makes room for him and brings him before great men” (Prov. 18:16). For the powerless, it is a matter of life and death. It is a question of survival.

For instance, rickshaw pullers in most Indian cities are among the poorest. Where there is licensing, the authority’s staffers will not give a man a licence to ply a rickshaw until their palms are greased. If the man stands on principle, he and his family will have to starve. He then bribes the policeman to just let him alone, and not to haul him away to the police station on some trumped up charges. He does not bribe to gain unjust favours. He bribes to get justice! Who can moralise and tell the man not to pay bribes? The Bible acknowledges the reality of bribery, by condemning only those who take bribes, not those who give bribes.

Corruption seems to have come to stay. We already live in a corrupt society and it is not likely that we can rid society of all corruption. We have got to live with corruption. Certainly, we must try by precept and example to fight corruption, but when corruption is as rampant as it is, we must recognise that there are limits to living in such a way as to be against corruption. Indirectly we too make a contributions to the corrupt.

For instance, the drivers of trucks that bring food supplies into a city have paid bribes all down the line to just get perishables in time to the market. Health inspectors, octroi taxmen, traffic police have all been paid bribes. The cost of bribing is added to the cost of the products we buy. If we begin to ask questions of conscience in the market, we will not be able to survive. In a similar situation, Paul advised, “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s and all it contains. If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience sake” (1 Cor. 10:25-27). Just like we know today that supply trucks could not have come into the city without bribing, the Christians in Paul’s time knew that most meat sold in meat markets would have been first offered in sacrifice to false gods. Questions of conscience were not to be raised, despite that knowledge.

Christians need to apply this principle in a lot of their dealings with unbelievers. We cannot demand that people live by our ethic, nor can we judge them by our ethic. We cannot act as their conscience. A friend of mine was responsible for scrutinising medical claims submitted by bank employees. He was getting all upset because employees were putting in claims routinely to claim the maximum allowed in a year. They collected it not on a need basis, but as an annual allowance by simply producing fictitious bills.

I pointed him to Paul’s counsel and advised him that as long as the employees were fulfilling the letter of the law, he should not probe further or get upset by his knowledge of the ways of the world. Fulfilling the spirit of the law is a Christian concern. We should not expect Christian morality to be practised by non-Christians. We can lead them in that direction, but we may not demand it of them.

Living Against Corruption

How then can we live against corruption? Essentially, by personal example. The question first and last is “Am I willing to pay the cost of being uncorrupt? Am I willing to suffer the consequences of not bribing? And I willing to lag behind, while others get ahead of me unjustly?” A high cost is involved, but then Jesus never said that following him would be easy. He did say that it involved denying the self and bearing a cross. The courage of convictions and principles has always evoked the admiration of people everywhere and courage begets courage. Your example will encourage someone else to take a similar stand.

There is at present one man in the Uttar Pradesh Government’s service who has earned a name as an honest and tough administrator. George Joseph was the one assigned to deal with communal riots in Meerut. After he had brought order there, he was returned as Sales Tax Commissioner of the State. He rooted out a great deal of corruption in the department. He was then assigned the task of improving the performance of Parag, the State’s milk producers’ co-operative. The apocryphal stories started again. They told stories of him. He faced down a bad worker with political connections and suspended him on the spot. A boiler inspector was demanding a bribe to okay a boiler. He was confronted with the allegation of having demanded a bribe, and refusing to visit the site for inspection. The inspector did his work. Of course, someone will say that is possible at the level of the Indian Administrative Service.

Job Ipe, on the other hand, is only at the level of junior management in a government corporation. His scrupulous honesty got him into trouble when the class IV Employees Union tried to protect a person Job had caught pilfering the stock. The investigating police officer tried to terrorise him by nocturnal visits to his home with a view to having Job pay him a bribe. Job did not give in. He prayed and, with the help of some Christian friends, had the police pressure neutralised. The easier way would have been to pay the bribe and be done with it. But Job did not choose the easier way. He stood for right.

The fight against corruption will also involve exposing it, whenever possible. This has a price. If you are an outsider, there will be harassment by the corrupt person’s colleagues, and if you are a colleague who has reported another’s corruption, other colleagues will ostracise you and, if they can, harass you also. Can you pay that price?

Many would take the easy way out. They would hide behind the notion that one is called to personal holiness and what another does is none of their business. If Christ had taken that view of things, the Temple would never have been cleaned. Paul calls Christians to put on God’s armour. The whole imagery there suggests that it is for a fight that Christians must ready themselves. The war that engages Christians is not one that those with the concerns of flesh and blood engage in.

Our war is one that involves fighting evil forces (Eph. 6: 10-18). The war against corruption must not only be the individual efforts of individual Christians. While there is a place for that, “Christian presence” is more a manifestation of the community of faith than merely the individual’s presence in society. The presence is a product of the corporate body. There is a strength in fellowship that far outweighs the sum total of the individual efforts.

Here is where Christian institutions have a tremendous role to play. The Christian presence is felt in the areas of education, medical work and relief. But is that presence crusading against corruption? Christian institutions could so easily bring their weight to be felt in situations where corruption is rampant. But sadly many Christian institutions choose the easy way out. No wonder then, the Christian presence is not being felt in the corridors of power.

It does seem as if we cannot eradicate corruption now. But we can be the salt of the earth. We can arrest the decay. We can challenge and attack corruption. Salt has a biting quality. We must get some of the bite back if we are going to impact a society that has gone bad. We cannot ooze sweetness and expect the country will become a better place to live in.

As Christians we cannot be complacent about the corruption that surrounds us. We need to arrest it. We need to go against it for we are the salt of the earth. Being like salt is a matter of presence. When salt is present, food is preserved and becomes palatable.

When food that is seasoned with salt is placed alongside of food that is unsalted, people will discern the difference and always choose the food that has salt in it. If Christians will be Christ-like, others will always know the difference and appreciate it. Uneducated and ignorant fishermen by their behaviour let their judges know that they had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). If only India could observe in the lives of Christians a Christ-likeness that makes its citizens yearn for Christ­ likeness in themselves!

RESERVATIONS FOR THE POOR

The forerunner of the Messiah is identified as the “Voice of one calling in the desert: prepare the way of the Lord. Every backward class person shall be lifted up and every forward class person shall be brought down to the level of all …” (Luke 3:4-5).

Well, not exactly. When the Lord Christ comes He will bring justice. Anticipating the coming of the Lord Christ, Mary sang: “He has performed mighty deeds with His arm: He has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things, but has sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:51-53).

How shall we Christians regard the Mandal Commission Report in the light of these Scriptures? The self-acclaimed intelligentsia of our country have rejected the report. They argue that reserving jobs for the backward castes would be unfair to those who do not belong to those castes.

Reservations for the Rich

Actually we do have reservations of all kinds, and the upper classes believe in them and want them. The only one the poor manage to grab are reservations at movie halls. Let no one say they waste money. For them a movie ticket is a ticket to a dream world where for a few hours they are transported to a world where the poor make good, right triumphs over might, and good conquers evil. Otherwise all the reservations belong to the upper classes. Take reservations on trains. No, I am not confusing the issues. It is a question of fairness. Every person holding a train ticket is entitled to a place on the train and that, not in a cattle box. Why, even cattle, when transported by train, have more place than those who are too poor to afford the cost of reserving berths on trains. It is because there is a privileged class enjoying reservations that the government does nothing to improve the lot of those who travel without reservations in the general compartments. Shouldn’t everyone who buys a rail ticket be guaranteed a place on the train without being subjected to inhuman conditions?

What I am trying to say is that we have all kinds of reservations in this country to guarantee the privileges of the privileged, whether it is buying a Maruti car or getting a telephone.

Have you ever reflected on the fact that many doctors are the children of doctors? In part, it is because of their exposure to the medical profession. But it is also because their parents know what to do and have the means to prepare them for admission, and know how to avail of scholarships and let us admit it, when necessary, influence the grading, and pulling strings. And when all else fails, they have the money to pay capitation fees. Isn’t all this a form of reservation?

The Government has promised to reserve jobs for backward classes. The criteria for determining backwardness are not defined in a way to keep out the upper crust among those deemed backward. But, I wonder, if caste matters as much as being moneyed. If a person has high caste origin, but lacks money, how does that sense of being high, work out in the material world? High caste and money is, of course, a deadly combination of oppression. But I am also sure the low caste person with money must take special pleasure in oppressing the penurious high caste person. No, I am convinced that in today’s world of artificial needs created by the prophets of consumerism, the ad­men, money is really all that matters. The status symbols of the modern world are all purchasable in the market place. If you have money, no one can put you down. If you don’t have it, those who have it will put you down.

