LIVING FAITH

Faith in Christ will get us to heaven no doubt.

But faith must do good this side of heaven.

Faith that matters in this life will make a difference.

It touches day-to-day life. That is living faith.

THE SUNDAY LOVE AFFAIR

Growing up in my parents’ home, from a young age, I developed a sense of how special Sundays were. On Sundays we went out (to church, no doubt, but it was an outing). My sister, brother and I would not have to study or do any homework all day long. While we could not play any outdoor games, we could read storybooks. We would wear our “Sunday best” to church. (Even today, I inaugurate new clothes by wearing them first to church). And guess what? Sunday began at sunset on Saturday.

Place of Tradition

Sometimes moderns despise traditions. It is true that Jesus warned against giving importance to human traditions at the expense of God’s commandments (Matt.15:6). However, He did not throw out all that was traditional. He counselled that His disciples should have the right perspective on them. They have their place, but God’s Word has the more important position on any issue (23:23).

Protestants have been suspicious of traditions, because they associate them with the Roman Catholic Church. Prior to the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church’s position can be described as having been “Scripture plus tradition,” with tradition outweighing Scripture when the two were in contradiction. The watchword of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). The biblical position is that the Bible is the sufficient and final authority on doctrine and practice (2 Tim.3:16-17). Scripture is itself the tradition of the Church.

The word “tradition” literally means “handing down.” Traditions involve the oral transmission of ideas, beliefs and practices from generation to generation. It is the mode by which there is development of a body of beliefs, literature, music, etc. Before the Church had its body of Scripture, the Gospel existed in the form of tradition. Both Luke and Paul refer to the oral tradition and validate it as a source of information for the formulation of the Gospel (Lk.1:1-4; 1 Cor.15:3-4).

The value of having traditions is that they give us a sense of history. It gives us a context for our beliefs and customs. People without traditions are rootless. Only infants have no traditions. As Paul says, without those responsible for the transmission of tradition (such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers) the Church would be “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of humans in their deceitful scheming” (Eph. 4:11-15).

The Lord’s Day

Consider the tradition of observing Sunday as “the Lord’s Day” (Rev.1:10). Have Christians not suffered a loss of identity and crisis of spirituality by abandoning this tradition?

Today almost no one refers to Sunday as “the Lord’s Day”, even though it is such a good biblical term. It is the day that is set apart for our Lord Jesus.

The roots of the Christian tradition of observing Sunday as the Lord’s Day lie in the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, some Christians even refer to Sunday as the Sabbath. Biblically that is an incorrect usage of the term “Sabbath”, but the sentiments are not anti-biblical.

The Sabbath was kept as a day “holy [set apart]” to the Lord God. It was a day for the cessation of routine and labour. It was a day to “remember” (Ex.20:8), to “observe” and for “celebrating” (31:12-17). When you go through the Old Testament, it becomes apparent that for the community of faith celebrations meant gathering together to have a feast in God’s presence. One can see how all of these ideas leant themselves to the observance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day.

When the Church was born, it was first a Jewish community. So, they gathered in the Jewish Temple (Acts 2:46). They did not think of themselves as having ceased to be Jews. Rather, they thought of themselves as Jews who had found the Messiah.

Later the Jews began to persecute Christians, whom they viewed as heretics. In time, the Gospel and the Church outgrew the Jewish mould. Gentiles were included. It was no longer meaningful to talk of the Sabbath, which according to Scripture, was anyway the covenant sign between God and the Jews alone (Ex.31:13,17; the sign of circumcision was for all the descendants of Abraham, including Ishmael’s descendants, but the Sabbath was exclusively for the Jews).

Christians do not consider all of the ceremonial laws as binding on them. But Christians have always accepted that the Ten Commandments are to be kept sacrosanct. However it is significant that while all the Ten Commandments are reiterated in one way or the other in the New Testament, the one commandment left out is that about keeping the Sabbath. Usually we do not consider an argument from silence to be valid when interpreting the Bible. This, however, is a significant silence. The Sabbath law was not for Gentiles. It was a sign of God’s covenant with Jews.

So it was that the Apostles developed the practice of keeping Sunday special (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.16:2; Rev.1:10). It was the day that commemorated the Resurrection of Jesus. What better day could there be than that for Christian gatherings? It was even better than the old Sabbath. It celebrated the livingness of Jesus. His Spirit had come into their lives with proof that Jesus was not dead, but is alive and among Christians. Oh yes, Sunday is special.

Past Observances

Older generations of Christians regarded Sunday as a holy day. They did no business that day. They spent it in quietness. Sadly, very often the joy of celebration was left out. They burdened the day with gravity and gloom.

A pastor in Switzerland had to conduct worship every Sunday in two churches in different villages. So, after conducting the service at one church, he would ski down to the other. One Sunday, the deacons summoned him and told him that they did not approve of his skiing on Sunday. He protested that he had no other way of getting to their remote village. To this, one deacon said, “Of course, we know that you have to ski to get here. What we object to is the fact that you enjoy your skiing on the Lord’s Day.”

Keeping Sunday sacred to the Lord cannot mean joyless observance. God is the greatest celebrant of life. It is significant that, in the providence of God, the very first miracle Jesus performed was at a wedding. That too, He provided wine that induced exuberance in people (Jn.2:1-11). Therefore, if Sunday is the Lord’s Day, it has to be a day for joyful worship in fellowship.

The problem is that today so many things take place officially on Sunday. Is a Christian to opt out of everything that is scheduled on a Sunday?

Essential Services

Some essential services have to be maintained even on Sundays. For instance, some people have to be on duty to ensure the supply of electricity and water to homes. We cannot take the position that Christians should not enter such services in order to keep their Sundays sacred. That would be tantamount to saying that some people can commit the sin of desecrating the Lord’s Day and go to hell, so that we ourselves get our quota of electricity and water even while we piously attend worship services. Our Lord said that the Sabbath was meant to do good and to heal (Mk.3:4) and that it ought to be remembered that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (2:27).

However, any job or situation that is not in the nature of an essential service and yet compromises our Christian practice, must be avoided for the sake of our spiritual health. For instance, many sporting meets and events are held on Saturdays and Sundays. What should a Christian do?

The year was 1924. The Eighth Olympic Games of modern times was held in Paris that year. The Scotsman Eric Liddell was in training for the 100 metres race. When he heard that the qualifying heat would be held on a Sunday, he refused to run the race. He said he could not compete on the Lord’s Day. He came under tremendous pressure. He was misunderstood. He was accused of disloyalty to the nation. That hurt. But Eric Liddell remained firm and unshakable in his resolve.

God honoured Eric for honouring Him. He was placed third in the 200 metres race, something no Scot had ever done in that event. Then, in the 400 metres race, he won the gold. (The story of the stand he took and the race he won was made into the Hollywood production The Chariots of Fire).

If our faith is important to us, we would be willing to pay that kind of cost. When Eric refused to run in the 100 metres race, he had no assurance from God that he would win in the other two races. He had no reasonable hope of winning either, because he was essentially a hundred metres runner. It was his best he had given up to honour God.

In India, we are, of course, living in a non-Christian society. Entrance tests for higher education are sometimes held on Sundays. A student may have to write some exams on Sundays. Since it is an occasional happening, it does not fall in the same category as routinely doing what prevents us from observing the day as the Lord’s Day. But, definitely, young people need to avoid tuitions and other routine activities that keep them away from worship and fellowship.

Sadly, sometimes, the leadership of churches and parachurch organisations will hold their business meetings on Sundays. Or, they may schedule picnics and parties on Sundays, preventing their employees from being in church.

Many Christians do things on Sundays that can easily be done on any other day of the week. Sometimes, people tell me that their dhobi comes on Sundays. But why cannot the dhobi come on any other day? The truth is that the dhobi comes according to the homeowner’s convenience.

Preparation for Sunday

The Jews prepared for Sabbath. Karen Mains in her book Making Sunday Special describes the time when she and her husband went to the Holy Land with a tour group of Jews. They noticed that every week by Wednesday, the Jews would be saying that “Shabhat” would be in such and such place. They anticipated the Sabbath. That was the high point in their week.

Today, we view Sunday as the “weekend”. How did that happen to the first day of the week? The weekend mentality makes us come to Sundays as people who are drained of all energy. We want to sleep a little longer on Sundays. We feel thoroughly exhausted. We feel a headache coming on and are otherwise indisposed. Mysteriously staying away from church always works a cure and we are ready for fun and frolic—picnics or parties or movies— when the worship service time is over.

Do you prepare for Sundays? That is the secret of thoroughly enjoying your Sundays. Get your clothes ready beforehand, so that you do not find yourself in a frenzy on Sunday morning. Prayerfully decide on what your offering will be so that you do not frantically search your pockets for money during the service. Get to bed early on Saturdays, so that you are rested and refreshed on Sunday mornings.

On Sunday itself, minimise routine so that the day is truly a day of rest. For instance, have a simple meal of leftovers on Sundays. If you do have to have something special on Sunday, as when you have guests coming to lunch or dinner, cook it on Saturday, so that you can serve it warmed up the next day.

Very often we are like Martha. We busy ourselves with the less important and lose out on the most important. Jesus commended Mary for having her priorities right (Lk.10:38-42). However, we excuse our captivity to schedules and routines that interfere with our relationship with the Lord by saying, “I’m just a Martha; all of us can’t be Marys; someone has to be Martha.” That kind of remark says that Jesus was all wrong in His evaluation of that domestic situation. Martha must go on being Martha. She must never allow the Lord to dissuade her or divert her. She must never aspire to be like Mary. That is not true. Jesus wanted Mary to remain Mary. But He also wanted Martha to do only the one thing that was needed: to disallow the distractions that blocked her fellowship with the Lord.

Putting Jesus first will mean that we set apart time that is His exclusively. Let the Lord have His day. Celebrate Sunday as a day of rest and peace and joy. Realise His presence in fellowship with His people.

FIZZA’S QUESTION

While my family was away on vacation, little six years old Fizza decided to keep me company one afternoon. We talked about various things as they came to her mind. At one point we were talking about church and Sunday School. Fizza asked me about the bread and grape juice I give to “Mamas and Papas” at Holy Communion services. She said, “You don’t give that to children. Why? Is it written like that in the big people’s Bible?” I had to think and answer carefully. I said, “No, it doesn’t say that in the Bible, but you know the church has rules. That is why I can’t give it to children.” Fizza was satisfied with my answer and moved on to the next topic that interested her. It was I who was not satisfied.

For Adults Only?

It was disturbing to note that Fizza thought that adults have a different Bible from the one kids have. Is that what children think? How confused they must be if they think that God says one thing to grownups and quite another thing to children. Somewhere in their sub-conscious thinking they must believe that there is no one standard of right and wrong. That is a dangerous view for the long run. It will make them into adults who do not believe in absolute standards for their beliefs and behaviour patterns.

Fizza’s question pointed out that adults in the church did not treat children as their equals. Not only so, the children were definitely getting the message that church is for adults. That is sad and terrible. Our Lord Jesus said, that the kingdom of God belongs to children. When mothers brought their children to Jesus to be blessed by Him, the disciples tried to prevent the mothers and children from bothering Jesus. They were no doubt being protective of their Master. They did not want Him to be harassed by a bunch of demanding mothers and their brats. It would seem that they also thought that an important rabbi like Jesus should not have His time wasted by mere kids. After all, they were not important in terms of money-power and influence.

Jesus scolded His disciples for their pains. He said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these”

(Mk.10:14). This episode in the life of our Lord, gives us deep insight into His way of thinking and behaving. W. A. Strange writes in his book Children in the Early Church (Paternoster Press, 1996), “As in other incidents in the gospels, we notice the importance of touch in Jesus’ ministry. Here Jesus took children in His arms, a physical gesture which symbolised His protection and care. Mark alone mentions that ‘He put His arms around them’ (Mk.10:16). Matthew mentions only the laying-on of hands, for blessing, and Luke omits all references to Jesus’ gestures. Quite often Matthew and Luke leave out all picturesque details which are present in Mark’s narrative, and perhaps in this instance they felt the ‘cuddle’ was unnecessary to the story, or even undignified. Some later scribes changed ‘He put His arms around them’ to ‘He called them to Himself’ (only a slight change in the Greek) so it seems likely that some early Christians did find the idea of Jesus ‘cuddling’ the children rather lacking in appropriate dignity…Mark’s picture preserves the remembrance of Jesus’ contact with the children; His actions as well as His words” (p.49).

The Children’s Kingdom

Not only did Jesus say that the kingdom of God belongs to children, but on that occasion He went on to say that adults can gain entry into the kingdom only if they became like children in their receptivity toward the kingdom. “I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it” (Mk.10:15). Strange comments, “It highlights that entry into the kingdom is not the way of merit, privilege and status. The kingdom of God turns the values of the world upside down. In the world, it is the worthy who are the first in society, but in the kingdom of God, the unworthy enter first (Matt.21:31). Normally it is the adult who supplies the model for the child to imitate. But in the kingdom of God, the adult is to follow the child” (pp.48-49).

Strange draws attention to the fact that all the synoptic gospels place the story of the rich young ruler immediately after the episode of mothers bringing their children to Jesus for His blessing. That contrasts the opposite ways in which Jesus is received. Children give themselves totally, without holding back at all, and that is the way to receive Jesus. On the other hand, the rich man was “encumbered by property, possessions and power” and he did not become a follower of Jesus because he could not let go all that (p.52).

Strange concluded his chapter on “Children in the Gospels” by remarking on the fact that not once do any of the gospels record that Jesus spoke directly to children. He never gave them a call to discipleship. “The coming of the kingdom of God did not make children into adults, but affirmed their childhood. It was adults who were called to renounce self and possessions; rebuked for their lack of faith or spiritual blindness; summoned to faith and challenged to take up the cross. Adults, who we might think were complete and finished individuals, were called in the kingdom of God to become disciples, ‘learners’. Children were not called to become learners in the kingdom, but rather were models from which the adult learners could learn. Jesus affirmed what children were; but challenged adults to become what they could not be” (p.64).

I wonder what Jesus would say now. We have taken the kingdom away from the children.

We have turned the Church into just another society in the world. It is true that societies registered with the government have to conduct their affairs in accordance with the laws of the land. Children are not allowed to be in charge of registered societies, according to these laws. In order to operate according to the statutory requirements, it is necessary to have adults in charge of the temporal affairs of churches. Adults have to be chairpersons, secretaries, treasurers and board members. They have to be the ones to operate bank accounts and have the power of attorney for holding properties.

To bring the business and legal affairs of churches into alignment with our Lord’s teaching that God’s kingdom belongs to children, we adults should have functioned only as stewards, who act on behalf of the owners, namely, the children. We should not have dispossessed them and made them think that church is for adults.

The irony is that other religions without the benefit of Christ’s teaching have included children in their rituals and celebrations. The Roman Catholic branch of Christianity has recognised the importance of training children young. On the other hand, Evangelicals who swear by the Bible as the inspired Word of God have failed to follow Christ in how children are brought up in the faith.

The Family Meal

In the case of the Holy Communion service of the Church, what we are doing wrong is that we have taken the family meal of the Church and turned it into a ritual. Even the most casual reading of Paul’s description of the way the Church in the New Testament period observed the Lord’s Supper makes it clear that it was a full meal (1 Cor.11:17-34). It was because it was a regular meal that it was possible for someone to have so much wine that he could get drunk (v.21).

Today, however we observe the Lord’s Supper as a ritual. Keeping rituals has meant having special people who function in a priestly role. Even in churches that do not have ordained clergy, only elders (special people) can consecrate the bread and the grape juice for the Lord’s Supper. The other aspect of rituals is that only ritually selected people are allowed to participate. That is how the children got left out. It was emphasised that Paul had said that the body of the Lord was to be “discerned” (v.29, KJV).

However, Paul’s objections to people participating at the Lord’s Supper “unworthily” (v.27) and “without recognising the body of the Lord” (v.29) must be understood according to the context, the situation in the church at Corinth that he was critical of and opposed to.

What was happening was that members of the Corinthian church would bring food and drink to the fellowship meal of the church. The well-to-do obviously brought rich food. The poor brought ordinary fare.

To get a large share of the good food, people tended to rush to the table (v.21), just like it happens even today at buffet meals. Even in the New Testament period, the Church was imperfect and fallible. Very soon it had developed a tendency to be servile toward the rich, an attitude that the Church has yet to get rid of (Jas.2:1-4). For their part the rich had an inborn tendency to arrogate for themselves the first place and so they were no doubt the ones to get to the table first and pile food on to their plates without thinking about others coming after them. The rich gorged themselves on so much food and wine that they even got drunk, while the poor went hungry (1 Cor.11:21).

What the rich did was no doubt to take whatever food they themselves had brought and turn up their noses at what the poor had brought. On the other hand, the poor would look at all the tempting food and drool while it was still on the table, but they never got any of it in the end. The Lord’s Supper had simply become another occasion to “humiliate those who have nothing” (v.22).

What happened in the Corinthian Church was that there were people who were behaving selfishly at the Lord’s Supper. Rushing to the table, not caring for others, despising them and getting drunk, were the types of misbehaviour at the Lord’s Supper that Paul wished to correct. Such behaviour is unacceptable at the Lord’s Table. At the fellowship meal of the Church, the body of the Lord must be recognised (v.29).

Dominant View

In the context of the Lord’s Supper, in one way or the other, the Roman Catholic view has dominated the total Christian understanding of the term “body of the Lord”. They believe that somehow mysteriously, the bread and the wine of the Holy Communion service transubstantiate into the actual body and blood of Christ, even though physically it still looks and tastes like bread and grape juice/wine. Since such a mystical view is beyond the comprehension of children, they were barred from the Lord’s Table.