So, since all the reservations in this country are for the moneyed, even the reservations under the Mandal Commission Report will go to the upper crust among the backward classes. Yadavs may be milkmen, but Mulayam Singh Yadav, the present Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, is not one, nor are his kith and kin. But they will be the ones to grab the job reservations, and the Yadavs who actually function as milkmen will go on being milkmen. The Government has partially conceded that the economic factor needs to be considered by recognising that there are poor and deprived people among the upper castes too.

Promoting Backwardness

Reservations for the backward are no cure for backwardness. Reservations will not remove backwardness. Rather, the element of self-interest ensures its perpetuation. Reservations constitute an incentive to be identified as backward. Justice Chinnappa Reddy has said: “The paradox of the system of reservations is that it has engendered a spirit of self-denigration among the people. Nowhere else in the world do castes, classes or communities queue up for the sake of gaining backward status. Nowhere else in the world is there competition to assert backwardness and to claim ‘we are more backward than you.’ This is an unhappy and disquieting situation, but it is stark reality. In effect, the Government is practising a reverse form of casteism. It is promoting low casteism.”

At this stage in the history of our nation, it will be difficult to take away all reservations. The only way is to offer something better, such as the establishment of schools that are geared to the backward classes.

As long as those of scheduled castes and tribes gain admissions to colleges and employment by means of handicaps, their abilities will remain in question. While they may gain some at lower levels, the higher reaches of a discipline will always remain out of their reach. It is to the advantage of scheduled castes and tribes to demand exclusive schools and colleges that cater to their disabilities and to give them real abilities.

The entire nation acclaims Dr B.R. Ambedkar. But it acclaims him for ability, not disability. If he had gained his position merely because of the handicaps he received, he would have been forgotten by the passage of time. He is remembered for abilities and for his contributions to the entire nation. The disadvantaged of the nation need make no apology for the position Ambedkar had in the Constituent Assembly. He was there by right, for he deserved it by his excellence.

The whole idea of giving advantages to the scheduled castes and tribes and other backward classes needs to be re-examined, so that they do not remain the disadvantaged who permanently need handicaps. There should be no encouragement given to remain unable. It is excellence that should be encouraged and rewarded.

Merit, Aptitude and Ability

The basic argument against the Mandal Commission’s recommendations is that merit will be denied and ability assassinated. Reservations will lower standards and make room for mediocrity. Disability in social status is made the basis of reservation where status is not at issue, but ability to perform a specific job. Dare we allow a person who has done badly while training to be the pilot of an aircraft carrying hundreds of people, merely because as a scheduled caste or backward class person he is given a handicap, that grades him ahead of another who is sufficiently skilled for the job? Can we allow a person to be a surgeon by giving him a handicap over others?

Mr. V.P. Singh, the former Prime Minister, was quick to assure the nation that there will be no reservation in the area of science and technology. That reservation about reservation is an indication that this method of helping the underprivileged is not a safe one. It endangers the health of the nation. Even assuming that being a bureaucrat does not require a great deal of intelligence, packing the bureaucracy with people who lack the perspective to see the value of a particular development will also mean that they will not allow its initiation or survival. ·

If the government wants to really help the underprivileged it must improve their opportunity for primary education. Supposedly, primary education is free—that is, if one attends the municipal school run by the State governments. State-run-schools are, however, the last place anyone seeks admission to. Conditions are miserable and certainly the best talent is not engaged in teaching in these schools. Only those who cannot afford private schooling for their children send them to State schools.

Just like minority-run institutions there should be institutions that cater exclusively to the needs of scheduled castes and tribes and other backward classes. The fear will, of course, be that they will be sub­standard if they exist only for them. That would be true, unless by greater incentives (such as higher salaries and perks), the best talent can be attracted to serve in such institutions. It is not handicaps that the disadvantaged need. They need advantages that are real that will in reality place them ahead of others.

At higher levels of education, aptitude should determine choices. The problem is that everyone in India seeks higher education with a view to holding the more remunerative jobs. So we have persons practising medicine, who have no compassion for people or caring ability. We have persons teaching without a love for teaching, and so on. Because of this we are largely a nation of third grade persons. Parents need to be educated in not messing up their children’s lives by their pressures, and students in school need proper guidance in determining their aptitudes and abilities. We also need to have our wage structure reformed so that vast disparities are removed and people will not hesitate to opt for careers according to their aptitudes.

In the present furore over reservations, one fact has been forgotten. If the Mandal Commission has failed in its assessment of what constitutes real backwardness, neither do we have a proper system of assessing ability. Until now, educationists and students have alike deplored our system of examinations that depend on rote memory. They are not an assessment of intelligence, aptitude or ability. Nor can one’s performance at any examination at a given period of time be deemed to be indicative of all future ability. Yeats and Shaw were poor at spelling while in school; Franklin, Adler and Jung had no head for maths; Einstein was expelled from school and Edison was at the bottom of his class.

How can we insist that performance at examinations be the basis of assessing all ability? They can be an assessment of the powers of retention and recall of memories. They can, at times, be an assessment of comprehension and that may very often actually assess the ability of teachers to communicate, than the students’ capacity to comprehend. It also needs to be admitted that a great many perform well at exams by cheating, so that examinations really assess only their ability to cheat without getting caught.

Another forgotten fact is that already some poor performers at exams are being placed ahead of better performers. Sports persons with lesser marks have gained admissions to colleges and appointments to jobs. That is, merit in an unrelated area, has been deemed to be reason enough to reserve places for some persons, superseding others.

Struggle for Power

Until we develop some tests of creativity and skills, we cannot rightly say that poor performers in the present system of examinations are necessarily mediocre. If we insist on using examinations to keep the underprivileged out of the jobs they want, they will rightly conclude that the system is loaded against them.

The agitations over the proposal to implement the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, whether ‘for’ or ‘against,’ are all a struggle for power. Justice is a right, and when rights are not given, they are always wrested by force. That is why there are Naxalites in our country. We may deplore their embracing violence, but the fact is they have simply got tired of waiting for justice. They are unwilling to continue as the oppressed. They are repaying landlords in the same coin in which they have been paid.

Christian Influence

From 1789 to 1799 the world witnessed the French Revolution. The peasantry of France overthrew the noblemen and ended inequities. On the other side of the English channel, in England, similar conditions had existed. But no similar revolution took place. The reason was that in 1738 a Church of England clergyman by the name of John Wesley had got converted to Christ. He began to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the disaffiliated of English Society. He left the safe confines of cathedrals and chapels to preach to the poor working class in the coalfields. They heard the Gospel and were converted to Christ.

Agitations and revolutions do not ultimately solve socio-economic problems, because human problems have deeper roots and causes. The Gospel of Jesus touches the deeper issues. Jesus said to the man asking Him to oversee a fair division of the inheritance from his father, “Life does not consist of the things a man possesses” (Luke 12:15). He told His disciples, “What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and forfeit his own soul?” (Luke 9:25). And to an arrogant governor with executive powers, He said, “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, my servants would fight…” (John 18:36).

Jesus very clearly indicated that the kingdoms of the world are not worth fighting for (or dying for, by self-immolation and other ways of suicide). So Jesus never led a revolution, and Mary who sang of the humble being lifted up and the hungry satisfied while the rich go empty, remained a poor villager. Only in God’s world was she lifted up, and her spirit rejoiced and she sensed satisfaction. But those who seek power and grab it, do not find the fare at God’s table satisfying. They go hungry.

When Jesus began His mission from Nazareth, He said, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me; therefore He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Luke 4: 18). While the rabbis pandered to the upper classes, he went to the people, spoke to them in simple language they could understand, and the “common people heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37). He said to them, “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). “Blessed are the poor in spirit for their is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3). Not that the rich cannot take part. They can, if they too come in the same humility of spirit. That is why the forerunner of the Messiah cries out that when valleys are lifted up and mountains brought low, “all humankind shall see God’s salvation” (Luke 3:6). For Jesus brings about reconciliation between classes and ends class wars. “In Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3 :28).

The Church in India urgently needs to model this. We must confess that there are some who practise and perpetuate casteism and elitism. The forerunner of the Lord Christ told the people of his generation to take remedial steps in preparing for the Lord’s coming. He advised them to learn to share with those who do not have, and to not be exploitative in their dealings with the powerless (Luke 3:11-14). The Church in India can turn the tide and avert bloody revolution if only we represent Christ more faithfully. Let us favour the deprived in our institutions. We did once. Our institutions are still called mission schools and colleges. They once served the under-privileged. The downtrodden were once uplifted. That mission needs to be revived. It is always the sick who need physicians. That is why Jesus sought the lost. That is what we must do still.

SHOULD WE JOIN THE STRIKE?

The year 1987 saw the phenomenon of an All India strike by university and college teachers. Never before had they struck work in this way. They failed because some did not strike.

Among the strike breakers were the staff of Christian colleges in the south and some in the north. They no doubt thought that this was the Christian thing to do. However, it is certain that most of them would not be able to give reasons for believing that Christians are not permitted to strike. Far too many of them hide behind the excuse of being Christian for the sake of the vested interests of full pay during the strike period, and to gain favour with the management.

H.F.R. Catherwood has observed in his book, The Christian In Industrial Society that, “In the experience of most unionists those who did not join were seldom, if ever, acting for the principles of individual liberty.” Only a few had religious scruples. Others simply avoid collective obligations.

It is time that Christians in India examine the whole issue of trade unionism in the light of Scripture and history.

Biblical Teaching on Work

The apostolic instructions on running households are applied to modern situations. Masters and slaves are equated with employers and employees. However, it needs to be observed that, while the principles of behaviour may be extended, the status, conditions and rights of a modern hired employee are quite different from those of a slave. For instance, Peter refers to corporal punishment of a slave for his faults (1 Pet. 2:20). Normally, no modern employer can lift his hand against an employee with impunity. He may inflict punishments such as loss of pay, suspension, demotion, or dismissal, but only according to rules. Whereas, in ancient society there were no rules to limit the punishment of a slave, except in the case of Hebrew society, where a slave-owner was required to free his slave if he had been maimed by his master’s punishment (Ex. 21 :26-27).

There is sometimes a mistaken notion that Christians must forego rights as a matter of humility. This is not biblical. Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen when wronged at Philippi (Acts 16:37-39). We owe it to posterity that rights and liberties are not lost by abdication, but preserved.

With these reservations about the apostolic teaching on the behaviour of Christian slaves, we are now in a position to derive from them the Christian ethics of work. In summary, the teaching is that we are to work as if the Lord Jesus is our employer. Whatever we do should be done with a sense of dedication. Human considerations such as approval and rewards are not to be determinative of our behaviour. Honest application to the work means that the work is done even when not supervised. It is not ‘eye service’ by ‘men pleasers.’ The work is fulfilling in itself. The task is its own reward. Single-mindedness is characteristic of the Christian employee.

It may be noted that, far too often, what is addressed to the workman is used by some Christian employers and managements to extract undue cooperation from the employed. The apostles were teaching voluntary submission by the workman, not coercion and extraction of work by the management. It is an abuse of Scripture to attempt to make others feel guilty and thus to take advantage of them.

Christian Insubordination

The subordination of Christians to ordained authority is the principle that runs through all the instruction on running households. It is this principle that participation in trade unionism seems to deny. But what the Christian needs to learn is that all subordination is not Christian. There is a place for saying, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29; 4: 19). Subordination to God may sometimes conf1ict with those in rebellion against God’s ways. There is a time for insubordination. A Christian may not simply obey orders. He or she must evaluate all orders, measuring them against the norms of God’s Law. Simply obeying orders is what some did under Hitler and they went on to be participants in a programme of genocide.

The Origins of Trade Unionism

Trade Unionism began at the Exodus. The Israelites had worked under oppressive conditions. When God gave the call, they struck work and marched out of slavery on the road to freedom to the Promised Land. Pharaoh viewed their going away as a withdrawal of labour (Ex. 14:5), and used military might to attempt subduing the labour force and getting them to return to work.

Today, trade unionism is one of the most powerful forces shaping our society and our future. What is not always remembered is that it is a Christian phenomenon. It found birth in a society that had been Christianised in values, and only a Christian climate could ensure its survival. Catherwood observes that “It is perhaps significant that those countries with the strongest Christian tradition have also the strongest trade union tradition.” He observed further that one did not hear of trade disputes behind the Iron Curtain.

The Methodist Contribution

It was a religious movement that touched the working class even in the midst of their miseries. Methodism had a great following among them. The class meetings developed a community spirit. The men attending these meetings grew in self-confidence as they saw that the working class could organise themselves, and leadership could emerge. Christianity was seen as a religion that was concerned with the physical well-being of poor people. They were taught that God was against exploitation of humans by other humans. As a result, Britain experienced a peaceful transition from an agricultural to an industrial society. Methodism tempered revolutionary aspirations.

It was the Methodist revival that saved England from the likes of the French Revolution. John Wesley made England a liberal democracy and not a totalitarian democracy, and, according to Michael Poole, in Theories Of Trade Unionism, it can rightly be said that “trade unions and the Labour party owe more to Methodism than Marxism.”

Lord Shaftesbury

There was another Christian who laboured in the cause of the working class. Anthony Ashley Cooper was the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury and lived from 1801 to 1885. He was a member of the Clapham Sect.

This was a group of evangelical laymen in London, dedicated to applying Christian principles to public life. Chimney-sweeping by little boys, child labour in factories, women working in mines, the long hours of labour, lack of safeguards, unhealthy working conditions and lack of medical care were the open festering wounds of British industry in his day. Shaftesbury campaigned against them religiously. He was opposed just as religiously by the powerful bishops and other churchmen.

Shaftesbury fought on in the face of such “dedicated” opposition—dedicated to the cause of preserving the church and all that was “decent.” Finally the British Parliament passed the Ten Hours Bill limiting the hours of work and in 1874 the Factory Act, ameliorating other working conditions.

The Christian Absence Today

Despite those Christian roots, trade unionism has been hijacked, and people of other philosophies, values and methods dominate unions in India today. But the hijack and the domination has been possible because of the absence of Christian presence. If Christians had continued their presence in trade unionism, they would have shaped not just the unions, but the nation itself

Can the Christian be involved in union activities today? To answer that question, the previous question, of what union strategy and activities are, must be considered first.

In a world where wealth and power go together, the wage-earning worker is in no position, as an individual, to negotiate with the employer or management. The latter has all the advantage of money being on his side. He can purchase labour at his price. The wage earner needs the money for his basic necessities to sustain life and, therefore, his is the more desperate situation. The wage earner is totally at a disadvantage and stands every chance of being exploited. In such a situation, is strength lies in uniting with his fellow wage earners.

Only when the employer is unable to purchase labour will he come to the negotiating table. Only when the labour force is consolidated, all on one side, is it on level with money power and exchange of labour for money becomes more equitable. The need is not all on one side, but on both sides. Just as much as one side needs money, the other side needs the labour.

It is not enough that the labour force be united in negotiation. At times negotiations fail and the labour force needs some means of persuasion. Striking work provides the means of persuasion. The two rights underlying union strategy are the right of association and the right of collectively withdrawing labour. These are rights that are permitted in a democracy. They do not conflict with Christian ideals.

Unions being democratic, if the right people are involved, they cannot but go right. It is not because trade unionism is inherently wrong that union activities become questionable. As much as Christian activity is an outcome of Christian presence, the rightness of union activity depends on the right people being involved.

But unions are regarded suspiciously, and it is assumed that trade unionism is akin to Communism, and Christians and other good people steer away from participation in unions. That vacuum is quickly filled by the wrong people who are bent on exploiting situations and who are nothing but power-mongers.

Christians and Strike Action

Most Christians are averse to strike action. But they forget the biblical history of the Exodus when they regard all calls to strikes as being inherently wrong. Christian subordination must be a qualified thing. We can be subordinate only to what is right and good. Our subordination should not be the sanction for exploitation by the powerful, the privileged and the moneyed. Therefore, sometimes there are occasions for insubordination. When negotiations for a fair deal fail, is one such occasion for insubordination and the form it takes is the collective withdrawal of labour.

The effectiveness of the wage earning workers’ withdrawal of labour depends on its being collective. The strength of wage earners is their unity. Divided, they have no bargaining power. Thus the breach of collective action by a minority destroys the effectiveness of strike action.

Are Christians who steer clear of participation in strikes acting in total selflessness? They want the best of both worlds. They want the majority to take all the risks of striking for increased benefits, which will come to them automatically once gained, while they themselves are in with the management. That is inherently unfair.

In Defence of Wrong?

It is certain that a Christian cannot support every cause adopted by labour unions. Once unions believed in the defence of rights. Today, far too often, unions are engaged in the defence of wrongs. There is said to be a nexus between many politicians and criminals. There is also official protection of kith and kin from the ill-consequences of errors and wrong doing. In such a climate, it is not surprising that such a rationale as a right to do wrong should exist among people who have been awakened to the equality of rights and privileges in a democracy. But it is a logic that will destroy society. Such thinking has already set in.