The Lord Jesus had said that the only way to enter the kingdom of God was like a little child. That should surely mean that if children cannot see something, then it cannot be there. It took a child to perceive that the emperor’s new clothes weren’t there and that he was naked, though everyone in the kingdom pretended that the emperor was dressed in grandeur. Ask the children. They will tell you that it is plain bread and wine/grape juice to the very end of the Communion Service.

Children, however, are well able to understand and grasp the idea of using something as a memory aid to remember something else. So they can understand and appreciate using symbols to remind them that Jesus died for them.

All that Jesus said to His disciples was, “Remember me” (Lk.22:19). That was the essence of the operative part of His instruction “Do this to remember me.” He meant that at every Christian gathering there should be an orchestrated act of remembering His great sacrifice (1 Cor.11:25-26).

It is a fact that the Bible consistently uses the term “body of Christ” to mean the Church (1 Cor.12:27; Eph.1:22-23; 4:12; Col.1:18, 24). This view is ignored by taking the mystical view only in the case of Paul’s reference to the body of the Lord at the Lord’s Supper.

A rule of interpretation is that the context defines the meaning. Paul was talking of the practical problems of relationships within the Corinthian Church (1 Cor.11: 18, 20-22). He never castigated the Corinthian Church for lacking a mystical understanding of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, immediately after introducing the term “body of the Lord,” he talked of the members of the Church being parts of the body of Christ (12:1-30). The context shows that Paul was not talking of having a mystical view of the Lord’s Supper when he said that people ought not to participate in it unless they are able to recognise the body of the Lord. He meant that they should see people in a new way: as the body of Christ.

Adopting the mystical view also became a way to bar newcomers, visitors, seekers and unbelievers from participation in the Lord’s Supper. Paul had said that a person must examine himself or herself before eating the bread and wine from the Lord’s Table. All over the world there are those who use this instruction to behave as policemen at the Lord’s Supper and arrogate to themselves the power to determine who is eligible to participate. Had we retained the Lord’s Supper as a full meal, this would never have happened. Can you imagine the Apostles telling seekers, visiting unbelievers and children at their worship meetings, that they will have to leave and go away hungry from the Agape, the love feast of the Church? At a fellowship meal, you can’t tell seekers and children that you won’t share your food with them. Only rituals are invested with that kind of mysticism and magic that require the exclusion of the uninitiated.

Those who love the Lord should not be barred from the Lord’s Table. Children and seekers are those who love the Lord without reservation and ulterior motives. Dare we stop them from what belongs to those who have unsophisticated, child-like faith in Jesus?

Note: this chapter was left out in the original printed edition of this book

PRIORITIES

“First things first!” Some time or the other you have used that expression or heard it. At the beginning of a year as we rejoice in being given a fresh new leaf to write another chapter of our personal story, it is good to say “First things first!” to ourselves. It is a time to set priorities. There are so many things to do, and if we do not choose what is important to do, we will end up trying to do everything. In the end we will either feel frustrated that we are unable to do everything or we will do a lot of things in a mediocre way.

The Gospel according to Matthew records a number of times when our Lord told people that they should do some things first. The order in which we consider them will not be in the order in which they appear in Matthew. For our purposes we will follow an arbitrary order.

Work on Human Relationships

The Lord Jesus said, “If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift” (5: 23-24, NIVI). This saying of Christ’s is first in Matthew also.

Being human we need proof that the human-divine relationship will work. That is why it is important to work on our human-to-human relationships. John wrote, “If we say we love God yet hate a brother or a sister, we are liars. For any of us who do not love a brother or a sister, whom we have seen, cannot love God, whom we have not seen. And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love one another” (1 Jn.4: 20-21, NIVI).

Most of us draw a sense of our personal identity from the work we do. “I am a farmer.” “I am a doctor.” “I am a teacher.” “I am a pastor.” But our work does not identify us in the ultimate sense. It is what we do. It is not who we are. Unlike our work, relationships do give us an identity. I am my parent’s son. I am my wife’s husband. I am my children’s father. I am my sister’s brother. I am my friend’s friend.

Those who are young need to see this especially. Sure we must be diligent at work. We must excel at work. But work is not the be-all and end-all of life itself. Nor should work come in the way of relationships. “Workaholism” is just as much an addiction as any other, and all addictive behaviour is unhealthy.

An older man said to a younger man, “During life’s closing years, no one ever says, ‘I wish I had spent more time at work.’ Everyone has only said, ‘I wish I had spent more time with my family’.”

Have Love

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’.” (Matt.22: 37-39). Life is about love and relationships. That is why it is important to work on human relationships. Jesus said that the entire teachings of God’s Word are based on the commandments to love (v. 40).

Paul echoed that teaching of Jesus. He wrote that love is the sum total of God’s Law. Every commandment of God is an instruction about how to love people. They are about not infringing the rights of others. They are about treating others with dignity. They are about caring for others. All that the Law does is to tell us how we are to love. It is a manual of love (Rom.13:8-10) “The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself “ (Gal.5:14).

Paul wrote, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal.5: 6). You and I would not have written that. We would have tried to say something more profound and intellectual. We would have made doing something difficult the important thing. We would have focussed on theological purity, faithfulness in ritual observances and other ways of indicating a high level of commitment to Christ. That is how controversy broke out in the Early Church. Some people said that everyone has to do the things they do if they are to be good Christians. Paul dismisses all such notions. The only thing that matters is that our faith should make us loving. Nothing else matters as much as that.

Yet love is not simply the bare minimum of the Christian faith. It is the “most excellent way” (1 Cor.12: 31). In the end all that will remain are “faith, hope and love, but the greatest is love” (13:13).

Have An Aim

Jesus said, “Seek God’s kingdom first and His righteousness, and all these things shall be given to you as well” (Matt.6: 33). He said that in the context of what He said about the worries of life. People are worried about food and clothing. Those things are essentials. They are not luxuries. However they should not come first in our list of things to seek.

The most important thing to do is to have a store of supplies for life in heaven, not a storehouse on earth. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there you heart will be also” (vv.19-21).

Jesus said that life does not consist of the things we have. A man came to Jesus and asked Him to influence his brother to do a fair division of their inheritance. He was not seeking more than his share. He just wanted his own share. Yet Jesus said, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a person’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Lk.12: 13-15). Even seeking what is rightly yours can be a sign of greed! Because your life is going on quite well without it, and if you make getting your fair share in life the focus of your life you are diverted from what is really worthwhile and essential to focusing on what is an extra.

After saying that, Jesus told the story of the rich farmer who foolishly spent his life building bigger barns. He imagined that life would simply go on and he would have lots to enjoy. Then God said, “You fool! Tonight your life will be taken. Then whose will those things be?” (vv.16-20). Jesus concluded by saying, “This is how it will be with those who store up things for themselves but are not rich towards God” (v.21, NIVI).

Jesus said that we do not need to worry about food and clothing because God cares for us more than for birds and plants (Matt.6: 25-32). Life is not just about food and clothing. Life has more meaning and significance than those material things. “Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes” (v.25)

Since God Himself is doing the caring in our lives we are free to make seeking God’s kingdom the priority and aim of our lives (v.33).

Have An Inner Life

Some people take great pains to look good on the outside. They are like those people who Jesus said are careful to “clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside will also be clean” (23:25-26).

As never before in the history of humanity people spend a lot of money and time trying to look good. There was a time when cosmetics were the trademark of prostitutes. Later women in general started to use cosmetics and visit beauty parlours. Nowadays there are even cosmetics and beauty parlours for men.

Inner beauty is what we need to work on. It will work itself out in our lives. Jesus said that what comes out of our inner lives is what dirties and contaminates us. The Pharisees were finding fault with the disciples for eating without washing their hands first. They felt that the disciples had rendered themselves unclean by such negligence. But Jesus pointed out that external cleanliness is not as critical as internal cleanliness (15: 1-11). Peter said that inner beauty is critical to being winsome in situations where one partner in a marriage is not a believer. When they do not hear the words of the gospel, they can be touched by our conduct. So he advised that instead of depending on looking good, we should be good (1 Pet.3: 1-4).

Looking good is sometimes about keeping up appearances of being moral and upright. People sometimes pretend to be what they are not. They want people to think they are good and kind and gentle. They sometimes lead a double life. This is especially true of how we relate to people whom we live with. We are polite to people outside our homes. How courteous are we toward those who are closest to us? Many husbands are guilty of treating their own wives like dirt while they treat other women with respect. Teenagers and young adults sometimes do not respect their parents and take them for granted, though they will be respectful toward older people who are professors or bosses or have some power of assessing and rewarding them. Parents can similarly be faultfinding of their own children and all admiration for the children of other families. Brothers and sisters can be especially mean to each other. Your private life at home is just as important if not more important than your public life outside the home. That is the real you and sooner or later the hidden you will stand exposed.

Be Humble Toward Others

Jesus said, “The first will be last” (Matt. 20:16). “If anyone wants to be first, that person must be the very last and the servant of all” (Mk.9: 35). One could say, He said, “First be last.”

This is the hardest lesson that the disciples had to learn. They had such a difficult time learning it. Jesus had to repeat His teaching on this subject again and again and still they would not learn it. The human spirit is aggressive by nature. It started in the Garden of Eden when our first parents ate the forbidden fruit because they hoped to be like God. Seeking hierarchy comes naturally. We want the number one position in the home and in the church, at work and at play. We want to be in control. We want to be in the driver’s seat.

The disciples of Jesus would not learn this lesson until He shocked them by washing their feet. That their own Master and Lord would do such a thing was something that they had not dreamt in their wildest imagination. When He did it, they were dumbstruck. They just sat there as though turned into lifeless dolls. Except for Peter, who even then just wanted to show that he was first in giving His Master due respect. But He had not really. He had refused to wash the Master’s feet just like all the others. Each one did not wash the Master’s feet because everyone was afraid that they would be faced with a queue of dirty feet if they picked up the basin and towel and they would lose the race to get to the top.

Even today disciples of Christ find this the hardest lesson to learn. How easily the Church embraced the power and pomp and show of earthly kingdoms! How eager the Church was to have high offices, titles and hierarchy! Once embraced, how hard it is to give up hierarchy! The Methodist Church in South East Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia) practises terminal episcopacy. This fits in with the biblical data that Peter who was the leader of the Church in the early days gave place to James as the leader of the council that met in Jerusalem. It was James who gave the ruling that day (Acts 15: 13,19). However any suggestion that this is the way to go is met with resistance and rejected by the Methodist Church elsewhere because no one wants to give up hierarchy. Those who have already attained the office of a bishop do not want to give it up. And those who aspire to the bishopric do not give up their quest for hierarchy. They would rather give up the teachings of Jesus than give up high office.

We still need to hear God say to us, “If you’ve gotten anything at all out of following Christ, if His love has made any difference in your life, if being in a community of the Spirit means anything to you, if you have a heart, if you care…Agree with each other, love each other, be deep-spirited friends. Don’t push your way to the front; don’t sweet-talk your way to the top. Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead. Don’t be obsessed with getting your own advantage. Forget yourselves long enough to lend a helping hand. Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of Himself” (Phil.2: 1-5, TM). Jesus gave up His equality with God, and all His glory to become one of us, to take on Himself all the weaknesses of humanity, to become a servant to humans and to die like a criminal! That is the example He left us.

Be Honest With Yourself

When we look around there is so much that is wrong with our world, and a lot of the time we blame others for the way things are. But as those who share in the fallen nature of all humanity we do contribute in part, knowingly or unknowingly, to the state of the world. Those are the givens of our lives. The world and the time of our lives are the way things are. We do not receive a brand new world in space and time. It is the same old world that we deal with. And we cannot do much to change the world. It is far too large for finite creatures to transform. All we can change is only ourselves.

Jesus said, “First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from the other person’s eye” (Matt.7: 5). This is where all change must start. We need to effect changes within ourselves first if we are to change our world a little at a time. We need to be brutally honest with ourselves so that we see ourselves for what we truly are. The problem is not out there as much as it is in us. Our responses and reactions to conditions and events are part of the reason for there being problems in our world. Reform yourself first before you try to reform someone else. That is what Jesus wants you to do.

Here then are the things that Jesus want you to do on a “first things first” basis.

1. Work on human relationships.
2. Have love
3. Have an aim
4. Have an inner life
5. Be humble toward others
6. Be honest with yourself

UNFORGIVEN!

There is a Christian organisation promoting creativity among Christians. Some years ago, Ramesh, who works full time in a secular concern, took over as the Honorary Executive Officer. Two years later, Ramesh was still holding the office. Though he was an able administrator, Ramesh had no creative ability. He was raising more money than the organisation ever had before; but the main programme itself no longer existed. When it came to fund-raising, he was like the proverbial sales rep who is able to sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo.

Some members of the board felt that it was time Ramesh stepped down so that a full time Executive Officer could be appointed. Ramesh, however, had the backing of Prem, the chairperson of the board. Prem was unknown until Ramesh had brought him to serve as chairperson. Prem is a gifted person. Ramesh and Prem formed a tremendous team. Ramesh was the promoter and Prem the creative performer. Ramesh would nominate only Prem wherever the organisation had to be represented, though there were others in the group who were talented.

While Ramesh was not very creative, because of his connection with the organisation, he would occasionally be asked to deliver lectures on creativity. On a couple of occasions, he passed off as his own what had actually been written by Prem. When the matter came to light, Prem went on the offensive, as he no longer needed Ramesh to promote him. He sent him a lawyer’s notice requiring Ramesh to publicly acknowledge the fraud. Ramesh was not in a position to do that as that would have been committing professional suicide in the secular workplace. At the age he was, he would not have been able to get another job. He had a family to support. His children were still in school. Given the legal turn the matter had taken, Ramesh was left with no other option but to deny the fraud and instead accuse Prem of having stolen his work. The organisation itself divided into two camps because of this quarrel.

Prem sent letters to the place where Ramesh was working full time, not only to discredit him, but to see that he lost his job.

Gospel of Forgiveness

Many unforgiving persons are involved in the communication of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. That Gospel is about the grace of God. That Gospel says that our God pardons freely, reconciles completely and restores without any reservations. If Christians do not offer forgiveness, can we truly be those who communicate the Gospel of the grace of God?

How unforgiving Christians can be! They insist on the letter of the law being applied when they deal with those who sin against them.

The unforgiving attitudes seen in such cases have hatred at their roots. Scripture equates all hatred with murder (1 Jn.3:15). Only the fear of the consequences of murder prevents those who are unforgiving from committing the crime. That means that if we could somehow get away with it, we would let our hateful feelings and murderous inclinations run their course.

Law-abiding Pharisees

When we are unforgiving we get into the company of the class of people known as the Pharisees. They were there when our Lord walked this earth. They were students of the Law. They were theologically conservative. They were defenders of the faith against all attempts to dilute the Law or modify the doctrines of the Old Testament. They were literalists. In the process, they forgot all about the intents and purposes of the laws of God. They were not sensitive to the spirit of God’s law. They certainly did not care about people.

Even in the Old Testament, it is apparent that the thrust of God’s commandments was to specify ways in which people were to relate to God and treat fellow humans. Instead of viewing the Law as something that preserves the rights of others, the Pharisees began to use it as a means to check up on others. Their focus had shifted from doing the loving and right thing to fault finding.

Christ’s Teaching

Jesus came to restore the focus on loving God and loving people. One of the things that He tackled was the vengefulness in society. It had become an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” kind of community. Jesus wanted His disciples to be different. They were not to resist evil people. They were not to strike back, but suffer injustice and leave themselves vulnerable (Matt.5:38-39). Instead of matching the hatred of their opponents with hatefulness of their own, they were to be loving, kind and generous (vv.43-48).

Jesus indicated that spirituality is tied up with human relationships. He considered it to be such an important aspect of His teaching that in the Lord’s Prayer He included a petition asking God to forgive according to the measure of the forgiveness we extend to others. He taught His disciples to say, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us” (6:4). The only petition that Jesus felt it necessary to comment on is this one about forgiveness. The petition itself and its commentary emphasise being forgiving (vv.14-15). Jesus also told a parable about a man losing his master’s mercy for being unforgiving toward a fellow servant (18:21-35).

Conditional Forgiveness

Christians have always taught that God’s forgiveness has no price tag attached to it. That is true. It is entirely by grace that we are saved, and even that grace is God’s gift. It is not at all our by our effort or work (Eph.2:8-9). Yet, Jesus stated emphatically that if we are unforgiving, we will not experience God’s forgiveness. This means that when we are unforgiving, we barter away our own forgiveness. It is even graver. We jeopardise our salvation when we do not forgive people.

Many Evangelicals may be inclined to cry, “Heresy!” because of the conclusion drawn here from the teaching of our Lord on forgiveness. The fact is that Jesus tied our being forgiven to our being forgiving. He also stated that forgiveness will be withheld from the unforgiving. Can those words mean anything else than what He said? Jesus illustrated this teaching with the parable of the unforgiving servant, in which the unforgiving person lost the reprieve he had from being hauled off to debtor’s prison (Matt.18:23-35).

Mark of a Christian

One thing is certain. The identifying mark of a Christian is not only the sense of forgiveness he or she has, but the forgiving aspect shown by the person. The richness of the forgiveness experienced overflows the forgiven heart. A true experience of forgiveness will convert a mean soul, and replace hatefulness with love, forgiveness and generosity. So, if a person is unforgiving, it is quite possible that he or she never did experience the power of God’s forgiveness. That is why the person is mean and niggardly with forgiveness.

Are you forgiving? Then the world will know that you are a forgiven person. Are you unforgiving? Then the world will have no evidence that the Gospel of the forgiveness of our God really works. One way or the other, Christians are the measure and the proof of God’s power to forgive.

The Bible says, “Forgive as Christ forgave you” (Col.3:13). The enormity of our sinfulness is appalling, yet Christ has forgiven us. The vastness of God’s grace is amazing. Anyone who truly appreciates what God has done in his or her own life can never be unforgiving.

Sin of Being Unforgiving

When the Christian is unforgiving, he or she is guilty of having despised the sacrifice of Christ. The Bible says that those who trample God’s Son under foot have treated His blood as an unholy thing. We have “insulted the Spirit of grace” (Heb.10:29). If we go on deliberately in the sin of being unforgiving, “we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment” (vv.26-27).

Listen again to the words of Jesus: “If you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins” (Matt. 6:14-15, NIVI). There is no room for any other interpretation. Forgive, or be unforgiven!

The Pharisees were scandalised when Jesus said to a paralysed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” They said, “How can a mere man forgive anyone’s sins?” In the context of the Lord’s Prayer and the parable of the unforgiving servant, Jesus seems to have turned the question back on people like them: “How can mere humans refuse to forgive?” If anyone has the right to be unforgiving, it is God. After He has forgiven, what right do we have to withhold forgiveness from others?

When we are unforgiving we set ourselves up in the place of God. The sin of being unforgiving, like all other sins, challenges God’s authority. It is just one more form that idolatry takes. It is only when we have a high opinion of ourselves that we refuse forgiveness to someone else. We like playing God and that is why we are not forgiving. We say to God, “Who are you to forgive so and so, when I have not forgiven him?” God will not tolerate such arrogance. It is an affront to His authority. It is an attempt to sabotage His programme of grace and forgiveness. God will not allow anyone to abort His mission. Those who work against His rule will simply be left behind as the Gospel of His grace marches on.

Kingdom of God

The Gospel will conquer the world of alienated people. One day God will banish all hatred and establish His Kingdom of love. The world waits for that day. It waits now “in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed.” Right now it is “subjected to frustration” but waits to “be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Rom. 8:19-21). Oh, when will the world be given a full demonstration that God’s programme of redemption has already begun? When will people be told that they need wait no more? When will the Gospel be declared that when Jesus came, the kingdom of God came?

SEE YOU IN COURT!

Case One: John and Mark are brothers. While they were growing up, they loved each other dearly. But, now there is no brotherly love between them. After college, John moved to Delhi in search of a job. Now fifteen years later, he is more or less settled in Delhi. He married a girl from there and his job will keep him there indefinitely. Mark stayed behind in Kanpur to take care of their parents. He took up a job in a factory there and married a local girl.

Three years ago their parents were killed in an accident. Now John wants the ancestral home sold so that he can get his fair share and be able to make the down payment for a flat in Delhi. But Mark lives in the house and he does not want to sell it. He says it has sentimental value for him. John, however, is desperate because rents are very high in Delhi. As the landlords keep terminating the rental contract, every two years he has had to go through the harassment of finding a suitable house and moving into it. He wants to be able to live in his own house without the threat of eviction or the trouble of moving all the time.

Should John take the matter to court?

Case Two: Sam, a church official, has illegally sold some of the church’s property and pocketed the money. If the church does not go to court, not only will the money be lost, but the church’s inaction in the matter will be misconstrued as an open invitation for others to loot the church.

Should the church take Sam to court?

While the Word of God categorically prohibits Christians from entering into litigation with fellow believers, today’s Christians do not hesitate to fight things out in courts all over the world. Brother is against brother, friend against friend, Christian group against member, church against church. How can Christians be like that? Does the Bible not say, “If any of you has a dispute with another, dare you take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

(1 Cor.6:1).

Two parties struggling over an issue are so close to the problem, that they are unable to think objectively without letting their emotions cloud the issue. A third party without a vested interest in the matter, however, is able to help them see things in perspective. This is where a judge is helpful.

When Paul laid an injunction on believers going to court to resolve their problems, it was not his intention to undermine the judicial systems of the world. He advocated, not rebellion, but submission to the state’s officials, whom he regarded as the ordained servants of God (Rom.13:1-5). However, he strongly opposed Christians asking non-Christians to settle contentious issues for them. He saw it as an incongruity. How can they go to the ungodly, he asked.

Unqualified Judges

The Bible unequivocally declares that wisdom is rooted in being God-fearing (Ps.111:10; Pro.1:7). It follows that those who are ungodly cannot contribute to knowing what is God’s mind on a particular matter. Earthly judges can and do bring the wisdom of this world to the cases they try. But those whose citizenship is in heaven (Phil.3:20) and who are only pilgrims on earth (1 Pet.1:1; Heb.11:9,13-14), need people who will give them judgement or direction on their struggle to be spiritual in their temporal affairs. Indeed, for them, the battle is never a flesh and blood matter. It is always spiritual warfare that has eternal consequences (Eph.6:12).

The judges of the earth’s law courts may indeed be able to handle “matters of this life.” But they do not qualify for appointment as judges within the church for they “are of no account in the church” (1 Cor.6:4, NASB). That is because they would not be able to tell Christians what God wants. Their criteria for judgement are extraneous to the spiritual life of Christians. They are able to interpret the letter of the law. But the spirit of God’s law would be lost on them because they lack spiritual insight.

Christian Witness

Litigation among Christians affects their witness. Paul was appalled that brother went to law against brother “and that before unbelievers” (v.6). It is scandalous when Christians behave in this way. When others behave in this way, people will only remark how sad it is that brothers are quarrelling. But they will not think that there is something intrinsically wrong in seeking redress through the courts. However, when Christians take recourse to the ways of the world, they deny the uniqueness of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. Have you not noticed how people do expect a higher standard of behaviour among Christians?

Everyone knows that Jesus taught His disciples to turn the other cheek, to go the second mile, and love one’s enemies (Matt.5:39-41,44). So when Christians fight it out in public, they deny that the Christian faith is effective in changing people and making them different. They proclaim rather that Christianity is no better than any of the “isms” of the world. Their lives give evidence that Christian principles are just a lot of idealistic talk, but none of it is practicable or relevant. Thus, when Christians fight in court, they lose their moral authority before the watching world.

In the words of Scripture, the spiritual war is already lost. “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.” (1 Cor.6:7). We may win a few skirmishes in court, but the war itself has been lost. Essentially, the war is “not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12).

Christian Calling

The Christian has a high calling to be a peacemaker. Going to court is not the path of blessing, though there may be material benefits that can be wrested from another by this method. Blessing for the Christian is in peacemaking—the blessing of being known to be a child of God (Matt.5:9). We are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor.5:20) who mediate the reconciling power of Christ to the alienated peoples of the world. Only living as reconciled people on earth will prove to others that the conciliation that Christ brought about could work in the spiritual realm. If it cannot work on the earthly plane among brothers who see each other, what guarantee is there that humans can enter into a relationship of love with the invisible God (1 Jn.4:20-21).

However, as I faced problem situations, I have been sorely tempted to resort to litigation. I have tried to argue that Christians who do not submit to the teachings of the Word of God (by blatantly lying, cheating, robbing etc.) are no longer following God, and therefore they are not my brothers, and so the Scriptural injunction no longer holds in their case. But I have never been able to get rid of the uneasy feeling that I am twisting the Word of God out of shape.

For the moment however, for argument’s sake, let us accept this rationalisation that the erring Christian is no longer a brother or a sister, but an enemy. Even then we are not justified in going to court against them. Enemies are to be loved and prayed into the Kingdom, not harassed and ill-treated. They may behave as enemies, but we are not to practise enmity.

For Christians there is only one forum for settling interpersonal disputes. They must take their contentious issues “before the saints” (1 Cor.6:1). Our Lord Jesus laid down a procedure for seeking reconciliation with a Christian estranged by his or her wrongdoing. Jesus said that we should discuss the matter privately “just between the two” involved. If reconciliation does not happen, then a couple of mature believers should be brought in for arbitration. If reconciliation still does not take place, the matter should be placed before the entire church. However, if even this attempt fails, the erring person is to be treated as a pagan (Matt.18:15-17).

I used to think that that meant the Christian stops relating to the unrepentant person. However, the thrust of Christ’s teaching is that people are to be won to Him. A pagan is the target for evangelising and saving, not fighting with or showing indifference toward. In other words, forget your rights and give them up now and think only of the person’s eternal welfare.

Crimes Against the Church

Another temptation I have had is to imagine that the rules change when we deal with a crime committed against the whole church, as in the case of the church’s property being encroached by Christians or funds being embezzled. The usual reasoning is that the scriptural prohibition of litigation among Christians does not have reference to corporate situations. Only individuals are to sublimate their warring tendencies. But such an argument is a piece of sophistry. The reason for Paul’s silence is that the Church at that time did not have bank accounts or own lands and property, and courts of law deal only with temporal maters.

Compromising on scriptural principles for the sake of safeguarding the temporal interests of churches is what has eroded the spiritual power of the Church today. What is temporal does not constitute what is essential to the life, character and witness of the Church. Maybe, it is good for churches to be deprived of material resources. It would free churches from managing and looking after dead assets and restore their reliance on God, the source of all spiritual power.

Still, we must consider the concern for the interest of the Church and its mission. Should churches not be protected from predators? If churches operate by this principle, there are (and will be) people who will take advantage of the fact that going to court is not an option for churches, and exploit our goodness. If we fail to bring to book those Christians who commit crimes against churches, would we not leave churches vulnerable and open to further attacks?

To those who face situations that are justiciable and could right wrongs through the intervention of courts, Paul said, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (1 Cor 6:7). Let others take advantage. Let them get away with wrong. Let injustice be done. Ouch! That is hard. But then Jesus did say, “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles”

(Matt.5:39-41). Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! But then that is the clear teaching of our Lord.

Doing Wrong

Paul’s final argument against Christians dragging Christians to court is that instead of suffering wrong, they would be cheating and doing wrong to brothers and sisters (1 Cor.6:8). Suppression of some facts, overstatement of the problem, and many other tricks of the trade are employed by lawyers in order to win their cases.

No one can totally escape doing wrong when people go to court. Even when the weight of right is on their side, some wrong enters the picture. In the final analysis, winning a court case does not even prove right. The verdict is essentially an assessment of whose lawyer performed better, and that depends so often on the purchasing power of the litigants.

The Apostle James put his finger on the source of our quarrels in court. “What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?” He said that they are actually murderous instincts. He also said that such quarrels indicate the deep spiritual problem of prayerlessness (4:1-3).

Prayer will not guarantee that our problems will all go away or be resolved in our favour. But then prayer is not about having our way. It is about saying to God, “Not my will, but Yours be done.” That of course is why so many people dismiss prayer as a way of dealing with problems affecting their material welfare. “It’s too simplistic,” they say. Maybe, what we need is a little more simplicity that will render us more in the likeness of the simple Carpenter of Nazareth. When dragged to court, He refused to defend Himself and fit into the world’s system. That was not His way, because His kingdom was not of this world.

Should I seek justice? Should I defend myself? There may be many other arguments to justify recourse to courts of law. In the end, it is a matter of whom we acknowledge as our judge. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord”

(Rom.12:19; Dt. 32:35). It boils down to one question: are we willing to leave it to God to overrule and do justice?

Believe that whatever happens, God is in control. He is with you. He will not fail you, nor forsake you (Josh.1:5). He will glorify Himself in His saints, and those who honour Him, them God will honour (1 Sam.2:30).

Note: This piece was written at a time when my family and I were going through a crisis. We were in danger of being cheated of my entire provident fund. I struggled with the temptation to go to court to get justice. I went through exercises of rationalizations to see if I could somehow justify going to court against Christians who were doing me wrong. When the article was published in February 1998, a person who knew me was scornful of me and said that I had exposed myself to exploitation by letting the other side know where I stood on this matter. God enabled me by His powerful grace to resist going to court. Instead, I took the matter to the church court and that is how the matter was finally settled.

IS JESUS LORD?

“They would have to sing better songs to me that I might believe in their Redeemer. His disciples would have to look more redeemed.” Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche wrote that in his philosophical work Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883-84). Nietzsche lived between 1844 and 1900. He was a classical scholar, a philosopher and a critic of culture. But it was of Christians of his day that he was most critical.

Sometimes Christians gloat over the fact that in 1889 Nietzsche suffered a breakdown and was confined to an asylum for about a year. He never recovered fully and had to be looked after first by his mother and later by his sister. A hundred years afterwards, if Christians can gleefully say that the breakdown was God’s punishment on Nietzsche for his anti-Christian activities, one can well imagine what the Christians of his day must have said. Such an uncharitable attitude bears out Nietzsche’s opinion of Christians. Though they talk of a Redeemer, they offer no proof of redemption. Judging from this saying of his, I rather think that Nietzsche was more a critic of Christians and the Church, than he was of Christ. His challenge implies that he could not believe in Christ, because he could not believe in Christians. Did his challenge also hide a hunger for the reality of the Christ of faith? Was he inviting Christians to convince him? This side of eternity, we shall never know whether Nietzsche became a believer at the end. But what remains is his haunting analysis of what constitutes disproof of our Lord’s incarnation, redemptive death and triumphant resurrection.

Nietzsche himself was referring to the joylessness of the Christians he knew. But what he said would apply to all aspects of the lives of Christians.

Early Creed

The Early Church’s capsule creed was, “Jesus is Lord!” (1 Cor.12:3). In the face of demands to deny His lordship and confess that Caesar was lord, they remained faithful. Saying “Jesus is Lord” affected their lives. It sometimes had an adverse effect on their livelihood. Sometimes, it cost them their lives.

What did they mean when they said, “Jesus is Lord”? Firstly, they claimed that He was alive from the dead. They were not saying, “I am a follower of the Lord Jesus who lived and died some years ago.” They were affirming His “present-ness”. He is, they said.

Secondly, they were confessing His lordship. Jesus was not a mere teacher of religious philosophy. He was/is Lord. As He Himself pointed out, calling Him “Lord” has implications: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’, and do not do what I say?” (Lk.6:46). That indicts all Christians at some point or the other.

Servanthood of Disciples

Keeping in mind that the one great mark of Christ’s Kingdom was that it was going to be the Upside-down Kingdom among kingdoms, how does the lordship of Christ fare? He knelt before His disciples and washed and dried their feet. To comprehend the enormity of His action, understand the word “disciple” to mean “apprentice”. In the ancient world, an apprentice was nothing more than an exploited, unpaid servant. After washing their feet, Jesus said to His disciples, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves” (Lk.22:25-27).

Some people imagine that Jesus Christ wanted Christians to simply wash feet when He said, “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (Jn.13:13-15).

There are some, including the Pope, who do a ritual washing of feet. Do you think that the Roman Catholic cardinals present dirty feet for their Pope to wash?

In Jesus’ time, people wore open sandals on their feet and reclined on couches while they ate. Since feet would be dusty, people washed their feet before sitting down to meals. Today, many men wear socks and shoes, and tables are high enough for people to sit with legs and feet tucked away out of sight. The Word of Christ about washing one another’s feet can therefore no longer be taken literally. That is why Scripture does not record any instance of Early Christians practising washing of feet. There is reference to the observance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor.11:17-34), but the washing of feet is not mentioned except in one reference to what widows should do in order to be put on a list of widows who need aid from the church (1 Tim.5:10). On the whole, the custom does not find mention, even though it was the only action of His about which the Lord said that it was an “example” He had set for His disciples (Jn.13:15). Omitting references to a custom that no doubt prevailed while people ate reclining on couches at low tables is significant. God did not have it recorded in Scripture so that it would not become a universal ritual among Christians.

The point of what Christ did and said about washing feet was that Christians are to serve one another with all humility. There is nothing too low or demeaning when it comes to caring for a fellow Christian’s need. Followers of Jesus Christ do not worry about losing position and advantage. They give them up for the sake of sisters and brothers. At least, that is the way it ought to be among Christians.

But that is not how it is. The fact is that there really is no difference from one brand of Christianity to another, and from the organised church to parachurch organisations. All have restored hierarchy in the manner of the kingdoms of the world. The person at the top is no servant. He or she gets no servant’s wages, nor does any servant’s work. Such hierarchy was inevitable when Christians organised themselves into structured denominations and groups. Is Jesus Lord? No, He is still the Servant. How many times must Christ wash feet, before we learn that the one under our heel is none other than Jesus? (Matt.25:40,45). When will we be redeemed from the kingdoms of the world to look more like our Servant-Redeemer? If Jesus is Lord, He would have some servants.

The Most Excellent Way

After Jesus had washed the feet of His servants, He went on to say, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (Jn.13:34-35). Can people recognise the lordship of Jesus by our love for fellow Christians?

Love was the outstanding mark of the Early Christians. Paul said, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal.5:6). As a modern Christian I would have defined “the only thing that counts” differently. I would have said something else like “planting a church among every people” or “performing miracles of power that will bring millions into the Kingdom.” But the Bible says something so profoundly simple that we overlook it.

The Apostle Paul almost belittled power gifts when he said, “And now I will show you the most excellent way” (1 Cor.12:31). A controversy was raging in the church at Corinth about which of the gifts of the Spirit were the most important. Paul clarified that some very unspectacular gifts (like, helping and administration—v.28) also existed. But love is more important than all the gifts of the Spirit. Power gifts are totally useless without love (13:1-3). In the end, they will all disappear (v.8). Only, faith, hope and love will remain, and of these three, love is the greatest (v.13).

Similarly, in his first letter, the Apostle John urged Christians to walk in the light (1:7). As we read on, we discover that by walking in the light, he meant walking in love (2:9-10).

People of that time said of Early Christians, “See how they love one another” and pressed into the Kingdom of love. That no longer happens. Where is the proof that the love that has the power to redeem the vilest sinner has still got its ancient power? Where is the love that transforms enemies into sisters and brothers?