Nothing but an influx of right people who think in terms of what is right and good can turn the tide. Christians have been called to serve as the salt in just such a world to arrest decay and to add flavour. But salt cannot salt in isolation. Similarly, Christians who withdraw from human society fail to influence others.

Strike Leader Gandhiji

Trade Unionism in India has not always had only the support of suspicious characters. None other than Gandhiji gave his leadership to striking mill workers in Ahmedabad. But he had his conditions. Firstly, there would be no recourse to violence. Second, there would be no forcing of non-strikers to join the strike. Third, the strikers would seek alternative employment for their sustenance during the strike period, instead of seeking charity. Fourth, the strikers would remain firm in their resolve, no matter how long.

Can a minority influence the majority? It happened once in this country. One man did show that in a democracy it was possible to influence the majority and make them adopt non-violence in the struggle for national freedom. In the course of all that happened, he did have to pay a price. Similarly, there will be a price to pay for those Christians who join trade unions in the hope of safeguarding rights while imparting a sense of doing what is right. They face victimisation by managements and opposition and ostracism from their colleagues.

But isn’t there something in Scripture about a Christian wanting to follow Christ having to bear his or her cross as the cost of following Christ? lf we insist on following Christ, we need to remind ourselves that He walked the road to Calvary.

OPPOSING THE DOWRY SYSTEM

For four years the girl and the boy had been writing to each other. The boy’s letters were full of Scripture references and quotations. Every time the girl’s parents contacted the boy’s parents to negotiate a wedding date, they made some excuse or the other for further delays. A non-Christian relative of the girl told her parents, “Among us, when people do this sort of thing we know they are angling for dowry.” “No. That can’t be the case here. They are such committed Christians,” the mother said .

The relative just laughed.

The next time the boy’s people dilly-dallied, the mother of the girl asked, “Is there anything we need to do to speed up matters?”

The boy’s father said, “Well, our son is in the US and we don’t have a house of our own. Already he is not able to send us much. After marriage he will be even less able. If we could have a house of our own, we could easily go ahead with the wedding.”

That man is a believer. Heading an evangelical church. A recognised leader of the evangelical movement in India.

For eighteen years of my pastoral work, I did not feel the need to speak out against the dowry system. It was not a problem in my church. But now it had struck home. As long as I perceived it as a problem that existed outside the Church, I felt that the Church itself could not really do much. Christians engaged in social action would need to, but it seemed out of place to preach against the system to those who are not guilty of participating in the evil.

I knew of course that the Syrian Christians of Kerala had fashioned dowry demands into a fine art. They have a completely graded system: for instance, five lakhs in cash, plus gold jewels for an I.A.S. officer or doctor, three lakhs for a civil engineer, and so on. They do not of course call it “dowry.” It is only “pocket money.” Some pocket, that must be, that can carry around five lakhs in cash!

The Church in Kerala is not only aware of the practice, but gains from it. Five percent of whatever is the declared amount is received as pasaram. It is the church’s share in the dowry. Five per cent of five lakhs is Rs 25,000. That is from just one wedding. It is no wonder that churches in Kerala do not speak out against the system. No, they endorse it. They stand to lose by the collapse of the system.

The Church in India is guilty of practising the dowry system. The Church is guilty of the brutalities and indignities that brides have been subjected to. It is guilty of bride burnings, as if the Church itself had poured kerosene on the brides that have been burnt to death, because it has either been an interested party or unwilling to defy those with money power.

The Origins Of Dowry

It is highly probable that originally the idea of dowry was rooted in the idea of daughters getting their fair shares in their families’ wealth. In a patriarchal society, a girl leaves her family and home to become a member of her husband’s family. But up to that time she has been a member of her father’s family and therefore has an equal right to her father’s possessions as her brother(s).

This matter was faced by Moses when the daughters of the dead man Zelophehad laid claim to their father’s share in the nation of Israel. They had no brothers, and if they did not get their father’s share, his name would die out in Israel. It was a new situation. There were no laws, nor precedents to guide Moses; so he took the matter to God, and God agreed with the girls. It became a law in Israel that a man’s property would go to his daughters and not to his brothers (Num. 27:1-11).

That notion of fairness toward girls, got corrupted as time went on. In India, the dowry is no longer the girl’s share, but the bridegroom’s selling price in a seller’s market. The boy’s people make exorbitant demands. When anything is demanded, it is never what is fair. So, instead of a fair share, the demands made by the groom’s family are disproportionate to the bride’s share in an ordinary middle class family.

Given the Indian cultural ideas, of it being shameful to “keep” a girl who has reached marriageable age at home, there is a sense of anxiety experienced in homes where there are daughters. In their desperation to get the girls married, many families are brought to abject poverty and ruin.

The Root of Evil

At the root of this corrupted evil practice of demanding excessive dowry is the lust for money (1 Tim. 6:6-10). This lust is one that directly dishonours God, because it is a symptom of discontentment. All dissatisfaction is ultimately dissatisfaction with God. His wisdom in what He has assigned to each of us is denied when there is any discontentment with what we have.

Behind this lust is an acquisitive spirit. It wants more. It never has enough. It wants to grab. It is the spirit that wants to make a fast buck in the rat race. This race, to change the metaphor, is run in the dog eat dog world. That is a case of living by the law of the jungle, where there is only the survival of the fittest. Living “for the stomach,” and with no higher purpose than the gratification of material desires, has meant that, for the acquisitive, their stomachs are their gods (Phil. 3: 19). When people live by the base brute instincts of grabbing and surviving, it is no wonder that they can descend to brutalities, as it happens in cases of brides being tortured with a view to extracting more dowry from their parents.

It should not, however, be thought that all the lust for money is evidenced only among the families of boys. There are many families with girls that manifest the same lust for money when they choose grooms for their daughters. Their first criterion for determining the circle in which they look for boys is the circle of those who are well­to-do or getting-on-well. Of course, they do not manifest the lust as shamefully as families that demand dowry. They talk about choosing boys in keeping with their ‘status’. That is a euphemism understood to have an economic connotation only. Discrete and not so discrete enquiries are made about the worth or earning capacity of the boys. It is only after this that questions about the moral character of the boys are asked. Morality is incidental. The determining criterion is economic well-being. I am not implying that economic well-being is evil in itself. But it is certainly not more important than good character and ought not to be the first or over-riding consideration.

Even when girls’ families lust for money, they are more sinned against, than the ones who do the sinning. The vileness and wickedness of demanding dowry must not be deemed as only relatively the greater evil than the sin of choosing money over character. There can be no such equation of the two evils.

The Dowry-Takers

To fight this evil it is not enough to know generally why it is an evil; it is necessary to know why it is specifically untenable for Christians to support the dowry system by practice. The rationale for dowry must be attacked if it is to be rendered extinct.

The dowry-takers consist of the boys’ parents and the boys. The parents’ logic for demanding dowry is that they have spent so much educating their sons. First, parents are supposed to do that for their children selflessly. They are not to treat their children as investments that will earn money for them. The parent-child relationship must not be reduced to cold economics. Second, if boys are educated, so are girls, and it is just as expensive to educate them. If the costs of educating boys must be recovered, so must the costs of educating girls be recovered. More so since, culturally, girls are the ones leaving their families to join their husband’s families.

Others argue that they take a dowry, not because they need it, but it is a question of worth or status. If they do not take a dowry, their acquaintances will imagine that they as a family, and their son in particular, cannot be worth much. But I say, “Is that all you are worth, a few lakhs?” As for me, I am worth more as a child of God. Roshini’s father did not have enough money to pay for me. I am not for sale. I cannot be bought. Moreover, as a child of God, I lack nothing.

While we are talking of worth, the matter of a bride’s worth must be considered. The Biblical position is that she has equal worth as her groom. The Apostle Peter said that wives, though physically weaker, must be treated as “fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life.” Such treatment is vital to our spiritual life. If we do not treat them equally, we deny ourselves access to God and are cut off from His grace. When we pray, God will not hear us (1 Pet. 3 :7).

The demands of boys’ parents cannot go through unless the boys are consenting individuals in these sordid affairs. The parents are not the only ones suffering from the sickness of greed. Boys who, during their college days, may have spoken of ideals, show a marked preference for dowries, when their own turns come for marriage.

Some may still believe in their ideals, but have not been able to manifest the courage of their convictions and stand up against parental pressure. While the Bible does teach that parents must be honoured and obeyed, Jesus also taught that there are times when a son must “let the dead bury the dead.” The spiritually dead cannot be allowed to set the agenda for those who belong to God’s Kingdom. The Kingdom of God has its own agenda (Luke 9:60), and it consists of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). Those who belong to God submit to authority, but recognise that there are times when they have to say, “We must obey God rather than human beings” (Acts 5:29).

One young man did rebel against the system. The date of the wedding had been announced. Wedding invitations had gone out, when a very much more lucrative proposal for marriage to a Singapore-based girl came in. The boy’s father got ready to break off the previous engagement. The boy put a stop to his father’s scheme. He told him categorically that he would not agree to breaking off the engagement. He would not be party to ruining a girl and her family. The father could not have his way. Praise God!

What Is Marriage?

It is obvious from the practice of demanding dowries that these boys and their families have not understood what marriage is all about. Genesis 2:24 defines marriage as involving a man leaving his parents and cleaving to his wife. One relationship is replaced by another as the primary one. The child-parent relationship is displaced by the husband-wife relationship. There is a need to leave one’s parents, and to cut the psychological umbilical cord between a son and his parents.

This biblical instruction was given in the context of Hebrew society, which is like Indian society, one that had extended families. Without denying the value of such joint families (they share in the care of the disabled, the ill, the aged, the unemployed), the biblical assertion must be maintained, that there must first be a leaving before the reintegration of the young couple into the larger family. The Old Testament took particular care to ensure that the newly married would have time together exclusively by freeing them of their responsibilities toward society (Deut. 24:5).

Without such a leaving of the very first of human relationships, the one between parents and children, there will be no opportunity for the new relationship between husbands and wives to develop. The leaving is essential for cleaving to take place. “Cleaving” is “clinging to”, “sticking to” or “adhering to”. That is how husbands and wives become “one flesh.” They would then no longer to be two, but one. They are joined together integrally in a way that parents and children never are one. The relationship between husbands and wives goes deeper or at least is meant to. It is not the relationship between persons who are in the pecking order of benefactor and beneficiary, but between equals (1 Pet. 3 :7).

The Dowry-Givers

There are times when a girl is a complete walkover. Her eagerness to get married at all costs has undermined her parents and weakened them in their negotiations with the boy’s people. Or worse, sometimes, the girl, in the grip of greed and sibling rivalry, selfishly extracts all she can from her parents.

Some girls (and some boys) give up the idealism of their college days. In their eagerness to get married, they go along with parental pressures to accept the social order and not to defy the dowry system.

Then there are times when girls’ parents live with false hopes that marriages that have been turned into money-making relationships can still be salvaged and improved by giving some more. But money cannot buy marital happiness. Marriages that are valued only for their profitability will never get out of that syndrome. Habits once formed, die harder. It is better to nip habits in the bud.

There are also times when a girl must recognise that her marriage cannot be saved and she must break away. When a girl is tortured for more dowry, it would be foolish to stay. Brutes do not stop being brutes. They only get more brutal, like carnivorous animals that have once got a taste of blood, will crave it, and even turn into man-eaters. Whenever tortured brides have gone back, invariably they have got burnt: so there is no point to a marriage that has torture as its currency.

What Should We Do?

The church, with its male dominance in a hierarchical structure, has tended to be favourable to men. That stance may be dictated by its subservience to money power. In most cases, men are the one who have control over money that belongs to families. The church therefore emphasises that the wife submit to cruelty and keep praying. But the Bible does not require that anyone submit to brutalities and dehumanisation, even while teaching that Christians ought not to be retaliatory. Sure, Christians are required to not strike back (Matt. 5:39), but physical abuse must not go unchallenged.

Among other things Jesus taught that people need to be helped even on Sabbath days, just the same as sheep that have fallen into pits are rescued on the Sabbath. Laws are not to stand in the way of rescuing people from their situations. If a sheep falls into a pit on Sabbath and is not pulled out on the Sabbath and the rescue is left until the Sabbath ends, what would happen is that the wolves would observe the situation and not wait for the Sabbath to end. Before the Sabbath is over, comes the end of the sheep. That is what is happening to dowry victims who are not rescued in time. They are tortured and when it is observed that no one comes to their rescue, one day they are no longer there to be rescued.

In summary, there are two things the Church in India must do: First, it must unequivocally stand against dowry. Preach against it. Condemn it. Second, the Church must be compassionate toward dowry victims. Their tales of torture must be believed. They must be encouraged to escape their situations. They must be helped to rebuild their lives.

I LET MOTHER DIE

In September 1988 mother wrote from Madras that she had a couple of fainting spells. Roshini, my wife, offered to accompany her to Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. But the next we heard was that mother was already in Vellore, having suffered a stroke.

By the time I got there from Lucknow, after ten days of hospitalisation, mother concluded there was no more that the doctors there could do, had herself discharged and was back in her home.

I wanted mother to leave Madras and come to live with us in Lucknow as early as 1984. She had then pleaded that she needed five more years to complete some insurance business. So she was slated to join us in July 1989, but in view of the crisis in 1988, I pressed her to come away immediately. She asked me for two weeks to wind up her affairs in Madras. I agreed to that and returned to Lucknow.

Mother used to suffer from severe arthritis. Winter was coming on in Lucknow. North Indian winters are severe and our parsonage is an old style building, not suited for the cold North Indian winters. So, we started planning ways in which mother could be kept warm. I called a builder in to remodel a room, with panelling and false ceiling to insulate it.

A few days before I was scheduled to return to Madras to travel back with mother, I got a call from my cousin. Mother was not able to talk, nor to swallow food or drink. They moved her to a private hospital for emergency treatment, and I flew immediately to Madras; Roshini joined me later.

On arrival, I learnt that a CT Scan had revealed that mother had a brain tumour and to relieve the pressure on the brain, she had surgery involving a hole being drilled in the skull to tap the fluid that had collected.

The doctor indicated that, while only a biopsy of the tumour could confirm malignancy without a doubt, it was his opinion that tumours of the kind mother had were almost always malignant. He then indicated that the chances of a cure by surgery, radiation or chemotherapy were doubtful. Still, as a doctor, he pressed for some treatment to be started.

We sent the scans to Vellore for a second opinion. The verdict was the same. The doctors there described it as fast-growing. Given a Christian view-point, the doctors there advised against any treatment. It would only be torture for mother. All that could be done was to keep her in some comfort and peace. If we had taken mother home then, we would have been saved much agony. I had no desire to have my mother’s dying to be dragged on by artificial means. I only wanted her to have professional nursing and medication to relieve pain when necessary.

We had to have a consulting doctor. The man we consulted is a physician of some repute. But, in mother’s case, the man took the position that the tumour was benign and could be reduced by medication, and that she would recover partially from her paralysis. As he treated her, he would claim improvement where I saw none. In fact, mother’s condition was only deteriorating. Periodically, she would be a little worse. During this time at the hospital, they started feeding her through a nasal tube.

While I was in Madras, I faced considerable pressures from many people. Their attitude was that everything possible had to be done. I did want the best for mother, but the best is not the most. Modern medicine has become a series of life-defying acts. The attitude now is that the technology and machinery of medicine must be applied in all cases.

This attitude sends patients into a spiral. Each organ failure is compensated by another life-support system, and each time the person is dehumanised more. And, all to what purpose? Sure, if the illness can be successfully treated and cured, there is purpose in prolonging by such artificial means. But if not, artificial means prolong, not life, but dying, and that is not being kind to those who die. I rather think that when we do all we can in this way in the face of death, we do it for our own satisfaction and not that of the one dying. We do it for ourselves.

Mother had been constantly asking to be taken home from hospital. Time was running out for my wife and me. We could not stay in Madras indefinitely. We had our work to return to. With the doctor’s permission, we decided to move mother to our home in Lucknow.

We consulted yet another neurosurgeon in Lucknow. We needed to know if the treatment prescribed by the physician in Madras would in any way be effective or whether it was all an exercise in prolonging the process of dying. Sure enough, the doctor agreed with the other neurosurgeons. The tumour was malignant and there really was nothing to be done. I then asked the doctor for his opinion about the amount of time left for mother. He said that he reckoned that death could occur in ten days to four weeks. He also recommended the continuation of nasal feeding.

Suffering for Long

Increasingly mother would sink into a coma. At other times, she had a tortured look on her face and would not make any effort to communicate or respond to queries. When she did attempt to talk, she could only whisper and sometimes we could not hear her whispers. All this was very frustrating for her and for us.