It is because some among Christians have not been loved and cared for that they must turn to the government for the compensations (advantages) of being dalit Christians. We have not given them a sense of worth and quality. Upper class Christians will not consider inter-marriage with them. We do not treat them as family. Where is the love that characterised the Early Church? Where is the love that made the Church famous?

Christian Unity

On that last evening with His disciples, Jesus also prayed for their oneness. “I pray…that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in me and I am in You. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that You have sent me. I have given them the glory that You gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and You in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that You sent me and have loved them even as You have loved me”

(Jn.17:20-23). However, Christians have refused to help fulfil this prayer of Jesus.

When Jesus left the earth, His disciples were one. That oneness continued all through the first century of the Church’s history. They did have problems. At one time, Jewish Christians discriminated against Gentile Christians. The apostolic leadership immediately took cognisance of the discrimination and quickly nipped the tendency in the bud (Acts 6:1-16). When there was disunity in the church at Corinth, Paul would not lend his name to any one faction and condemned all the groups for their divisions (1 Cor.1:10-13; 3:3-9).

Paul felt very strongly that Christians ought to fight together (Phil1:27), not against each other (1 Cor.1:10-11; 3:3-4). “Contending as one person for the faith of the gospel” is the only way to conduct ourselves “in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (Phil.1:27).

Today, that is not the way Christians view their churches and missions. People do not regard each other as fellow labourers in God’s kingdom. They regard one another as rivals, as if they serve, not one, but different masters. No one can serve Jesus and, at the same time, think of His other servants as the competition. Christian disunity is thus not merely a lack of love among brothers and sisters, but the very denial of the lordship of Jesus Christ. There is one Church [body] and one Lord, says the Word of God (Eph.4:4-5).

When there is rivalry between churches or among parachurch groups, it is not Jesus who is Lord. The men who head these groups are the lords. They care only about how they score as leaders in achieving targets and in the size of their operations. In Christian work, as in everything else, the thinking is that the bigger something is, the better it is. Certainly, there is more prestige in directing the affairs of a large organisation than in being in charge of something small. It also brings more material benefits. It is definite that in this respect, the standard in Christian circles is no longer the Carpenter of Nazareth, but the executives of the corporate world. Jesus was not Lord, but the Servant according to the standards of the kingdoms of the world. He still would not be Lord in today’s world of empire builders.

We may discount Nietzsche as an atheist, and scorn his miserable end, but his challenge remains to haunt us. If we have a Redeemer, we need to look more redeemed. If we have a Lord, we need to be seen to be under His lordship, serving Him selflessly. Are you and I proof that Jesus is Lord?

EXPRESSING LOVE

My friend Jacob ended his letter to me with “Love, Jacob”. I had always ended my letters to male friends with “In Christ’s love, Kuru.” With family I always ended using just the word “love”, though I did observe that male family members had a tendency to end with “affly” (standing for the word “affectionately”).

When Jacob’s letter ended with “love”, I was put off. No same age male friend had ever ended letters to me in that way. When girl or women friends ended their letters to me that way, I had accepted it. But when a male friend ended his letter with “love” I reacted adversely. Later on I thought about it. Why did I react badly?

Homophobia

Partly I suppose we have not been able to entirely escape the western homophobia that has coloured the way they look at same sex friendships. While I was in seminary, visiting professors from the U S of A were scandalised whenever they saw any male students walking around the campus with their arms around each other. They would talk to our Indian teachers about doing something about the homosexual tendencies surfacing among the students.

With my student days behind me I desired to be a man’s man. I wanted to do only manly things. Men did not share feelings with each other. They did things together. What they did together was purposeful—even if it was only to do some fun things together and thoroughly enjoyed themselves. But they never, ever shared their feelings for each other. That would be too feminine.

After I had analysed my reactions to Jacob ending his letter with “love”, I came to the conclusion that it could not be wrong for men to express how they felt about each other as my friend had done. Rather, it was a good thing. It was essential for men to get in touch with their feelings, and to communicate them.

Letters

Today I observe the demise of good communications even between family members. When I went off to the seminary, writing letters to stay in touch with family was just the done thing. No one thought of it as duty or drudgery. Writing home and getting letters from home was simply one of the enjoyable aspects of life away from home.

There was romance in waiting for letters. Everyone crowded around the mailman at seminary. Even when you had got a letter the previous day, you were there the next day asking, “Any letters for me?” The excitement that just a simple letter brought, the expectant eagerness with which it was awaited everything added up to the romance of letters.

Telegrams

A telegram on the other hand always spelt “bad news”. I remember how my mother’s face would take on a grave look the moment she heard the delivery man say, “Telegram!”

Telegrams were of course used not only to convey bad news. Sometimes they did bring good news. But somehow everyone’s first thought on receiving a telegram was that it was bad news, unless there was an occasion in the recipient’s own life for which he or she was expecting to be congratulated.

Years later, I did exactly as my mother did. When I started to have a home of my own, I too reacted the same way toward telegrams. Holding the telegram unopened, my wife and I would try to guess about who could be sending us a telegram, and ask each other about what the news could be. We could have found out immediately, just by opening the telegram and reading it, but we always went through this ritual.

In that simpler world of writing letters, telegrams were considered to be too expensive. Every word counted for payment. So everyone tried to be careful with words. Telegraphic messages left out all words unnecessary for conveying the essential or basic message. For instance, if someone were arriving in Madras by the Grand Trunk Express (the most prestigious train, then) from New Delhi, the telegram would say, “Arriving GT 30^th Raj”. The recipient of the telegram would have to find out what time the GT arrived. Everyone did not have telephones in those days. Finding the train timing would involve a separate trip to the station. All in all it would cost the recipient more money (and trouble) to do that, than if the sender had included the information about the train’s expected arrival time. But no one ever thought about it. Everyone expected the sender to save money by being sparing with the words. And no one addressed recipients with “dear” or ended with “love.”

Trunk Calls

Then came the telephone. At first there was no time duration for local calls. That was not the case with trunk calls. Every minute counted. So one was very careful. Messages were conveyed quickly in the shortest possible time. There was an operator to tell you if your call lasted more than three minutes.

Now with STD (subscriber trunk dialling) we have no operator listening to our conversation or butting in to tell us that our three minutes are up. So people talk a little more freely. Still the charges are higher than for local calls and on the whole most people try to be quick with their STD calls.

One thing that STD calls has done however is to kill letter writing among the younger and the sophisticated set. Young people do not write to their parents. They call. They are quick calls because they are STD calls and more expensive. “Can we just stick to the point Ma? This is an STD call!”

E-mail

And now we have e-mail. We can write complete letters if we wished to. Most people do not. The cost of sending e-mail cannot be the reason, because so many e-mails are sent and received in a matter of seconds. What then? People just do not want to write letters. They have forgotten how to write letters.

Today e-mails are what telegrams were to an earlier generation, though there are none of the compulsions for being stingy with words and counting the cost. The only reason is that we no longer write letters.

Communicating with people through letters was a romantic affair, not only because of the waiting. There was romance in the words They were well-chosen to convey messages with all of one’s feelings. People wanted others to know how they felt.

Today, friends who send me e-mails sometimes do not even put my name at the beginning , leave alone saying “Dear Kuru”. They end their message with just their names. They never end with “love”. They do not even say something less potent like “With regards” or “Sincerely”.

Committed Relationships

Why are we so afraid to display feelings in our written communications? Is it because our generation does not like to commit itself in black and white? In fact, people do not want to commit themselves. Period! Time was when a gentleman’s word was considered sufficient, but now even written contracts do not prevent people from breaking faith. But first of all they will try very hard not to commit themselves. Why put yourself in a situation where you have to retrace your steps till you get back to where you were in an uncommitted state?

Relationships however are about commitment. The Christian wedding ceremony incorporates the thought that marriage is “for better, for worse”. In essence all relationships have to have that level of commitment. Parents and children, brothers and sisters and cousins are also to have such unqualified love for each other. It should even be there between friends. There needs to be a “no matter what happens” kind of love in relationships. Otherwise relationships are matlabi. That one Hindi word is stronger than the term “having ulterior motives”.

Matlabi relationships are characteristic of politicians. Their one aim is to have a share in power. To achieve it they will enter into power-sharing relationships with people they detest, despise or hate. Politics makes strange bedfellows, but all that such politicians do is rape each other. At the appropriate time they dump one another or otherwise get rid of one another. There is no loyalty or commitment.

Quality of Love

The Lord Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that a person lay down his or her life for friends.” There has to be this I’m-willing-to-give-my-life quality to all relationships.

That is why it does not make sense to hide our feelings from people we care for. They should be able to see that we can be counted on—in an emergency, and at all times. We should wear our hearts on our sleeves. Sure, it would make us vulnerable. That goes with the territory of relationships. Sometimes we may find ourselves taken advantage of. Sometimes we may feel exploited. Not really. You would feel that way only if you held back in a relationship. If you declare love like a guarantee card for goods, and add some fine print that lists all the exceptions to the guarantee, you do not have a relationship. What you have is a legal contract, and it is in the nature of contracts that the two parties will try to get the most advantage out of the contract for themselves, and try to give the least to the other side.

The Bible tells people to “love one another.” Today the word “love” has been overused and lost a lot of significance. But in the context of the Bible, it was a strong word. Love “suffers long and is kind” says the Bible. The new English word for “longsuffering” is “patience”. But that old term is more descriptive. Love suffers. Love suffers long. Love suffers long and is kind. You see, love keeps on loving. It does not give up. “It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” This kind of love is never about words alone. “Let us not love in word…but with actions and in truth.”

That is why we need to be expressive and have some ways of letting others know that we love them with heart and soul and mind and strength.

IN THE LORD’S SERVICE

The issue of women’s ordination has split churches. Those opposed broke away from their churches saying that those who practise women’s ordination were liberal in theology.

“Liberal” is a good word, but is in this context a bad one. Those who opposed Liberals or Modernists were once called “Fundamentalists” or “Conservatives”. They were regarded as hidebound persons who were against progress. Today we prefer to be identified as “Evangelicals.”

Schools of Theology

What charaterises Evangelicals is their theological position on fundamental doctrines. We believe that

• The Bible is God’s Word
• God is Triune
• Jesus is the only Saviour for all people
• The Incarnation and the bodily Resurrection of the Lord did occur
• Jesus (and the prophets and the Apostles) did perform miracles
• Jesus will return one day

Liberals don’t believe these things. They believe that the Bible is an inspiring book, but not really God’s Word. It is definitely not uniquely God’s Word. If the Bible is inspired, so are the religious books of other religions. Of course, Jesus is not the only way to God, for there is truth in all religions that lead people to God. Jesus was not God’s only Son, but shows us that all of us can become children of God if we follow His insights. He didn’t perform any miracle, and He didn’t rise from the dead, but He is alive in us when His truth lives on in our lives. Of course, He isn’t coming back; but when we live by His teachings, the Kingdom of God will come.

Women’s Ordination

Thus the charge that those who practise women’s ordination are Liberals is a serious one. They stand accused of going against the Bible.

The main arguments against women’s ordination have been that

• Jesus didn’t choose any woman to be among His twelve disciples
• The Bible prohibits women preaching
• Elders are described as husbands

These arguments are easily countered.

• Given the cultural situation, if Jesus had included women in His close group, He would have gained a bad reputation
• In the Bible there are no universal prohibitions of women having ministries of proclamation and teaching (cf. Acts 2:17-18; 18:26; Rom.16:3; Phil.4:3)
• The instructions about elders has to do with their ethical life and monogamous status, not about their being male.

Change of View

Anyway, when the debate was raging, I was on the conservative side and was in agreement that women ought not to be ordained. Then everything changed for me, when I read the review of a book by the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng. He wrote the book Why Priests? For all his many challenges to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, Küng was banned from teaching.

After being exposed to Küng’s views, in the mater of women’s ordination, I said to myself, “The question is not can women be ordained. The question is, ‘Why ordination? Should anyone be ordained?’ “

That was a radical change for me. From the age of four, I had wanted to be a pastor for the sole reason of being dressed in distinctive robes. When I was converted at fourteen, my motive for becoming a pastor changed, but being ordained was still a cherished desire. I firmly believed in the special office of the ordained person.

The word “ordination” is derived from the Latin word ordinare, meaning, “to set in order.” The word is loaded with notions of hierarchy. That is why all the old denominations (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Methodists, who essentially followed in Anglican footsteps) practise a two-stage ordination. The entry level order is that of deacons and they are promoted to the order of elders.

The notion of ordination in two stages, devalues the order of deacons. When the New Testament Church instituted the order, it was not with the idea that they were some lesser breed of workers of the Church. They were clearly chosen to fulfil the role of doing a separate job (Acts 6:2-4,6).

Moreover, the Church then definitely had no hierarchy. In that sense the Church had no ordination.

Laying on of Hands

The Church did have a doctrine of “laying on of hands” (Heb.6:1-2), but it was not confined to any notion of dedication of official preachers. Acts records different instances of hands being laid on people.

• Seven deacons dedicated to oversee the distribution of food (Acts 6:6)
• Ordinary Samaritan disciples incorporated into the Church (8:18)
• An ordinary disciple laid hands on Saul to heal him (9:17)
• A group of people (not Apostles) set apart Saul and Barnabas (13:3).

If at all ordination is to be viewed biblically, then we must recognise the following essentials. First of all it has to do with God’s call. The Twelve Apostles were never “ordained”. There is no record of Jesus having laid His hands on them to dedicate them. But they were called. Within the framework of human activity, it is possible for persons to be ordained without being called of God. If one is called, then it matters not whether there is a ritual performance of a rite called ordination.

When I left the Methodist Church, I surrendered my credentials (ordination papers). I did seek to continue in fellowship, but it was not to be. However, I had one thing going for me. I had the assurance that “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom.11:29). I therefore dared to continue in ministry.

Secondly, there must be the recognition by God’s people. When Saul and Barnabas were set apart for their ministry, there were no big shots of the Church present. But the believers in Antioch, far removed from the centre of power of the Jerusalem Church, recognised that they were called of God.

Churches that have no hierarchical body of officials practise a congregational form of ordination that is definitely more biblical than the notion that ordination requires officials with hierarchy.

Thirdly, ordination is nothing more than a dedication. It is merely a setting apart for a particular purpose. The words “dedicate” and “dedication” are not words that necessarily signify religious activity. They only refer to being set aside for some exclusive use. There is no plate in our home that is dedicated to my use. However, there is one plate that is a dedicated one. We have one plate for our dog. She is the only one that has a plate dedicated to her use.

In the case of ordination, all we are saying is that a particular individual is set apart for God’s service, not that some official has laid hands on the person.

Fourthly, an ordination is a delegation of ministry and mission. Titus was asked to appoint people to continue the work after he left a place (Tit.1:5). He didn’t have to send for some high official to appoint someone to the ministry. Paul wrote to Timothy that what he had received, he was to pass on to others so that they in turn would pass it on to others (2 Tim.2:2).

Apostolic Succession

Some denominations like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches emphasise the need for “apostolic succession”. This is the notion that for an ordination to be legitimate, people should be able to trace their ordination in a clear line back to the Apostles. Their ordination should be by bishops who were ordained by other bishops who were ordained by those who succeeded the Apostles. (A bit like the “begat” lists in the Bible: So and so begat so and so, such and such begat such and such, and so on).

The churches that insist on apostolic succession in ordination do not recognise the ordination of other churches on the grounds that their clergy persons were not ordained by such a pure line of bishops going all the way back to the Apostles. For instance, John Wesley who was only a clergyman and not a bishop dared to consecrate Asbury and Cokesman as bishops and sent them to America to establish the churches there. According to the notion of apostolic succession, John Wesley was not authorised to ordain clergy and so those who were ordained by bishops who were ordained by the non-bishop John Wesley did not have a pure line and all who followed afterwards are therefore not legitimately ordained.

This notion of apostolic succession did not arise until the Second Century. There is no biblical basis for this assertion of a need to have apostolic succession in order for a ministry to be legitimate. The only case for apostolic succession that the Bible knows is that of succession in apostolic teaching (Acts 2:42). By this standard the churches that talk of apostolic succession do not stand in line with the Apostles. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic churches practise Mariolatry. Many Anglican clergy deny the fundamental tenets of the faith (such as the doctrines of Jesus being the Incarnation of God, having risen bodily from the grave). How can they claim to be the spiritual successors of the Apostles?

The important thing in ministry is to stand in line with biblical teaching. Nothing else matters. It is not about having a system of hierarchy, but about being dedicated to God’s service and recognising that Jesus has called people to be His servants.

GOD’S ORDINARY PEOPLE

Jesus was found in the homes of ordinary people,

and spoke the language of the marketplace.

He touched common folks.

“Think of what you were when you were called.

Not many of you were wise by human standards;

not many were influential;

not many were of noble birth” (1 Cor. 1:26)

THE HOLY FAMILY

In recent years, in big city stores where children’s books, clothes and toys are sold, it is common to see a Santa during the days before Christmas. Mothers and their children crowd the stores, buy gifts, and then line up to have the kids climb into Santa’s lap to be photographed with him. For most of them that is all Christmas is about. It is the festival of the jovial, fat man in a red suit who loves children.

Most Christians would be quite upset that that is the general perception of Christmas. They would want to correct that impression by saying it is about the birth of the Son of God as a human being, and when the Son of God grew up, He went about doing good and teaching some great stuff (like loving enemies) and in the end praying for His tormentors and killers to be forgiven, and in this way offering salvation to all humankind. They would feel that if they could get this message across, they would have got the complete message of Christmas across.