I had prayed for healing. But if it was not to be, I had prayed that God would not let her suffer long. I now prayed that, before God called her to His home, He would allow her to talk to us in a loud, clear voice, and bless us with a smile from mother, just once more.

One day while she was in a coma, I sat beside her bed and told mother how things were working out for all her children, and that I would be responsible for my sister and brother. I then said that I was going to pray and release her to God, and I did that.

Mother developed some breathing difficulty due to congestion. Doctors and nurses from the Nur Manzil Psychiatric Centre, the Methodist hospital next door to the parsonage, attended to her throat. We decided that the nasal feeding needed to stop. Whatever mother would take orally we would give her, but would not continue feeding her unnaturally. Mother had been in a coma when we took the decision, but when the nasal tube was coming out she was conscious and just said in Malayalam, “My God!” ·

I cried the whole day. It was traumatic for me. Was I hastening mother’s death? Was I playing God? I just wish that my original desire not to start sustaining her by artificial means could have been fulfilled. I would have been saved this trauma.

Mother’s intake of nourishment was very little, but she lived for two weeks after artificial feeding stopped. But now she really lived. She was no longer in coma. She was communicative and responsive, though still inaudible. Then on a Sunday she wanted to hear the sounds of children. So Roshini brought all the Sunday school children to her bedside.

Two days later she surprised us by speaking in a loud, clear voice.

She smiled. She prayed for all her children. She asked me to pray. Then she said she was going to sleep and entered into semi-coma. The next morning at family prayers, she joined in the Lord’s prayer, stopping at the line, “Thy Kingdom come.” Later, when she seemed to be counting, My younger brother Joseph, enquired what it was she was counting, and she said that she was counting the angels. After that she entered into deep coma. She never came out of it. The next day, she was taken away by the angels.

Death Is Inevitable

Christians must rethink their behaviour when confronted by the dying condition of a loved one. First of all, they must accept the fact of death. It is inevitable. All must die. Death is the last part of this life.

While the Bible does describe death as an enemy, it is still desirable and appropriate that people should die rather than suffer dehumanising incapacitation and pain incurably. For those who suffer incurably, death brings healing. God sometimes heals by removing the person from illness. Death comes as a release from the limitations of life on earth.

People who die enter the realm of total healing and liberty.

Should we opt for life-sustenance by artificial means that neither cures nor relieves, but merely prolongs the dying process? God’s Word commands us to love people. In the context of terminal illness, a question that is relevant is whether dehumanising people is loving. Is it loving to drag on the time of dying? Is it loving to keep people totally dependent so that we have them for a few more days, but without their being able to be fully themselves?

The Word of God says further that we should love people just as we love ourselves, and that we should do to others as we would want them to do to us. Would you want to be dehumanised? Would you want to have your suffering and dying dragged on to no purpose?

Artificial life-sustenance also has a way of dragging people back from the brink of death again and again. When a person is terminally ill, and death is inevitable, by reviving him or her again and again, we make them go through the dying several times.

God’s Word says: “It is appointed unto men once to die” (Heb.9:27). No one should be made to go through the process of dying several times. Let us show some respect for the dying. By no means must we practise euthanasia or mercy-killing. Let us never take life by deliberately causing a patient’s death. But, by all means, let us be merciful to the dying and just allow them to die in peace.

A RIGHT TO DO WRONG

Some months ago in Uttar Pradesh, a Congress (I) politician freed an alleged criminal from incarceration and was jailed for that act. I wonder if any one agitated that the freed criminal should also be rearrested and jailed again. If they did, that concern was however lost in the din of the main contention. Congress (I) politicians were agitated that when the Chief Minister’s brother had similarly liberated a jailed criminal earlier, the Chief Minister’s brother had not been arrested. If the Chief Minister’s brother could go scot-free so too must the Congress (!) politician. That was the contention of the politicians. Journalists also made similar observations. If there was a concern to right wrong, it was submerged by the concern to maintain the equality of all in having a right to do wrong.

Such a conception of rights was brought home to me starkly for the first time when I was an involuntary witness to a class IV workers’ union meeting. The speaker said, “If the Executive Engineer comes to work only at 11.00 a.m., we have a right to turn up only at 11.00 a.m.” I could not believe what I was hearing. But there was more of that kind of talk. Speaker after speaker was claiming that workers had the same rights as officers, only they were talking about their having a right to do wrong.

Protectionism

That seems to be the climate at present in our country. Protectionism has been taken to ridiculous extents. Is there any other country where there is job security even for those who fail to do their jobs? It is reported that some Lucknow University lecturers do not take a single lecture all year, but because they have the patronage of either politicians or students’ union leaders they are protected from all disciplinary action and so are able to be involved in running a small scale factory or business of their own. Clerks in nationalised banks can while away office hours and demand “overtime” to finish their work. One could go on and on enumerating examples ad nauseam.

Of course, there must be job security that cannot be annulled by the mere whims and fancies of bosses. But haven’t we carried that need for security too far, when jobs need not be done to have job security, and the job security exists on its own? We demand fairness of treatment by bosses, but it is in the practice of unfairness that we want fair treatment.

The blame for this situation must be laid squarely at the doors of our law courts. In these sanctums, justice has been reduced to a matter of winning by points. It is a question of who has the better lawyer, and the court’s verdict is only an assessment of the lawyers’ performance. Wrong-doing has become defensible!

Rules of Procedure

It is a curiosity of modern jurisprudence that even a red-handed criminal can go scot-free simply because due processes of the law were not followed while arresting him. Sure, even a criminal must get justice. But what kind of justice is it that the modern world practises when the rights of the criminal are preserved while victims of crimes are terrorised, mauled and brutalised in courts of law? How is it that the criminal’s innocence is presumed while that of the victim is so often questioned?

Have you ever been able to make sense of a system of justice that cannot even hasten the trial of an assassin who was caught in the act of pulling the trigger? The necessity of a prolonged investigation to discover the extent of conspiracy is, of course, understandable. But once the matter comes to court I cannot understand how cases of this nature and gravity can be prolonged merely by legal twists and turns in the face of the one simple fact that the persons on trial were indeed the persons who had pulled the triggers.

Jurists are adept at giving us pithy sayings. One of them is, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” If that is so, procedural law cannot have anything to do with justice. All the delays in justice are possible only by the fine points of the rules of due process. Procedure has become such a fetish for us that justice itself can be set aside.

There surely is a need to protect people from the presumption of guilt before they are proved to be such. But have we not gone too far in that protection when we overlook the evidence of guilt to free the person of all punishment merely because a fine point of law was not observed by the arresting officer? The defence lawyer serves his client, but does he serve the cause of justice?

Lawyers will, of course, continue to defend wrong, because that is the way they make their living. It is unrealistic to expect them to stop making a living. But laws can be amended to weight them in favour of justice. Mere procedural law should not be allowed to get in the way of justice.

For the rest, one can only appeal to politicians and labour unions not to destroy the country by protectionism. Fighting for the rights of those whom they represent, they must be concerned with equality of rights, though not the equality of having a right to do wrong. Instead of justifying the subordinate’s wrong doing by reference to the wrong doing by the boss insist rather that bosses shall do right. They shall be punctual. They shall not slack off and be negligent in their work. They shall not misappropriate funds or abuse privileges. They shall not practise favouritism, but be even-handed in administration.

What we in our country need to really learn is that protectionism is not true loyalty, because we destroy the sense of values that sets human-kind apart from mere brutes. We brutalise the very persons we protect. We deprive them of character and self-respect.

Sowing and Reaping

The final reason for not extending protectionism to evil is that of preserving society for the next generation. That seems impersonal until we realise that it will be our children that we benefit thus. It will be our children who are the next generation to continue inhabiting the world we create. We will live long enough to see them reap the fruit of what we sow. And some will see their grandchildren. We sow the wind, but it will be they who reap the whirlwind. We will regret what the world has come to, but we will not be able to turn the clock back. We will agonise about the wrong they will suffer because people will believe in their right to do our children wrong, but we will not be able to relieve them or offer them any hope.

Do you believe in retribution? I do. In God’s world there is a law of sowing and reaping. The consequences may not be immediate, but they come, and how! Those who betray others have helplessly watched their children or their grandchildren become the victims of greater betrayal. Others have experienced injustice, which once they handed out.

We need to learn that there is no right to do wrong. We may believe that and behave in a way that preserves our right to do wrong, but it is a horrible world we are creating thus.

If our country is to prosper we must have a concern not so much for rules as justice. Legalism and licentiousness are just two faces of the same thing. Legalism always ends up concerned with seeing how far one can go in stretching and bending the law or seeking loopholes.

Today our law courts are clogged because our laws have mammoth and cumbersome proportions that allow twists and turns to delay justice. We need to jettison the bulk of such laws. We need to amend laws that protect injustice, fraud, negligence of duty, and the like. We need ready justice.

Definitely, let us believe in rights. But let us not go on confusing right with wrong. Rights are good. There just cannot be a right to do wrong.

The Life Of Christ

Earlier I had said that law courts and jurists are to blame for the situation in our country having come to such a pretty pass. That would be entirely true if there had been no church in India. Jesus said that His disciples would be the light of the world. Our light should have shined so brightly that our good works would gain high visibility and prompt men and women to glorify the God who fathered the goodness they see in us. But the darkness persists because the light of Christ has been dimmed and even put out in the lives of some who identify themselves as Christians.

Jesus said to His disciples that they are the salt of the earth. Salt arrests decay. Salt serves as a preservative. The decay in India has not been arrested. How much of the blame for this must be laid at the door of the Church? Much, I fear.

The Church in India does have very high visibility because of its educational and medical work. Long after the missionaries have departed or have handed over schools, colleges and hospitals founded by them, these institutions continue to be identified as mission institutions. They were once known for their services to the poor and the deprived. Today that is not necessarily what they are known for. They still enjoy a reputation for high professional standards though quite often it is only a name that they enjoy while, like the church at Sardis the institutions are dying, if not already dead (Rev. 3:1-2).

Christian institutions gave up their mission of serving the underprivileged and became elitist because managements were concerned that our institutions should run at profit. And the money brought corruption. “People who want to be rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierce themselves with many griefs” (1 Tim. 6:9-10).

There is a lot of money to be made in running educational and medical institutions, and Christians are at the forefront. The money being made benefits the principals, directors and managers excessively. The vast disparities in wages, perks and privileges enjoyed by them, although sanctioned by their boards, are viewed as being unjust by those below them. Not only that; when there is money in excess, skimming and siphoning off occurs almost automatically, because whatever is paid legitimately is never enough compared to the vast amount of money available. Like the taste of blood for the carnivore, the taste of money brings a ravenous appetite that cannot be satisfied with anything else. To change the metaphor, once the money bug has bitten, the virus of dissatisfaction gets hold of us so that we never have enough. And when the bosses make money, by hook and by crook, subordinates strike back. The lowly layman says, “If bishops can make money, why can’t I? If bishops can do wrong and be protected, why can’t I do wrong?”

How can the Church in India be the salt that arrests decay, when the rot is in the Church? The ethic of the Indian Church is no different from those of the rest of India: it is the new ethic of there being a right to do wrong. Every one claims a right and a turn to embezzle funds or perpetrate other crimes. If we are to arrest the rot, and stop the country from self-destruction, the Church must model holiness. We have enough of good laws. What we do not have are enough people modelling a different life and demonstrating that holiness is practicable.

A right to do wrong exists only when we consider the wrong others do and get away with. But their wrongdoing is not the standard for Christian behaviour. God is our standard. He said, “Be holy, as I am holy” and He continued to do right when He was wronged in human courts. In His book there has only been a right to do right—even when wronged. So let Christians in India affirm that though bishops themselves do wrong, there is still no such thing as a right to do wrong. Let Christians affirm that, though it is a relative or a friend who does wrong, he or she has no right to do wrong, and that he or she must not be protected. Let it be affirmed that we have a right only to do right.

ASK NO QUESTIONS…

A manager was accused of wasting his employer’s resources. He was asked to give an account of his management. The employer had proof of the mismanagement, and while demanding an accounting, also said that he would not be needing the manager’s services after he handed in his accounts. The manager then called in his employer’s debtors and reduced their debts so that when he would be out of a job they would come to his aid out of gratitude.

Commenting on this story, Jesus said, “…Use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings” (Luke 16:9).

Ever since, the followers of Jesus Christ have been in the business of winning people to Christ by means of money, or the things that money can buy, such as property and equipment.

In another context, the Apostle Paul describes the love of money as the root of all evil: that greed leads people into many “foolish and hurtful lusts” and have brought many to the point of “erring from the faith” (1 Tim. 6.9-10, KJV). Interpreting Paul, preachers have tended to emphasise that it is the love which is evil and not money itself. But in so interpreting the Scriptures, we ignore the fact that Jesus described mammon as being unrighteous in itself (Lk. 16:9) and that Paul also talks of the greed of lucre that was filthy in itself ( 1 Tim. 3:3, KJV).

The thrust of these sayings is that there is something intrinsically wrong with money—it has the capacity to soil the one who touches it. Yet Jesus does not forbid its use. When money is used for a sanctified evangelistic purpose it loses its power to soil. However, not all the money received by Christian bodies is going precisely for an evangelistic purpose. Some of it is spent in maintaining the machinery that supposedly exists for an evangelistic purpose. The question is how much and the answer to that question is going to be indicative of whether or not Christian ministries have been sullied by the filthiness of lucre.

Trustworthiness

The first reaction I have been confronted with, on demanding accounts and explanations of the accounts, is that I have a lack of trust in the person from whom the accounting is demanded. This is an emotional reaction. The intention is to put the person who raises such questions on the defensive. The counter-charge diverts attention from the main issue which is that of accounting for money received and spent. The original “accuser” now has to produce proof of his sense of Christian brotherhood. If he cannot be trusting, then he must not be one of us, is the inference.

Sure, I trust brethren of the household of faith, but that very faith that provides me brethren tells me that I must believe in the Fall and that while we live on earth we are not totally free of our old nature. It is that very faith that requires me to guard the soul of my brother.

The trustworthiness of a brother should not be an abstract intangible. It should be demonstrable and I am interested in demonstrations of faith because they have to do with evangelism. Whenever things have to be “taken on trust” and cannot be held up to the light, the witness has suffered, because we are left only with suspicions and those on the outside having a desire to find us suspect have more suspicions than the brothers.

A second reaction, when demanding accountability, is that of viewing it as limiting the Christian worker. Since the worker’s inspiration is supposedly derived from the Holy Spirit, by inference it is the Spirit who gets limited. Even under inspiration, human spirits are still under human control (1 Cor. 14:27-32). The Bible does not teach that the presence of the Holy Spirit was indicated by total abandon. God is not the originator of confusion, but peace (1 Cor. 14:33). Thus when accountability is demanded of men, the Holy Spirit is not limited.

True spirituality is compatible with having a reputation for honesty. So Peter counselled the Early Church that, for the position of deacons, the assembly of believers was to choose men of good reputation who were filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3). Reputation is a matter of human assessment. A reputation for honesty is gained only when assessment takes place.

Peter was not opposed to human evaluation. He demanded it. He did not think that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was a sufficient criterion for the task of a fair distribution of the Church’s resources. He believed that persons who had manifested accountability, that permitted assessment of honesty, and possessed good business acumen were the only ones who would qualify for the job of managing the temporal affairs of the Church.

Packed Boards

I believe there is a historical antecedent for the Christian worker’s aversion to accountability. This is seen particularly in the reactions of persons who fill positions that were originally filled by expatriates. The missionary was not usually accountable to those he worked among, only to those who had sent him out. And distance made the accountability to be taken largely on trust. Any board of management on the mission field existed only to advise, facilitate, or approve, but seldom to correct, control or prevent.

The national filling the same position resents the controls exerted in his case, and views it as a form of racial prejudice against compatriots. Those feelings are appreciable, but the national must learn to accept accountability. As much as two wrongs do not make a right, the fact that a missionary got away with not being accountable and could act arbitrarily quite a lot, does not permit the continuance of such behaviour.

In some organisations, the board of management is put up with only as an inconvenience required by the government in the case of registered societies. When the matter is viewed thus, there is a tendency to fulfil the letter of the law in the matter of having a board. Some of the inconvenience is removed by packing the board with family, friends and beneficiaries who are beholden and can be expected to serve as a rubber stamp board. In such situations the inconvenient board member who insists on following rules and applying controls is depicted as one who is opposing “the work,” lobbied against and removed from serving on the board.

The possibility of pretending accountability by having a packed board, raises the question of larger accountability to all Christians. Of course, it is an impossibility to be accountable to every Christian on earth. But once the principle of being accountable to more than just a board is accepted, we would be enabled to seek ways in which to be accountable to all Christians, if the possibility existed. This means that, instead of secrecy, openness must be characteristic of all Christian managements. Jesus said, “Everyone who does evil has an aversion to the light and will not come into the light for fear of exposure. But those whose lifestyle is characterised by the truth, come into the light so that it is plainly evident to the beholder that they are those who represent God in their work” (John 3:20-21, paraphrased). Secrecy is suspect. Whenever all the facts may not be disclosed to fellow Christians, it simply means that everything is not above board.