But Christmas is more. It celebrates the birth of God into a human family. No, more than that, it is the celebration of the birth of God into the human family.

Family Member

Being part of a family is an aspect of being human. The young of humans need families, more than other creatures. When our son was an infant, we kept a goat for the milk. After some time the goat was mated and had two kids. Minutes after their birth, the kids struggled to their legs to get milk from the mother goat. Human babies, on the other hand, lie on their backs totally helpless for so long. They need to be nurtured and cared for. They need not only food, but also a family or someone who will care for them, if they are to survive.

Many however find family life a trial. It seems it is easier to be a saint in a cave in the mountains or out in the desert. Families are too limiting and too demanding. Some people are in the habit of saying, “I could be a good Christian, if I didn’t have to deal with people…if I didn’t have to live with them…if I could just be left alone…”

Jesus, the Son of God, lived the divine life in the midst of life, family and society. He lived in the thick of things. He did not escape hard situations nor was He protected from difficulties and trials. He never felt that He did not need His family. He did not cut Himself off from them. Even when He moved on in His ministry and later on when He was giving up His life on earth, He continued to show that He cared about them.

Historically, the Holy Family consisted of Mary, the mother of Jesus, Joseph, the foster father, and Jesus, the Son. What are the pictures of their family life that we have in the Bible?

Mary

Mary was a picture of gentility and quiet strength. Without that strength she could not have accepted being pregnant before her marriage (Lk.1: 38), nor the role of being mother to God’s Son (v.31), nor knowing beforehand that He would be rejected and that she herself would have a sword driven through her heart (2:34,35).

She was a godly woman, and humbly submitted to God (1:38), though it was a costly submission.

She was a very caring woman. This comes through in the story of her going to see Elizabeth, as soon as she heard that Elizabeth was expecting a child (vv.39-45). When Jesus was “lost” at the age of 12, we get a glimpse of her caring for Him (2:48). Then as He hung on the cross we see the caring mother standing at the foot of the cross (Jn.20: 25).

Like all mothers, we also see her having great expectations of her son, when she approached Him with the problem of the wine running out at the wedding in Cana (2:3).

Joseph

Joseph, the foster father, is the forgotten character of Christmas pageants. He stands almost like a prop behind Mary with nothing to say. Men are so unnecessary at the time of birth. This must have been more so in the case of Mary and Joseph, because what they had was a virgin birth.

The Bible does not tell us a lot about Joseph. It tells us that he was not a cruel man, because he tried to save Mary from being stoned as an adulteress when he found out that she was pregnant before marriage (Matt.1: 19). It also explicitly tells us that he was a man who was in touch with God, because he received God’s revelations concerning his situation (v.20; 2:13, 19-20), and he was always obediently responsive to those communications of God (1:24; 2:14,21).

But there are other aspects of the man’s character that are implicit in the story, and they are even more significant. First of all, Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, and he loved him so much that no one suspected that Jesus was not Joseph’s son (Lk.3: 23; 4:22). The Christmas story is the greatest adoption story of all time. Jesus would have been an unwanted child, but for Joseph’s love. Joseph sets an example in foster love and care.

The story of how they were friendless in Bethlehem with no place to stay (2:7) gives us another glimpse of the man. He was the only one there to attend Mary as she gave birth to Jesus. He stayed by her, and cared for her. He was Mary’s midwife. When the shepherds came to see the baby, they found Him wrapped in clean strips of cloth (v.12). Joseph was obviously a man who was not ashamed to do a woman’s work. He also treated his wife with care and dignity.

Jesus was known to be a carpenter (Mk.6: 3). Quite obviously Joseph was the one to teach Jesus carpentry. Knowing that Jesus was the Son of God, and had a special mission on earth, Joseph still took the trouble to teach Jesus carpentry! Why did Joseph waste his time and effort doing that? He did that because children need parental training until they can discover themselves and make choices. So Joseph taught carpentry until Jesus discovered what God wanted Him to do.

Jesus

The third member of the Holy Family was the eldest son of the family. From a young age He did have an awareness of who He was. He knew He was God’s Son (Lk.2: 49). Though He knew that to be the fact, Jesus was obedient to His parents (v.51). He was “subject” to them, to use the word the King James Version uses. That suggests subordination and humility.

Subordination does not come easily to humans. How difficult it must have been for God’s own Son to be subordinate to mere humans. Jesus was subject. He learned. This had to be an aspect of His life in the Incarnation, because He became truly human. Yet Jesus did it and left us an example. The only time the word “example” is found on the lips of Jesus (Jn.13: 15) was when He subordinated Himself in the role of servant to His own disciples (vv.4-5).

The sacred historian tells us the secret of Christ’s strength in subordination. He loved His disciples very much and was willing to go to any length in His love for them (v.1). He was self-assured. He knew who He was and no matter how much humiliation He experienced He knew that nothing could change that (v.3-4). It is only when one is insecure about oneself that there is a need to arrogate the privileges of office or be abusive toward others.

Being a Holy Family

Today we call the earthly family of Jesus “the Holy Family.” But Jesus Himself never thought that physical relationship to Him made anyone holy.

When a woman said, “The woman who gave birth to you and breastfed you is blessed”, Christ’s response was, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and observe it” (Lk.11: 27,28).

Another time when Jesus was speaking to a crowd, someone told Him that His mother and brothers wanted to speak to Him. Those around Him must have thought it strange when He asked, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” Anyway they did not venture a reply. Then Jesus pointed toward His disciples and said, “See my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does my Father’s will is my brother, my sister, my mother” (Matt.12: 46-50).

When He taught His disciples to pray, Jesus taught them to say, “Our Father…” (Lk.11: 2). The fatherhood of God was a precious lesson that Jesus taught His disciples. He also explicitly taught the Twelve that they could all be only brothers (Matt.23:8). There would be none great or small. Only Jesus is Lord. To describe God as Father and all of us as brothers and sisters is to define us His family.

The historical Holy Family was more an ordinary family, than a holy family. They had no halo around their heads. The Bible indicates that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary had a normal sex life (Matt.1: 25) and had other children (13:55). They did things ordinary families do. They were an ordinary working class family. The birth of Jesus in their family did not turn them into a holy family.

On the other hand, according to Jesus Himself, if anyone does God’s will, they are His holy family. Mary, Joseph and Jesus do not make up the Holy Family. If you let Jesus be a part of your family, yours could be the Holy Family.

In today’s world where families are battered out of shape by divorce dividing husband from wife, where old parents are left alone to lead lonely lives, and brothers and sisters, who grew up together, forget to be brothers and sisters over pieces of property, how Christian families need to be the Holy Family that shows that Jesus can make a difference in life today.

FATHER’S LESSONS

Father died when I was seventeen plus. The teenage period is not when people are very reflective. During that time there is more of a tendency to just live for the moment and enjoy it. Not until a trial or sorrow touches one’s life, does a person begin to ask the “Why?” questions.

When Father died I didn’t question why. The overriding feeling was of apprehension about the future. It was only in later years, listening to Mother’s stories about her life with Father and drawing on my own memories of him, that I learnt from my Father’s example.

Giving Up

Father was a sportsman in his student days. He was a champion high jumper at Wilson College, Bombay. Some years before his death, he brought back a cupboard full of trophies that had been kept with his older siblings. There was also a picture published in some newspaper.

Father failed his college exams after his father died of meningitis. His mother died of sadness within weeks. His father’s older brother advised him to pick up a job and support himself.

There was family property that Father would have preferred was sold all at once and the proceeds shared. Instead it was sold whenever there was a need. His share from periodic sales was never large enough for a bachelor to hold on to. Mother told us that Father gave up one share for the sake of his brothers who were already married and had more pressing needs than him at the time.

Father was the last to marry in his family of five siblings. He married late. There was a nine year gap between Father and Mother. After leaving college, his interest in sports had made him turn to billiards. When Wilson Jones made it big, I remember him saying that he had played with him while in Bangalore. Right after marrying Mother and bringing her home, on Sunday evening he went off to the billiards parlour. It happened again the next week. Mother protested about being left alone all evening. Father gave up playing billiards regularly or frequently. He did play from time to time while we were still in Bangalore.

Mother told us that story proudly. It made an impression on me. Marriage means giving up loved activities for the greater love. That’s what the Bible tells husbands. They are asked to be like Christ, who served His Bride, the Church, and died for her. Nothing there about being the head or treating family members as those who exist to serve and please the man (Eph.5:25-33). It’s only in the instructions to wives that there is talk of submission to the headship of husbands (vv.23-24). Submission implies that this is a voluntary attitude/act on the part of the wife, and not something that a husband can demand.

Piety In Life

My parents were regular in attending church. Pastors were frequent visitors in our home. These men in flowing robes got a lot of importance. I decided I was going to be a pastor. I was four then. (Later on, after my conversion, my reason for wanting to become a pastor changed to wanting to serve Christ).

Father went to Hyderabad for better pay. He worked in a factory as a section head. He was not paid what he had been promised. He could have made money dishonestly on purchases and sales. He didn’t. Such scrupulous honesty even when he was cheated by his employers was a valuable lesson he taught his children by example.

Though poorly paid, Father diligently tithed his salary. I learnt then that obedience to God in this matter does not depend on how well off one is. Rich or poor can tithe—the only way to give proportionately and equally. After his death Mother continued the practice of tithing very carefully. She didn’t plead that she was a widow with three children to educate.

Father read a lot. He passed on that love to Mother and to us children. For birthdays, Christmas and Easter we never got new clothes or toys. All we wanted was books.

Every morning before Father left for work he was up early to read the Bible and other devotional books. When he returned home from work, he spent his time reading novels.

Forgiving Father

After my sister, brother and I got involved in Youth For Christ, Father used to escort us to the YFC rallies. But the altar call upset him. He said that it seemed to suggest that anyone who didn’t go forward was rejecting Jesus Christ, and that’s not what he felt. My Father very definitely believed that Jesus was the only Saviour and following His teachings was very important to Father.

But I thought that anyone who didn’t share my vocabulary of claiming to be born again or having accepted Jesus was not a believer. This spiritual arrogance led to my fall. In the end, I tried to run away from home. I went to the home of friends imagining that their parents were better than my own and would take me in and then I would be able to be a better Christian. I was missing from home for several hours. The other family brought me back home late at night after they had persuaded me to return. Father never scolded me. He just took me in. Years later, my sister told me that he had been like the father in the story of the prodigal son. He kept standing at the gate of the house waiting for my return.

Caring

For many years my maternal grandparents made their home with our family. Mother had three brothers, but while my Father was alive, Mother’s parents lived with us most of the time. I didn’t know then that was significant until I learned about cultural practices. Here in India it is not customary for the wife’s parents to live with a family. The thinking is that when a woman is married off, her parents can no longer have any expectations of her. My Mother didn’t have a job outside the home or earn any money. She was a housewife all the time Father was alive. He was the only earner, and he didn’t earn much. Still Father made my maternal grandparents welcome and helped my Mother look after them well and in style.

The Bible says that a Christian ought to look after needy relatives who need love and care (1 Tim.5:8) Most Indians will accept the idea that this ought to be done for the husband’s old parents, widowed sisters, needy brothers, uncle, aunts and cousins. Given our cultural notions, Indian Christian husbands for the most part do not think that it is equally their duty to take care of the needy relatives of their wives. My father broke that norm and showed me the better way of the Bible. There is a passage in the Bible that talks of Jesus going to Peter’s home and finding his mother-in-law there (Matt. 8:14).

My friend Pastor Pappy Matthai of the Assemblies of God Church in Lucknow introduced me to describing a relative-in-law as a relative-in-love. That’s a whole new way of seeing relationships.

Going Home

In the last year of his life, Father’s health deteriorated. He was diagnosed with polycystic kidneys. He had to have surgery. Before he went in for surgery, he called me to his room and told me that if he died, I was to give up college and take up a job to support Mother and my younger sister and brother. (I didn’t have to give up college education after all, because my father’s brothers and one of my mother’s brothers contributed toward the support of the family).

Father survived the operation for twenty days. A couple of days before his death, Mother heard Father whisper in his sleep: “Thousands upon thousands! Thousands upon thousands! How wonderful!” When he woke up, Mother asked him what he had dreamt. Father said that he had seen thousands of angels coming.

Father was not afraid to talk of death. But that was because he had lived honestly and believed that the afterlife with God was more important than anything this life could offer.

MOTHER

If Mother was alive today, she would have been 80 years old. One of my earliest memories was of Mother and I playing “catch me,” I must have been about three, because it happened before I started going to school. She was running slowly (at child speed) while I ran furiously round and round the table. I would look back to see if she was near enough to catch me. Suddenly I banged into a chair and cut my lip. I started to cry. Mother gathered me in her arms to comfort me, but I wouldn’t stop crying. Then she took some sugar and put it in the cut. The blood and sugar tasted great. I stopped crying. All who know me well, know that I have a sweet tooth.

Ponder

The Bible says that Mary the mother of Jesus, “pondered” things in her heart (Lk.2:19 KJV; cf. v. 51) I suppose all mothers treasure things in their heart. My mother did. Mothers don’t merely cook meals, wash clothes and clean house. They do think about the clutter in their lives. They discover meaning for their families in the midst of life.

The Bible shows some glimpses of how Mary mothered our Lord. During His babyhood is when Mary is described as having treasured things in her heart and reflected on them. That is when mothers and children are closest. The baby is totally dependent. There is nothing a baby can do for itself. Survival depends on the mother feeding and caring for the baby.

When we grow up, mothers tell us what we were like when we were babies. They share their memories of our first experience of pain and laughter. They tell us about what we liked to do when we were babies and of the times when something special or frightening happened. Mary must have done that with Jesus, telling Him of the way the angels sang, the visits of the shepherds and the wise men, and of the frightful journey to Egypt.

Once Jesus was lost. At least, He got separated from Mary and Joseph. When He was scolded by His mother, Jesus said that He had been in God’s home all the time and that they should have known that. This extraordinary answer Mary kept in her heart. But for all that she, along with Joseph didn’t forget to bring up Jesus in the discipline of a Jewish home (v.52). At the end of that period of upbringing Jesus was well known as the son of Mary and Joseph, and He had acquired hands-on-training in the carpenter’s shop. He was so skilled that He took over when Joseph died and was known as the Carpenter.

Mary remembered all those things. So when wine ran out at a wedding reception, Mary turned as usual to her eldest Son, who always took care of things after Joseph’s death. Mary very simply said, “Son, they don’t have any wine” (Jn.2:1-11) At the time she didn’t know that He had any miraculous powers. Still she expected Him to do something that would help the situation. Mary acted on her faith in her Son who had taken charge when she became a widow. She knew Him to be a caring person. She had seen Him come up with practical solutions to all her problems.

When my mother was dying she told me to take care of my younger sister and brother. She believed that I wouldn’t cheat them of their shares because she had inculcated family values that didn’t put wealth and possessions before commitment to God and relationships with people.

Though Jesus said that His time had not yet come, He went ahead and performed His first miracle. Was Mary instrumental in nudging Him to begin to exercise God’s power? Mother birds nudge fledglings to try their wings, though they twitter their protests about not being ready.

The wedding at Cana may have been the last time Jesus had gone along with His mother to a social event. He left home to become a wandering preacher. Mary had to let go of her eldest Son on whom she had grown dependent for support and help. But when she heard that Jesus was so busy that He wasn’t getting enough rest from His labours, she went to Him. She painfully heard Jesus say that anyone who did God’s will was just like His mother and siblings(Matt. 12: 46-50). She had to accept that while she was His mother and would always care about His welfare, she had to give Him the space He needed to be Himself and do all that He was sent to do.

Mother was hurt when I decided to go North. She thought I was distancing myself from her. She visited us a few times in Lucknow and got involved with the work Roshini and I were doing. She would periodically send gifts to support the work. She accepted that God had called me to work there, though she did feel that there would be more people to hear me if I moved South, where there were so many more Christians. She also recognised that some of the older women and men in the church were parenting me in her place.

In the end, Mary didn’t give up on her Son. The angel had promised that her Child would be the Son of the Most High (Lk.1:31-32). For thirty ears He had lived in total obscurity. Then He became an itinerant preacher without any symbols of authority in society. All the power He manifested was spiritual and it did not get Him any privileges—not even a foxhole or a place He could call home (9:58). For one brief moment He had a crowd claiming Him to be King (19:38), but within days He was impaled on a cross with the mocking signboard “King of the Jews” hanging over His head (23:38). Yet she stood there—the grieving mother (Jn.19:25).

There were times Mother had to stand by and watch me get hurt in ministry. There was one member who was abusive and treated me like dirt. As I preached one Sunday, my voice broke. Mother was there.

Practical

Another mother I can think of is Jochebed, the mother of Moses, who faced her problems with a practical attitude. Pharaoh had given the order that all baby toys were to be killed (Ex.1:16-17). Jochebed hid Moses at home for as long as she could (2:2). When he was too big and could bawl louder than a baby, she hid him in a basket among the reeds in the river. But even a baby boy can’t care for himself. So Jochebed made the baby’s sister Miriam stand guard and attend to the baby’s needs whenever Moses cried (vv.3-4).

The most practical thing that Jochebed did was to give up her son for adoption by Egypt’s princess (v.10). “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast?” (Isa. 49:15). Yet, to save her son, Jochebed gave up her rights as a mother. She trusted God enough to be practical.

Mother was a practical woman alright. When I was about four or five my parents got a cow for milk and extra money. They got a man to come and clean the place, feed the cow and milk it. One day it started to rain, and the cow was getting wet. Mother asked Father to take the cow into the shed before it got sick. But Father was afraid to go near the cow. So was Mother, but she felt that she had to do something. She went out, untied the cow and took it into the shed. Father was impressed.