Church’s Hallmark

Richard N. Ostling, the religion editor of Time, authored a book entitled Secrecy In The Church. The book largely documents the secrecy of the Roman Catholic Church, but does have several references to Protestant denominations and parachurch agencies. His research establishes a common tendency to cover up in the name of “protecting the work.” He cites Daniel Callahan’s work Honesty In The Church that while blatant falsehoods were few, there were the “selective presentation of facts, the glossing over of weakness, evasiveness, playing upon such sentiments as the members’ reverence for the hierarchy.” Callahan found that the shortage of information among the public provided the powers that be with “a ready-made excuse to conceal errors, injustices, stupidity, self-seeking and venality.”

It was not always so with the Church. New Testament history clearly indicates that the deliberations and decisions of the earliest church councils involved both the leadership and common members (Acts 2:1; 15:22). But today secrecy has been developed into such a fine art that it seems to be the hallmark of the Church. We need to restore our accountability to all the faithful. It is not a question of a “need to know,” because then selectiveness is permissible. The biblical position is rather that people have a “right to know.”

Ostling also quotes Catholic layman Martin H. Work: “The Church is a mystery in a theological sense, but not a mystery in a secular sense—at least it shouldn’t be. Its basic stance should be one of openness, honesty and clarity in dealing not only with the individual, but with all the members of the Church. Those in authority owe accountability to the membership as well as accountability to God. So I am for free, open flow of information in the Church and to the public.”

The secrecy of the Western Church gets written about and published with persons being named, and such works are reviewed even in evangelical periodicals. What Ostling and others have documented about the Western Church could well be true about us in India, for given our tendency to look westward for the formation of all our methodology in ecclesiastical and missiological practice, we have aped them in their extravagances and their failings. But the secrecy of the Church in India is such that we are secretive about our secrecy. We will not admit its existence.

We are in serious spiritual trouble for we have become like those who hate the light (John 3:20) and yet, because there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed (Matt. 10.26), there exists a grapevine that leaks bad news all over the country. Is it any wonder that the propagation of the good news of Jesus Christ has suffered?

The integrity and credibility of Church and parachurch agencies depend very definitely on the practice of accountability. It will make us more careful. It will make us desirous of having a conscience that is void of offence towards God and man (Acts 24: 16). It will make us like the man Paul, who could boldly say, “I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing” (Acts 20:33). Authentic Christianity demands accountability.

SCOUNDRELS IN THE TEMPLE

The Bible is a very realistic book. The realism of the Bible not only condemns the sinfulness of pagans, but it records Noah’s drunkenness, Abraham’s fearfulness, Moses’ disobedience, David’s immorality, Solomon’s folly, Peter’s denial and Paul’s impatience. That is not the way humans write the biographies of their heroes. They glamourise their heroes and show them as having no faults. But the Bible displays the feet of clay of its heroes.

We need to admit that the Church in India is in a mess spiritually and morally. We have passed the stage of crisis. We are no longer in the grip of a spiritual crisis, but have gone beyond it. We have attained spiritual and moral bankruptcy.

We need to confess that there is rank corruption, even at the highest level. And because we have failed to eradicate it, the corrupt are now irredeemably so, and go from strength to strength.

Confront the Scandal

A lot of scandalmongering goes on within the church, but it is time to officially confront the scandals of the church.

There are people who object. “Let’s not wash our dirty linen in public.” Now I have always found it curious that people object to the washing of dirty linen, not the possession of it. Of course, they only imagine that the possession of dirty linen is not public. When you have dirty linen, everybody knows about it because of the stink.

We must do what we can, individually and corporately, to bring correction to the church. But what do we do when all our efforts fail?

Curse the Scoundrels

But how can we curse people? Didn’t our Lord Jesus say, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you, and if someone strikes you on one cheek turn the other cheek to him”?

Then how could Peter curse Ananias and Sapphira? How could he curse Simon the Magician, and how could Paul curse Elymas? (Acts 5:1-11; 8:18-23; 13:6-12). Must we conclude that, right in the first century, the first generation of Christians were disobedient to the Lord?

To understand what happened then, we need to see how God views some sins in the context of the community of faith. From the time of Cain there have been scoundrels at the altar of God. Cain was guilty of offering a second quality sacrifice to God (Heb. 11:4). Then there were Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. They offered “strange fire” before God. They compromised the purity of the Yahwistic faith by lighting their censers at pagan altars. For this compromise of purity, fire fell from heaven and consumed the sons of Aaron showing that God did not need fire from other altars to start a sacred, undying flame for He is the God who answers by fire (Lev. 10:1-2). Jews were only starting the infrastructure of their temple worship and had no undying religious flame until then.

After that there were Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, the priest. They were guilty of misappropriation at the very altar of God. When sacrifices were made, they demanded the best cuts of meat for their consumption. And right in the precincts of the Tabernacle of God they committed adultery. For thus dishonouring God, and holding Him in contempt, the boy Samuel was given a word from the Lord and it was the pronouncement of the death penalty for them (1 Sam. 2:12-17, 22-34).

Saul saved a wicked king from death and protected all his possessions after having got an express command from God to destroy everything by fire. When confronted with his blatant disobedience, Saul pleaded that he merely wished to sacrifice the wicked king’s wealth to God . He learnt then that “to obey is better than sacrifice,” but he lost a kingdom in the learning (1 Sam. 15:1-24).

Uzziah was another king who did not like God’s order and rebelled against it. He wanted to be king in God’s Temple also. He wanted to usurp the place of priests. Right then and there he was struck by leprosy and had to live out his days away from the Temple and human society (2 Chron. 26: 16-23).

And then in the New Testament, no less, there was Ananias and Sapphira. We sometimes imagine that the harshness of God’s judgment is a thing of the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records only His acts of grace and mercy. But the God who loves His Church so very much, punished Ananias and Sapphira with immediate death for their pretended commitment.

That is God’s view, but can we judge? Didn’t Jesus say, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matt. 7:1-5). But Jesus went on immediately after that to say. “Don’t cast your pearls before swine” (v. 6). That calls for judgment. We must exercise judgment to differentiate between swine-like persons and others.

Cursing Scoundrels

But can we curse? How can we, when Jesus said, “Bless those who curse you”?

There was a man in the church at Corinth who was guilty of gross immorality. He was incestuous. But, for this gross sin, he was not cursed. He was only excommunicated, and readmitted to the fellowship on repentance (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Cor. 2:5-11). So when did the apostles curse people?

Only when the work of God was endangered. Ananias and Sapphira were opening the door to hypocrisy and dilution of commitment when their death penalty was pronounced. Simon the magician was attempting to bribe the apostles and sow the seeds of corruption in the Church when he was told, “Your money perish with you.” Elymas was trying to prevent a man from coming to Christ in faith when he was cursed with blindness. Paul also called down curses on those who tried to preach another Gospel than the one preached by Christ (Gal. 1:6-9) and wished crudely that Judaizers among early Christians would go all the way and be castrated (5:12).

Today the work of God is endangered. Having tried to curb and reform the wicked and having failed, isn’t it time to pray for an act of God to arrest what is happening? How can we stand by and let corrupt men derail Christ’s Church and Christian institutions? How can we stand by and let the name of Jesus be dragged in the mud?

The power of collective praying is acknowledged and appreciated. Would not a collective curse on the unjust and the corrupt who are abusing their offices and exploiting the Church and its institutions not be a powerful weapon against evil? Is there any other weapon we the people have, when the power to amend is in the hands of those with vested interests in preventing reform?

EPILOGUE

The Church in India is organisational in character. It is in the nature of organisations to grow large and end as monoliths. Today, all over India, mainline and the new independent churches, and parachurch organisations are busy with empire-building. The Kingdom of God has suffered.

But I believe in the Church. I believe it is the Body of Christ. And I believe that it is at the local level that a church can be faithful to the call to represent Christ and serve His purpose.

Ultimately, a denomination’s headquarters is not the church that is just an organisational structure. Only people—ordinary people—can be the church. Professionals have vested interests and lack the authenticity of those who have no ulterior motives.

The future of the Church in India depends on ordinary Christians like you and me. We must be faithful in obeying Christ and representing Him by practising devotion to God, loving and doing justice to people we are in contact with.