All through her life, Mother showed that practicality. When people were hurting or discouraged, she would make them a bottle of jam or relish, or give them a batch of what were, in my opinion, the world’s best laddoos. She would visit them and pray for them.

Though my sister and I had left home and started our own families, Mother continued to be supportive and helped whenever we needed it. She was there to take care of motherless Roshini when she gave birth to our son Ishaaq.

Praying

Mothers pray for their children more than the children pray for themselves. Hannah was a praying mother before she became a mother. When she was taunted for being childless, she turned to God. Her husband could not give her the son she wanted. Through prayer she went beyond her husband to get a son (1 Sam.1:1-15). She made a promise to God. People who make promises claim the future and shape it when they keep their promises. Hannah kept her promise to God and gave he son to God. Hannah’s song (2:1-10) was a precursor to Mary’s song (Lk.1:46-55). She showed the same trust in God and His power to uplift those in trouble.

Mother prayed for us. All of us knew that whatever happened we could count on Mother praying for us—for our home and work, for our children—for their growth and happiness.

When my mother was dying, the last thing she did was to pray for my sister, her family, my brother, and for me and my family. Afterwards she slipped into unconsciousness and went to her Lord. We miss her prayers for us.

Passing It On

Though the Bible addresses fathers about rearing children in the knowledge of God, it is a historical fact that more mothers have influenced their children than fathers. They spend more time with them and nurture them not only with food, but also inspire and motivate them. They teach good behaviour and impart values.

Timothy got his spiritual direction from his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice (2 Tim.1:5). It is not essential that wealth and possessions are passed on. They are only of temporary worth. It is more important that children receive a heritage of ideals and values—because those are principles to live by. They guide us through life. They steady us when we falter and stumble, when we struggle and fail.

My father died when I was 17. Mother told us of her life with Father. She told us stories of their struggles and hopes. She passed on their values to us. She set an example in devotional life and taught us about commitment to the church of God. Tithing and even going beyond the tithe was something she taught by practice.

After Father’s death she could have easily made us forget that we were part of Father’s family. Like Ruth(1:16-17), she made it a point to affirm that her dead husband’s family was her family and her children’s. Not that she neglected her own parents and siblings. Working at relationships and being generous toward those less fortunate were things we learnt from her.

Proverbs says of the ideal woman that her children will praise her. Her children are her praise (31:10-31).

PASTOR’S WIFE

Roshini and I met for the first time when a Bible study was held in her home. I was home for a brief vacation between semesters at seminary. One morning I ran into a friend, who asked whether I would do a study for some young people. By afternoon it was raining very heavily, but since I had made a commitment to lead the group I went. When I got to Roshini’s home she was alone and wasn’t expecting anyone to turn up due to the inclement weather. But since I had got there, she called her friends on the phone and told them the crazy seminary student had turned up in spite of the rain and asked everyone to come quickly to her rescue.

After I finished seminary, Mother urged that I should consider marriage. I had an older friend at seminary. Harold Mudaliar had married late. He had crossed 35 and his little daughter was just one year old. He said to us younger fellows, “Guys, marry young so that you give your youth to your kids. Look at me. I’m 35+. By the time my daughter is 15, I’ll be 50, and not quite so young to run and jump and play games with her.” Remembering that, I said okay to mother’s suggestion.

Choosing A Girl

I knew that Mother would search for a girl in her circle, which was essentially the Syrian Christian community of Kerala. Most of them would know nothing about belief in Christ as their personal Saviour. So I told her that whoever she chose needed to be a believer and fluent in English. Mother asked me if I knew any girl who fit my requirements. I gave her a list of girls I had met at camps and youth meetings where I had ministered in some way. The only girl living in Madras (where Mother lived) was Roshini, so Mother went after her. My friends suggest that I made sure whom Mother would choose.

Roshini’s father had plans for her to marry a “suitable boy.” A pastor was not suitable because of being a poor earner. After the official meeting between our families, I got in touch with a mutual friend and asked her to fix things so that Roshini and I could meet in the friend’s home to talk more without our families being present to inhibit us.

After escorting Roshini home from our friend’s home, I was late getting back to my Mother’s place. When I left home in the morning, I had said that I would be back by 7.30 p.m. It was almost 9 by the time I got back. Meanwhile Mother had gone to the nearby police station to report that her son was missing. The officer on duty started to note details. The officer asked, “What’s your son’s age?” Mother said, “25.” The man shut the register and told her that I was a young man and she should report me missing only if I didn’t get back after midnight. How embarrassing!

Costly Sacrifice

Roshini and I had got cash gifts at our wedding. But we had to spend it all on a party in Lucknow. The woman who was in charge of fellowship activities at the church had planned a get together with selected people from the membership. I had just started my ministry. It would have been disastrous if people perceived the selection as something I had approved. So money that meant to give us a start in setting up home, had to be spent on a party. Roshini was very upset, but accepted that this was a sacrifice she had to make.

The woman who had organised the event, tried to talk to her in Malayalam in company, saying that it would be handy to talk secrets. Roshini told her, “That’s not nice.”

While I had had seminary training, Roshini brought only her Christian commitment to the job of being a pastor’s wife. Yes, it’s a job. It’s the only unpaid position in the church. The pastor’s wife has to take responsibility for Sunday School, lead in women’s meetings, sing in the choir, oversee the cleaning and decoration of the sanctuary and the upkeep of the garden and bear the brunt of serving at church lunches and suppers. Some of the time, the only reward was unkind criticism.

Gentle Influence

In my younger days, I was easily cantankerous. I had a tendency to give as good as I got. Roshini was the one who poured oil over troubled waters and calmed me down. I learnt the theory of pastoral work at seminary, but it was from Roshini that I learnt to be a pastor—to be gentle and caring.

I’m reserved by nature. I don’t make friends easily. Roshini bridged the gap between people and me. I’m a better preacher because she did that. Or, I would have been preaching stuff that I had studied but it would not touch people, because I wouldn’t know how people felt and what they thought. Through Roshini, I was able to befriend people and minister to them. This was especially true of young girls from the college where she teaches. Though they called her “Ma’am”, she was their auntie and I became their “Uncle.” They would come home, join us for meals, some stayed in our home when ill or otherwise troubled. Years later, some of them are still in touch to ask for prayer and counsel.

Apart from my own difficulty in making friends, as a rule pastors don’t have close friends. People regard them as strange creatures to be kept at a distance. They just want pastors to pray for them, but feel that they can’t have anything in common with those who make a career out of being religious. People seem to view preachers like some weird persons who have gone overboard with their faith. So when I started work in Lucknow, I had no friends. Most of my pastoral colleagues didn’t share my evangelical beliefs as they had trained in liberal theological colleges. For them pastoral work was just a job to earn a living. Some pastors in other denominations were extremists. Most were not my age. It was a lonely work. Roshini was my only companion, my closest friend. She shared my concerns, hopes and longings.

Personal Encourager

Roshini was also my critic. She offered me advice on how to improve my ministry. She listened to my preaching and told me what I needed to do to be more effective in communicating the gospel. When I write, if I feel that my articles are just plodding along or ideas seem to be confused, I ask her to read and tell me what she thinks. Often a suggestion would transform what I was trying to say. The words stopped dragging, the block would be gone and there was a new freedom so that my words took wing.

Roshini’s supportiveness has been a source of strength in my ministry. Without her shouldering much of the care of the family, I wouldn’t have been free to serve in different situations. I’ve been able to travel to minister in camps and conferences in other places, because Roshini freed and encouraged me to accept such invitations. She would miss my company, but always felt that I needed to do this. Our son and daughter didn’t grow up as typical, rebellious “preacher’s kids”, because Roshini gave them a double dose of love and care when I was away from home.

I couldn’t have done it without Roshini. God created Eve, a “suitable helper.” Wives are not lesser and weaker because they are designated helpers. The Bible says, “God is our Helper.” He is not less than those He helps. Roshini has been a tower of strength to me. I think of her as my human paraclete–advocate/encourager/ strengthener—the one who comforts, encourages, helps and defends. I believe the Divine Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) uses human paracletes to accomplish His purpose in our lives. For me Roshini is God’s answer.

BABITA WEDS NARASIMHA

Anita belonged to another church, but would occasionally worship in the church where I was pastor. One Sunday, after the service, she told me that there was a Hindu girl who had come to the Lord and wanted to be baptised. I told Anita to tell the girl to attend services and see me about baptism after six weeks of attendance. I said that I would then take classes in Christian doctrine. I always did this to ascertain the genuineness of people.

Since I was not immediately introduced to the girl, I eventually forgot about her. Then one Sunday, Anita told me that the girl had been faithfully attending services for weeks and asked if I would take her through baptismal classes. I agreed to meet her.

The following Sunday, I met Babita for the first time. It turned out that she had been sitting in the last row and slipping away immediately after the benediction.

Babita had come to know the Lord Jesus through attending an informal Bible study. One of her colleagues at the school where she taught had kept on pressing her to attend their group. Finally she went, just to stop her colleague from pestering her. She liked being with the study group and went back again and again till one day she realised she had to face up to the claims of Christ. She went back home and on her own decided to become a follower of Christ.

Implicit Obedience

I told Babita I would teach her Christian doctrines and after that I would baptise her. Faithfully she attended church services and the classes. After I finished teaching her and she had understood the meaning of Christian belief, she indicated that she still wanted to go through with baptism.

Finally, the Sunday arrived when she was to be baptised. Her friends from the school came to witness her public confession of faith in Jesus Christ as her Saviour and Lord.

Next Sunday when I went into the church building, I saw Babita sitting as usual in the last row. I said, “Babita, I would like you to sit up front from now on.” She said, “Okay,” and promptly went to the very first pew. I was touched by such implicit obedience.

Time went by. Babita never missed church services. I could count on her being there—rain or shine, and even when any Hindu festival happened to be on a Sunday.

Simplicity

I invited her over one day to have a chat. I asked Babita what she was going to do about marriage. She told me that some of her friends were on the job of looking for a husband, but had not succeeded yet.

Some of her friends, concerned that she might end up marrying a non-Christian, suggested that she should not insist on marrying only a believer. To this Babita’s response had been, “But pastor has taught from the Bible that believers should not marry unbelievers.” For her that was the end of the matter.

I have been impressed by the simplicity and courage of her stand. I have not always seen similar conviction among those who hailed from Christian homes. From then, I felt responsible for her as her pastor. Having baptised her, I did not want it to turn out that because no Christian young man would marry her, she would end up being forced by her family to marry a Hindu.

Absolute Trust

When one attempt of her friends to have a believer consider marrying her failed, I asked Babita if she would permit me to run a matrimonial ad in the Light of Life. As usual, Babita’s response was to consent immediately just because I was her pastor. Her absolute trust moved me.

I advertised, “A pastor is looking for a young man to marry a Hindu convert…” The responses were redirected to my address. None of them were suitable. Meanwhile I started to respond to ads placed by some young men or their families. Nothing came of this effort either.

Providential

A few months after I had placed my advertisement, I was in the Light of Life editorial office for my usual half-yearly stint. While I was in the office, a late response to my advertisement came in. Since I was right there, it was handed over to me then and there. When I opened it, there was a snapshot of a presentable looking young man. There was a covering letter from his friends, Jamila and Satish. The correspondents were residents of Bombay. I immediately got on the phone and made an appointment for the young man to come and see me.

Narasimha walked into the room in the guest house where I was staying saying, “Do you remember me?” I said, “I’m sorry, I can’t.”

“I attended the EU camp in Allahabad where you were the speaker and it was there that I gave my life to the Lord Jesus,” Narasimha said. He was also a Hindu convert. I had a good feeling about the way things were working out. It was incredible that someone in whose life I had an input some years before, should be the very one who was then to be considered for Babita. I excitedly informed my wife Roshini when I spoke to her on the phone. Roshini said that she would not say anything to Babita and would wait for me to tell her personally. I was then eager to get back to Lucknow and share the good news with her.

When I got back, I told Babita about Narasimha and my feeling that everything about the case had the touch of the providential. I gave her the letter from Jamila and Satish and the photograph. She read the letter through and said she would leave it to me to pursue the matter. She told her friends at school and showed them the letter and photograph.

I wrote to Narasimha suggesting that he should visit Lucknow to have a meeting with Babita. He was careful, but his slowness made me impatient. I pressed for urgency. I said that the pressures on a girl are greater and he needed to go about matters a little faster.

Meanwhile, a friend had registered Babita’s name with a Christian matrimonial agency. Babita did not want it because I was already on the job. However, her friend would not yield. One young man and his parents came to Lucknow. The mother was keen that Babita should marry her son. Babita insisted that the guy would need to be interviewed by me. It became apparent that while he was a decent young man, he was not clear about faith in Christ. Babita turned the proposal down.

Finally, Narasimha came down. He stayed in the parsonage with my family. We asked Babita to visit us. After I initiated the conversation, I left them in the drawing room to talk. At the end of Narasimha’s visit, when he was returning to Bombay, there was indication that he felt positive.

Unexpected Turn

However, once he got back to Bombay, the pace of developments remained slow. He delayed telling his brothers, because he was afraid of their reactions. In no uncertain terms I indicated that he would have to hurry up as the matter could not be delayed. Speed was critical considering Babita’s circumstances. Finally, Narasimha talked to his eldest brother. Babita told her parents about Narasimha and they gave their consent.

Narasimha’s brother rang up Babita’s father and told him that they were not interested. Babita’s parents were upset.

This unexpected turn of events made me anxious. Narasimha asked for a little more time and said that he would sort things out. I agreed, but asked him to hurry up or I would have to consider some other response that had come in after Jamila and Satish had written.

Go Ahead

After some days went by and Narasimha had it out with his brother, he was told he could go ahead, but without the family’s support and blessing. He rang me up. I told Babita and she informed her parents that Narasimha had worked out something.

Narasimha, Satish, and another friend Richard came to Lucknow to see Babita’s family. All of us went there one evening. At the end of the visit, the family asked to be advised about the next step. I said that there could be an engagement and that it could take place before Narasimha and his friends went back. They agreed.

That evening Roshini and I took Babita and Narasimha to shop for engagement rings. The next day was Sunday. After the regular worship service, the engagement took place in Babita’s home with all of her family present.

A couple of months later the wedding took place. Narasimha came with friends from his support group in Bombay. We had thought that very few would attend the wedding service in the church. Instead, the building was full with Babita’s family, relatives and friends. Her father proudly walked down the aisle with her and gave her in marriage to Narasimha.

Babita and Narasimha are maintaining relationships with their families without compromising their identity as followers of Christ. They avoid participation in festivals and religious ceremonies. Their families know where they stand on these matters, but also know that they are loved. “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal.5:6).

IN GOD’S TIME

Some years back, a book was published with the title When Bad Things Happen To Good People. It became very popular for obvious reasons. All of us have some time or the other felt that some things should not be happening to us. We consider them to be bad. Why does God let them happen to us, we wonder.

The trials of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked were troublesome topics for the Old Testament saints. The Psalmist Asaph found consolation for his failing strength in God being His strength and portion forever (Ps.73:26), because being with God was all that mattered (v.25). Another psalmist said that when his foot was slipping it was God’s love that supported him (94:18).

The message of the Bible is that when bad things happen, God is there with us. “In all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose” (Rom. 8:28).

Personal Story

The purpose of God is worked out according to God’s own timing. That is what we as a family have been discovering especially in the last few years. For 23 years I was in a comfortable position. Left to myself I would not have chosen to move out from where I was. I would have just stayed on. When I was forced out, it hurt a lot at first. But I soon realised it was God’s time for what had happened. Sometimes, He may use even an injustice to accomplish His purpose, just as He did in the case of Joseph whose dreams were fulfilled only through his being sold into slavery.

While we were in the old place, Roshini talked often of having a house of our own. I would say that there was no point to that since I would always have living quarters with my job. Who wants to leave a house unoccupied and ready to be grabbed, or, if given on rent, enter into litigation to have it vacated when we would need it? Roshini continued to feel insecure about not having a house of our own, but just could not persuade me to change my mind on this matter.

Frustration

In our changed circumstances, we no longer had quarters. We had temporary accommodation in a flat that belonged to the Operation Mobilisation. It had been built only month months earlier, and the designated worker for whom it was built was not yet married. His marriage worked out only after our need for the place was over.

For the first time in our lives we had to look for rented accommodation. The new church was willing to pay Rs 3,000 per month for our housing. When we could not get a suitable house at that rent, we decided to add Rs 1,000 more toward rent from our own resources. But we still could not get a house. As soon as a landlord would know that were in jobs where we would never be transferred out of the city, he would not let us have his house. As we continued our search, one thought worried us: even after we get a house, every eleven months or so we would have to move house since landlords do not want tenants to stay long term for fear that they might create legal problems. The thought of having to go through the exercise of finding a house and packing and moving in an annual cycle was daunting for us. Roshini and I had never done anything like that from the time we started our married life and set up home.

In all we spent six very frustrating weeks house hunting. We were very discouraged. We grew more and more desperate as time went on. We had to keep faith with Operation Mobilisation and vacate their flat before too long.

When some friends heard that we were wiling to pay up to Rs 4,000 per month for housing, they said that we should consider buying a house instead. They pointed out that we would be spending almost half a lakh in the first year and it would be more in subsequent years. After spending all that money every year, we would have nothing to show for it. So we ended up considering the option of buying a house.

God’s Leading

We were led to a house that was locked up for a whole year. It belonged to a young woman whose name is Indu. Her parents had been living there. After her father died, her mother decided to move to Chennai where Indu lived with her family. We were told that there had been offers of up to ten lakhs for the house. But the sale had not gone through. That was primarily because a prayer group used to meet in the house and the members of the group requested the mother that since the house had been used for prayer, it should be sold only to people who would pray in the name of Jesus to God, our Father.

After calculating that we would have about four lakhs from both our provident funds, and we could take a matching loan from a financial institution, I wrote to Indu, telling her of our circumstances and made an offer for seven lakhs. Indu wrote back that she did not want to make money on the sale of the house, but would just like to recover what she had spent and would sell the house to us for eight lakhs. She added that if we were definite about buying the house, then she would even let us rent the house until we were able to gather our funds together. I immediately accepted. But the deal just got better. Indu said that instead of rent, we could pay Rs 50,000 as a down payment that would be deducted from the total. So, we ended up living in a house without owning it, nor paying any rent for it!

Just look at God’s timing. Roshini and I had about 15 years before retirement. Had we waited until retirement to buy a house, we would not be able to do so, given the way land prices are going up. Nor would we be able to get a housing loan from any institution, since we would not be creditworthy when we will have no income. We were of course not thinking of all this. But God knew that we needed to be forced out so that we would be able to get a house of our own.

Human Enabler

Look at what happened from another angle. Imagine someone locking up their house waiting for a whole year to sell to people who would pray to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and then offering to sell it for two lakhs than the last quotation they had received. The house was kept for us and because Indu is sensitive to God’s leading, she accepted us. Against a down payment that is one-sixteenth of the total price, she allowed us occupancy of the house. No one does that in North India for fear of being cheated.

Seven months after promises were made about buying the house we were not able to make the full payment and finalise the transaction. While Roshini got an advance from her provident fund easily because she had to deal only with the government, I ran into a problem as my provident fund was with a denominational agency. The hierarchy was offended that I had exercised my citizen’s right to resign from work I found unsuitable. I left because I did not wish to be diverted from my call to preach. Though the law of the land does not allow the attachment of the provident fund even in the case of a person having embezzled the office he or she worked for, the denominational hierarchy tried to deprive me of my provident fund by hook or by crook. We did not keep Indu in the dark. We told her of the problems we were having in getting the money together. Her response was, “We put no pressure on you. Let going to court to get your money be the last resort.” What an enabler Indu was! She gave us the strength to keep God’s commandment.

Even the delay in the release of the provident fund, though unjust, was according to God’s timing. The rate of interest for housing loans came down. If we had got the money released earlier, we would have availed of the loan at a time when the rate of interest was higher and we would have had to pay back a lot more. We didn’t know what lay in the future, but God knew. He not only managed our time, but also our money.

LIFE AND DEATH IN NAGALAND

It was Monday, May 24^th, 1999. It was family prayer and breakfast time in our home. Since I hadn’t heard from my younger brother Joseph for a number of days, we prayed to hear from him and also about God working out my proposed visit to Wokha, Nagaland, to spend time discovering what his life and work were like. As we ended the prayer, the telephone gave the long ring for a long distance call. The voice on the line said, “Call from Nagaland.” I thought it strange that my brother should be using an operator to make his call and wondered why.

The caller wanted to know what my relationship to Joseph was. Once I had identified myself, without any preamble, he told me that something sad had happened and that Joseph had died the day before. What a shock! Just when I was planning to be with him in a few month’s time. I asked them to delay the funeral by another twenty-four hours to allow me to get there for it.

Thus began my journey of discovering that part of India that had been home for so many years to my brother and had grown beloved to him.

One of the members of the Grace Bible Church took charge of getting me a reservation on that evening’s flight to Calcutta and one on the next morning’s flight from Calcutta to Dimapur, Nagaland.

There was a second call from Nagaland. This time a Malayalee teacher at the Don Bosco School in Wokha spoke to me. He said that my brother’s colleagues were feeling awkward about explaining the situation to me. He made it plain that conditions there were such that it would not be advisable to delay the funeral. There was no mortuary to keep the body, and he said that, even if I flew, it would take me all of two days to get to Wokha! Of course, if I insisted, they would still delay the funeral, but I would be greatly distressing the people there. So I gave them permission to go ahead.

Calcutta to Dimapur

On arrival in Calcutta, I asked at the concerned office for a room at the airport to stay the night, but the man would give me only a bed in a dormitory. I suppose they keep the rooms for those who have influence or pay bribes. The dormitory floor was not very clean, but it was passable, but the bathroom was filthy. For those facilities I had to pay Rs 200 for the night.

Next morning I took the flight to Dimapur. On arrival at the airport I saw a number of signs for phones, but there were no phones. Finally, I found one, but as I approached it with a coin in my hand, the security guard said, “It doesn’t work.” There was nothing else to do but leave the airport and find my way into the city and then see how I could get to Wokha.

The flight from Calcutta had stopped at Jorhat. Almost all the passengers had got off there and a new lot boarded the plane. But they hadn’t got off at Dimapur. They stayed on board to fly to Calcutta. Only three others and I got off at Dimapur. Two of them looked like South Indians. So I approached them and asked if they knew how I could get to Wokha. One of them offered me a lift into the city. His name is Sebastian and he works for the Catholic Relief Services in Calcutta. On the way, I told Sebastian that I was going to Wokha because of my brother’s death. Sebastian became even more caring and helpful.

Catholics in Nagaland

While an Indian can go into neighbouring Nepal without having a passport or getting a visa, to travel in this part of India, one needs an “inner line permit.” Sebastian’s driver didn’t know anything about how to go about getting this permit, so they took me to the Catholic Bishop’s House. There I was introduced to the Vicar General, Rev. Fr. Mathew. He very kindly opened a room for me to have a wash and change, while they got lunch ready for me. When lunch was over, they made arrangements for me to get the inner line permit. All this took time. It was about 2.30 p.m. by then. So Fr. Mathew advised me that I should not proceed to Wokha, but halt at Kohima for the night. The state transport buses stop plying after five o’clock and safety could not be guaranteed if I hired a jeep to take me by myself to Wokha. So he gave me a letter of introduction for Rev. Fr. C. Peter at the Catholic Publications Centre in Kohima.

As the taxi left Dimapur, I saw that there were armed soldiers patrolling the roads. Every few miles there were batches of soldiers just walking, but being alert to every passing vehicle. Twice the taxi was stopped. I was not asked to produce my permit, but the passengers were questioned about where they were going and what was in their baggage. Once they wanted to examine the baggage of a woman and her son riding in the front. By the time we neared Kohima, it was nearly five o’clock. The roads began to wear a deserted look.

Fr. Peter readily took me in at the Publications Centre, even though he already had two other Roman Catholic fathers as guests. I ate with them and watched a little news on TV before we retired to the guest room. The next morning at six I was on my way to Wokha by bus. As I left Kohima, I saw that the city was already stirring to life. Shops were opening up for business at that early hour!

The road to Wokha was bad. Rains had already started in Nagaland and in some places had caused landslides. Between Kohima and Wokha there was a greater presence of the army. More checks were carried out. Movement of vehicles is registered. The soldiers would come in to check the baggage. So some of the men would go out for a smoke or to just stretch their legs. One soldier asked the Naga woman sitting next to me what was in her little cloth bag and wanted to see inside, but he never asked me to open up my suitcase. It was obvious that Nagas were suspect. I was not.

I reached Wokha at about 10.30 a.m. It had been two days since my brother had died. It had taken me all of two days to get from Lucknow to Wokha, just like my second caller had said. People were on the lookout for me in the marketplace. Two Malayalees spotted me and quickly got in touch with the school where my brother had been teaching and the school authorities sent a jeep for me to be taken to the school.

I discovered that my brother’s funeral had been performed by Fr. P.K. Mathew of the Don Bosco School, knowing very well that my brother was not a Catholic. I salute all these Catholic priests who set aside their denominational identity to help in all these situations.

That’s the way it should be all over India. There should be greater cooperation among all those who claim to be followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is only one Lord. In the final analysis, our denominational identities don’t matter. All that matters is our identity in Christ.

Sir Joe

Joseph had been in Nagaland at four different times. The last had been the longest stint. What was it that had drawn him back again and again? Both at the Hindustan Bible Institute in Madras, and at the Mount Hermon Teacher Training College in Darjeeling, he had had Naga classmates. They invited him to go there, and he accepted. He had a few problems during the earlier stays, but his last time he seemed to have found his niche.

“Sir Joe,” as he was known in Wokha, had gone there in December 1992 and started working for the Bloom Field Academy from February 1993. He had been working until then, for two years or so at the sister school in Chakitong. It was while he was there that the late M.M. Thomas (an uncle by marriage, having married my father’s first cousin), then Governor of Nagaland, visited the small village school. As you can imagine, that was a very big event for that place.

Sir Joe was excellent at PR, getting to know people in the civil and army administrations. At the principal’s invitation he moved to Wokha, and put his PR skills to use. He was known all over Wokha, it would seem. His hallmark was a cloth bag full of Christian tracts. One person told me that whenever he went into town there would be a few children hanging on to both his arms. He visited many people all over town and gave them tracts and devotional materials. The children also started to go for outreach work under his direction.

As soon as he joined the school, Joseph opened a hostel and took in eleven underprivileged children. The children and even the staff called him “Papa” a lot of the time. The school and the hostel kept growing from there on. In 1999 the school had an enrolment of 425, the hostel had 48, and the first batch of students had appeared for the matriculation exams of the Nagaland Board of Education, and everyone of the students had passed. The results were declared only on the 27^th of May. People in the community recalled Joseph’s services and then told me that much of the credit for the school being accredited and the children passing their exams went to Sir Joe. They described him as the backbone of the school. Even the staff tended to describe him as the “most important pillar.” Clearly he had been responsible for initiating a number of their programmes and they looked to him for leadership and guidance in implementing them. One colleague said that he had not seen anyone like him—so committed to the welfare of the school and the children, working selflessly, and even spending some of his money on the children. Everyone said that his death had left a big blank and that they did not know how they could fill it.

Principal N.S. Lotha told me that every year Joseph would somehow bring in some donations for the school. The previous year he had topped it with a donation of Rs 50,000. The school does not get any aid from anywhere. Conditions are quite primitive in this remote part of Nagaland. The school buildings and even the room that Joseph had stayed in were nothing more than shacks. The walls were made of mats. That is where Sir Joe was happy in his work. He gave his life to the education of children in a very backward situation.

As a confirmed bachelor, he had some eccentricities, and as a human being, failings. But in Wokha he overcame all that to endear himself to the people. As some of them told me, “He loved our Lotha tribe people. Will there be anyone to love us as much now?” In his letters home he would plead for his children and Nagaland. He felt that most of the problems of the region had to do with the extreme poverty and the injustices of their situation. When he came on vacation, he would never stay the full time. He had always felt that he had to be back to get things going for the new academic year. When he went back, he had always carried back stuff that was not always only for his personal use. He used to carry things for his loved students.

Not Untimely

During the last week of his life, he came down with a case of diarrhoea. They took him to the local doctor and he seemed to be improving. All through his illness there were people caring for him in one way or the other. There was an old woman and a young mother living next door to him, who saw to it that he got his food and took his medicines properly. The end came very gently and peacefully. After four days of being ill, on Sunday morning he had got up and had a wash on his own. He also had a meal. Then he complained of body pain. So Vice Principal Rupendra Mukhia, who had taken over from him, was pressing his arms and a couple of students were pressing his legs. He remarked, “That feels good.” Soon he dozed off and, without Rupendra and the boys realising it, he slipped away.

Some years earlier, Joseph had told me that I should not worry if anything should happen to him. There would be people to take care of him, he said. And that was how it was. He died surrounded by members of his adopted family, and they buried him with much love and honour. The response from the community was quite remarkable. Officials of the army and government departments released their vehicles for the funeral and people turned out from all walks of life in spite of the inclement weather.

It was very comforting for me to know that Joseph was not all alone when death came to him and I am grateful that he did not suffer or struggle in death. I thank our Lord Jesus that Joseph was released from all the limitations of this life and experienced healing and entered into the fuller life in our Lord’s presence.

God in Control

From a human perspective, all deaths are untimely. But from the divine viewpoint, no death is untimely. God knew what He was doing. So, maybe even if Joseph had been surrounded by a wife and children and had home-cooked meals, etc., God would still have taken him at that very moment in some other way. God was in total control, even though we were not. If we do not believe that, we are left with nothing but tragedies in our lives.

Somehow I think of each of the deaths in my family as triumphs of the Lord’s grace. Before my father died, he was heard talking in his sleep. It was obvious that he was dreaming. He talked of a large army of angels coming. So, that’s how I think of his death, even though we, his children, were left fatherless. Not really. Whereas he had once fathered us, God then became our only Father.

A few days before my mother died, Roshini heard mother counting. So Roshini asked mother what she was counting, and she replied that she was counting the angels.

Then Joseph died saying, “That feels good.” No, I wouldn’t want to rewrite the endings to their lives’ stories. They’re perfect endings.

Back in Nagaland, I myself was treated with respect and love because of Joseph, and they sent me back with Naga shawls as gifts for the family and me.

From Wokha, the principal arranged for me to go by jeep all the way to Dimapur for my return flight. What a ride! The roads wind through the hills, often just a dirt track. And the driver was one who believed that if there is a vehicle in front of him, it was there just to be overtaken! He drove on those scary roads at breakneck speed. I found myself humming, “Just as I am…O Lamb of God, I come, I come!” Stopped that immediately, but next I caught myself humming, “…and when I stand upon the other shore, I’ll praise Him more and more.” Stopped that too. Then the chaps in the back who were going along to see me to Dimapur, were discussing some music and one of them started to belt out, “O when the saints go marching in!” After they stopped, the next time I caught myself humming it was “The Lord’s my Shepherd…” So I stayed with that.

They had arranged for my stay in Dimapur at the Nagaland State Tourist Lodge. The room I was given had dirty bed sheets and the taps were dripping, leaving the room with stagnant water. So I asked the receptionist if I could have a better room, if I paid more. She laughed, but agreed to see what she could do. I did get a better room without any extra payment. (A Naga who came to visit me, told me that the State Tourist Lodge doesn’t use new sheets, and keeps on using torn sheets, because the Nagaz who stay there, when leaving, strip the bed and pack up the sheets to take them home. I told him that I didn’t mind the old sheet with a tear, as long as the sheet was washed and clean).

Just For Me

When I got to the airport, it looked like there would be flight even though it had been raining. But the time for the plane to come in from Calcutta passed. Then we learnt that the plane had tried to land, but had been diverted to Guwahati due to poor visibility. Finally, they reported that the plane had returned to Calcutta. When I collected my luggage, I asked about my onward reservation from Calcutta to Lucknow and was told to sort that out at the city office. They arranged for non-local passengers to be transported to the city office, then put up at a hotel for the night. There was still no word about the onward reservation. Meanwhile the power broke down.

Next morning was clear, and they had organised a special flight for all of the previous day’s passengers. [There were no daily flights out of Dimapur]. There was still no word about the onward reservation because their computer had been down. So I was asked to contact their staff at Calcutta, and sort it out. Finally, the plane took off around 8.45 a.m. When the plane reached Calcutta, I hurried to the airlines staff and discovered that the flight to Lucknow, which should have left at 6.00 a.m., was delayed and was still there at 10.00 a.m. I was rushed to the head of the queue for another flight, and checked in as the very last passenger for the flight to Lucknow! I was taken out to the aircraft on a bus all by myself. I wondered if my baggage would get loaded, since all the other baggage for the flight had already been loaded. And believe it or not, both luggage and I arrived in Lucknow at the same time!

The previous day’s flight cancellation was just perfect for me! I didn’t have to spend one night in Calcutta. I would have been able to use a dormitory bed during the afternoon and early evening. I was planning to sit up all night because I would have had to check in at 5 in the morning, and there would be no one to give me a wake up call in a dorm. By halting at Dimapur, I got a proper room and bed, and proper food, at no cost to myself, and I returned to Lucknow on the very same day I was supposed to in the first place. God had orchestrated everything just for me. He knew I needed some encouragement through experiencing His care.

GOD’S IN OUR LAND

The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it,

the world, and all who live in it (Ps.24:1).

For by Him all things were created:

things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,

whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;

all things were created by Him and for Him.

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Col 1:16-17).

RIGHTS OF MINORITIES

When I thought of writing this article, I was in a place where six Christian organisations had their offices. Five of these had nation-wide operations or dealings. I asked for a copy of the Constitution of India and discovered that none of them had one. Is it typical of Indian Christians that they do not care to have accurate information about their constitutional rights?

We certainly must not leave the way of Jesus who neither adopted violence as a strategy nor countenanced it among His disciples. However, He never hesitated to challenge wrong-doing. He defied people, “Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?” (Jn.8:46). When He was on trial on trumped up charges, He knew that it would be nothing but a mockery of justice. He therefore refused to be subjected to an inquiry by those who had already made up their minds about the outcome. So He said, “I have spoken openly…Why question me? Ask those who heard me…” (Jn.18:20-21). For giving such a defiant answer, He was slapped. Instead of turning the other cheek, Jesus said, “If I said something wrong…testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” (vv. 23-24).

Jesus no doubt did not rise up in arms to fight the injustice, but neither would He allow them the luxury of an untroubled conscience by letting the injustice go unchallenged. Instead He told them how a fair inquiry was to be conducted. What He did then was to engage in “law talk.”

That great apostolic theologian of the Early Church was another to challenge wrong-doing by talking of the law. When he was brutalised in jail, he refused to disappear and save the administration of the city of Philippi the embarrassment and the culpability of having flogged and incarcerated an innocent citizen (Acts 16:37-39). On another occasion, he prevented a similar outrage by asking about his rights as a citizen (22:24-29). Best of all was his appeal to Caesar when he saw that he was going to be denied a fair trial (25:10-11). Paul had to be a student of Roman law, not just a student of God’s Word, to have made such a clever use of the law as he did.

The Constitution

When there are parliamentary parties that periodically try to deny the rights of minorities, it is time for Christians to not only know their Bible, but also the Constitution of the nation.

There are 22 parts to the Constitution. Part I describes the territory of India, and Part II defines who its citizens are. Parts V to XXII cover all aspects of governance by the Centre and the States, including taxation, ownership of property, commerce, employment by the government. elections, etc.

III to IVA are the parts that are particularly relevant to the life of ordinary citizens. Part IVA stipulates fundamental duties. It is the shortest part of the Constitution and has just one article, 51A. In summary, all citizens must abide by the Constitution, uphold the sovereignty of the nation, defend the country, promote harmony, preserve culture and environment, and strive for excellence.

Part IV sets forth the “Directive Principles of State Policy.” It is the duty of the State to monitor present conditions of life, and enact new laws to improve the situation. This part gives the direction in which progress must be made. Thus, for example, the government must try to secure adequate means of livelihood for all, equal pay for equal work, education for children, protection of children from exploitation, participation of workers in management and a uniform civil code. It must also raise the level of nutrition, improve the standard of public health and ensure the protection of the environment and national monuments.

Fundamental Rights

The “Fundamental Rights” are found in Part III. The word “fundamental” is a loaded one. It implies that the given rights are basic, essential and foundational. That is the way the Founding Fathers understood the significance of the rights. B.N. Rau specifically asked that the Fundamental Rights should be subordinate to the Directive Principles. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “A fundamental right would be looked upon, not from the point of view of any particular difficulty of the moment, but as something that you want to make permanent in the Constitution. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan said, “We must safeguard the liberty of the human spirit against the encroachments of the State. While State regulation is necessary to improve economic conditions, it should not be done at the expense of the human spirit…This declaration, which we make today, is of the nature of pledge to our own people and a pact with the civilised world.” In no uncertain terms Rau’s plea was rejected and the Constituent Assembly voted that the rights were permanent and inalienable (N.A. Palkhivala, We, The People, pp.200,214).

Article 14 guarantees “equality before the law” and Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, caste or sex. Equal opportunity in public employment is protected by Article 16. The freedoms of speech, assembly, association, movement, residence and occupation are defined by Article 19, and protection of life and personal liberty by Article 21. Obviously, all the rights enjoyed by others are equally the rights of minorities.

Right to Propagate

Of particular interest to minorities are the rights pertaining to freedom of conscience. Again, they must be seen as rights enjoyed equally by minorities just as they are by the majority community. The Constitution does not discriminate against the minorities, but guarantees equality in profession, practise and propagation of religion (Article 25), freedom in management of religious affairs, including establishing and maintaining religious and charitable institutions (Article 26), and freedom from taxation that promotes any particular religion (Article 27). In practice, while the government does not collect any religious taxes, it is a fact that the majority community often conducts forced collections for the observance of poojas and celebration of festivals. The attitude of the majority community is that if the minorities want to live among them, they must pay. This taxation by society goes on with the cognisance of the government.

The article that generated controversy from the very beginning is Article 25. When the Constitution was being adopted, the word “propagate” was at issue. A submission had been made to the Sub-Committee on Minorities that the right to “preach and propagate” was an important one that needed to be safeguarded 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 was 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 conversion of minors without the permission of guardians, and conversion “by coercion, undue influence, or the offering of material inducement.”

While Munshi could not explain what was meant by “undue influence”, C. Rajagopalchari questioned the necessity of the second qualifying clause because it was covered by the Indian Penal Code. Sardar Vallabhai Patel, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, said that in his opinion both the restrictive clauses were unnecessary. The recognition of conversion was not considered to be a matter that is essentially under the purview of the law, but that 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 include in the Constitution.’

Freedom of Religion Bill

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.” When three catechists and a priest were prosecuted under the Act by the magistrate of Gunipur, Christians appealed to the High Court of Orissa in the case of Yulitha Hyde v. State of Orissa. Delivering the judgement, Justice R.N. Misra, with Justice K. B. Panda’s concurrence, admitted “the religious duty of every Christian is to propagate his religion.” Mr. Misra agreed that the Act had extended the meaning of the word “inducement” rendering it too vague.

The Madhya Pradesh Government also passed a Freedom of Religion Act in 1968. It was on the same line 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 the 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 MP Freedom of Religion Act and Rules framed thereunder in the matter of ministers of religion and the faithful having to report conversions… ‘We must obey God rather than man’.”

The Orissa and Madhya Pradesh laws were upheld by the Supreme Court. The five member bench made far-reaching statements on the issues involved. Chief Justice A.N. Ray, delivering the judgement, observed that “there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s religion.” He defined the constitutional right of propagation in terms of transmission of ideas. Julian Saldhana observed in his book Conversion and Indian Law (1981) that, while that 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 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.” The Constitution anyway guarantees not only the right of propagation, but also that of practising one’s religion, which for Christians includes the right to win other people to their way of belief. Saldhana also observed that the denial of a “fundamental right to convert” another contradicts the basic principle of democracy. It would disallow many other forms of change in society. The same would 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 (pp.164-167).

Tyagi and Jethmalani

It is worth taking note 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 the Lok Sabha. All over the country Christians mobilised prayer against the passage of the bill, and not soon afterward the Janata regime collapsed without passing it.

Taking cognisance of the agitated feelings of the minorities, the well known jurist Ram Jethmalani, who was later a Union minister in the BJP government, introduced a Freedom of Religion Bill for the “Removal of Restrictions.” Jethmalani observed in his preamble that “the right to propagate is incomplete without winning adherents to the religion.” He noted 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 admitted further as fact that, in practice, such laws have been abused and have simply “led to persecution and inhibition of legitimate religious activity” (AIM, August 1980, pp.6-7).

Negative Concomitants

On the other hand, there are negative concomitants to conversion. A convert can be socially ostracised, deprived of maintenance and lose the right of inheritance. E.D. Devadason, in the preface to his book Christian Law in India (1974), argued that there should be no punitive measure against conversion since legal consequences in matters of religion have no justification in a secular state. Julian Saldhana referring to the fact that converts from the Scheduled Castes are deprived of their special rights, says that the Freedom of Religion Acts in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, “while they purport to safeguard the liberty of one who does not wish to change his religion, in the case of the person, who decides to change his religion, they do not protect from the unjust vexations of his co-religionists” (pp.167-168).

Member of Parliament Syed Shahabuddin has well argued that the provision of concessions to depressed classes is tantamount to offering inducements for the prevention of conversions. He deplored 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 reconversions. 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?” (Onlooker, August 16-31, 1981).

Religion of the Indian Soil

On December 3, 1955, when there had been talk of imposing regulations on conversions, one person addressed the Lok Sabha with these words: “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” (Guardian, June 15, 1979). The person who gave that speech in Parliament was none other than Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. It takes a man of learning to approach the subject dispassionately and wisely.

Exclusive Rights

All the articles that we have referred to thus far are not minority rights. They are the rights of all and the point is that the minorities are not excluded from them. There are only two articles in the Consitution that specify minorities as the sole beneficiaries of the rights safeguarded under them. These articles exclude the majority.

Article 29 protects the interest of minorities. It gives those who have a distinctive language, script or culture the right to conserve their heritage. Article 30 grants religious or linguistic minorities “the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

Quite often, members of the majority community, and political parties that have a militant religious orientation have been against the retention of these rights. They interpret them as a form of favouritism. They say that they are deprived of similar rights.

The rationale for having minority rights is that the minorities need protection much like an endangered species. Without protection they would be swamped by the majority, and, in the long run, suffer a loss of their identity. Anywhere and everywhere in the world, the majority community does not need similar protection because they are the majority in the government, the judiciary, the bureaucracy as well as the public and private enterprises. They already have people in place in all areas of life to protect their interests. In a democracy, where voting patterns prove that elections are not entirely free of communal bias, minorities need space where they can live as minorities without control or interference by the majority.

Landmark Minority Rights Case

Delivering his judgement in the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Case (1974), Justice Khanna said, “The object of Article 25 to 30 was to preserve the rights of religious and linguistic minorities, to place them on a secure pedestal and withdraw them from the vicissitudes of political controversy. These provisions enshrined a befitting pledge to the minorities in the Constitution of the country whose greatest son had laid down his life for the protection of the minorities. As long as the Constitution stands as it is today, no tampering with those rights can be countenanced. Any attempt to do so would be not only an act of breach of faith, it would be constitutionally impermissible and liable to be struck down by the courts.” He said further, “The idea of giving some special rights to the minorities is not to have a kind of privileged or pampered section of the population, but to give the minorities a sense of security and a feeling of confidence. The great leaders of India since time immemorial had preached the doctrine of tolerance and catholicity of outlook. Those noble ideas were enshrined in the Constitution. Special rights for minorities were designed not to create inequality. Their real effect was to bring about equality by ensuring the preservation of the minority institutions and by guaranteeing to the minorities autonomy in the matter of administration of their institutions. The differential treatment for the minorities by giving them special rights is intended to bring about an equilibrium, so that the ideal of equality may not be reduced to a mere abstract idea, but should become a living reality and result in true, genuine equality—an equality not merely in theory but also in fact. The majority in a system of adult franchise hardly needs any protection. It can look after itself and protect its interests. Any measure wanted by the majority can without much difficulty be brought on the statute book because the majority can get that done by giving such a mandate to the elected representatives. It is only the minorities who need protection, and Article 30, besides some other articles, is intended to afford and guarantee that protection.”

Khanna went on to cite the case of the Albanian minority schools. When Albania joined the League of Nations, she signed a declaration that ensured equality to all and “in particular [the minorities] shall have an equal right to maintain, manage and control at their own expense or to establish in the future, charitable, religious and social institutions.” In 1933 Albania nationalised education and shut down all private schools. Petitions were sent against the violation of the Declaration by which entry had been gained into the League. The Permanent Court of International Justice in its verdict observed that “the idea underlying the treaties for the protection of minorities is to secure for certain elements incorporated in a state, the population of which differs from them in race. Language or religion, the possibility of living peaceably alongside the population and co-operating amicably with it. While at the same time preserving the characteristics which distinguish them from the majority, and satisfying the ensuring special needs.” The Court said that the State had to “ensure that…minorities shall be placed in every respect on a footing of perfect equality with the other nationalities of the State” and that the minorities should have “suitable means for the preservation of their racial peculiarities, their traditions and their national characteristics.” It observed that there would be “no true equality between a majority and a minority if the latter were deprived of its own institutions and were consequently compelled to renounce that which constitutes the very essence of being a minority.” The court declared, “Equality in law precludes discrimination of any kind; whereas equality in fact may involve the necessity of different treatment in order to attain a result which establishes an equilibrium between different situations…equality of treatment of the majority and the of the minority, whose situation and requirements are different, would result in inequality in fact…” The court then held that the minority institutions were “indispensable to enable the minority to enjoy the same treatment as the majority…The abolition of these institutions would destroy this equality of treatment, for its effect would be to deprive the minority of the institutions appropriate to its needs, whereas the majority would continue to have them supplied in the institutions created by the State.”

So let it be clearly understood that minority rights are not a form of favouritism, but merely the right of minorities to exist without interference from the majority.

Minority Character

For an institution to be covered by the Articles on minority rights, it must have as its purpose the minority community’s interests. Devadason wrote in his book Christian Law in India, “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 traditions 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).

For a long time, the St. Xavier’s case was the benchmark one for minority rights. It still is on many points. Then in 1991, the Supreme Court gave its judgement in the case of St. Stephen’s College, Delhi. It restricted the number of students from the minority community that may be admitted to a minority institution to 50% of the total student body. In North India, where Christians are fewer in number, this has been welcomed. The fact, however, is that institutions are yet to take full advantage of this provision. Yet it is only the members of the community that can help an institution maintain its minority character. It is because we are a minority in our own institutions that we have had to hide our identity and not let the light of Jesus shine.

The community of 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. If we wish to maintain our distinctiveness, we should uphold our principles.

Conclusion

The Constitution guarantees all the rights of citizenship to the minorities. Even the minority rights, which appear to be privileges that are denied to the majority, are the assurance that minorities have the right to live without restrictions and interference in India. All the minorities have the right to live and function freely as full citizens of the country enjoying all the liberties and privileges of the majority community

LIVING IN A MULTI-FAITH SOCIETY

For sometime while I was growing up, I would spit whenever I passed a temple. No one told me to do this, and I did not know of anyone else who did this. It was just my way of demonstrating to myself that I did not believe in other gods. I did this religiously for my own sense of assurance that I had not somehow begun to believe in other gods. I kept on doing this for a long time.

Then one day, God got through to me with Romans 2:22, which said, “…You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?” God showed me that when I did something against a temple, that too was a form of expressing belief in the existence of other gods. If I really believed that there were no other gods why did I feel the need to rubbish a building that housed idols?

A Theocratic Nation

Iconoclasm is the way of the Old Testament. The New Testament on the other hand is tolerant. I think the trouble is that though our faith belongs to the New Testament order, many Christians live under the rules and regulations of the Old Testament.

Christians today seem to have done what Jesus said is not done. New, unshrunk cloth is never used to patch an old garment, nor new wine stored in old wineskins. When that law of common sense is broken, in the realm of religions, the dynamic of the new order is wasted when the old order collapses under the strain of trying to live married to the new. The new faith cannot be lived according to the rules of the old. If we had remembered that, we would have discovered that instead of an iconoclastic attitude there is tolerance in the order of the New Testament.

The rules of the Old Testament were given for life in a theocratic nation, where there was to be absolutely no room for other gods. Israel was not meant to exist as a multi-faith society, but as one that was dedicated exclusively to the practice of just one faith.

It must however be noted that even in this singular society, provision was made to extend justice to aliens choosing to live in the theocratic nation of Israel. They were to be regarded as being included in the providence of God (Ex.23:9; Lev.19:33,34; Dt.1: 16; 27:19).

In the Old Testament the most powerful story demonstrating God’s inclusiveness is that of the prophet Elisha tolerating Naaman’s compromise.

It needs to be remembered that Elisha was a prophet in the order of Elijah. The prophet Elijah called down fire from heaven, and slaughtered the prophets of the god Baal. He was totally uncompromising and intolerant about mixing the Jewish faith with an alien culture and faith (1 Ki.18:21,40). Elisha was the prophet who succeeded Elijah, and desired a double portion of the spirit that was in Elijah (2 Ki.2:9).

Yet, when Naaman said that he would be forced to bow down to the god worshipped by his sovereign, that very same Elisha did not express disapproval. Instead, Elisha gave Naaman his blessing of peace. He did not force Naaman to choose one way or the other. That would have only jeopardised Naaman’s livelihood and endangered his very life. Elisha showed understanding about Naaman’s situation (5:18,19).

Jesus, Social Activist

The New Testament of course goes further. Right at the outset of His ministry, our Lord Jesus drew on history to emphasise that God did not exclude gentiles, but in fact granted special favours to them. He cited the case of the prophet Elijah being sent by God Himself to live with a widow in Tyre, even though there were many widows in Israel. Similarly, though many Israelites suffered from leprosy, when the prophet Elisha cleansed one, he was a Syrian, namely, Naaman (Lk.4:25-27).

Jesus also told the story of the Good Samaritan (Lk.10:30-37). It is a story that teaches about being neighbourly, loving and compassionate. Jesus told the story to teach people how to identify the neighbour to be loved. He definitely shocked people with the idea that the Samaritan was the one who proved to be a neighbour to the Jewish victim of waylaying.

The behaviour of the priest and the Levite was actually quite normal under the circumstances. No one, even today, loiters at places where danger lurks. (Would you stop to give a lift to a scruffy looking character?) Yet by contrasting this normal tendency to think of one’s safety with extraordinary caring, Jesus showed that the normal was actually self-serving behaviour. Jesus went even further. He made the uncaring characters a priest and a Levite, and the caring one a Samaritan. That must have really offended the religious leaders of the time. He had made them the villains and a Samaritan the hero.

Casting an ordinary Jew in that role would not have offended as much. Samaritans were despised by Jews. Samaritans were viewed as people who had strayed from the straight and narrow path of Judaism by turning away from the temple at Jerusalem. It was such an outcast person who was cast in the role of the heroic saviour of the battered and bruised Jew. The story put the Jew in the Samaritan’s debt!

Christ’s attitude showed. That probably was the reason that gentiles felt that He was approachable. A Canaanite woman asked him to heal her demon-possessed daughter (Matt.15:21-28). Even though at first Jesus appears to reject her appeal, having tested her perseverance, He expressed admiration for her faith.

Similarly, He admired and commended a Roman centurion for having comprehended His power and shown more faith in Him than Jews. He then went on to remark that while many Jews, “sons of the kingdom” would be excluded, many gentiles would “recline at the table with [no less than] Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt.8:5-13). That was a scandalous suggestion, and must have riled the Jews. Jesus was intent on clearly indicating that gentiles would have a place in God’s kingdom. They would not be kept out. And they would even have honoured places, right next to the venerated ancestors of the nation of Israel.

Apostle to the Gentiles

All this prepared the way for the Apostle to the Gentiles to carry forward the ministry to gentiles. What is remarkable is that God chose the stickler of them all, the “Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee” (Phil.3:5) for the task of bringing the gentiles in hordes into the Church of Christ. Whereas earlier Paul had been aggressive about promoting Jewish ways, he then became aggressive about not allowing Judaisers to impose their behavioural standards on gentiles. He stressed that gentiles had the right not to conform to Judaism.

The way Paul approached the gentiles with the gospel was totally non-aggressive. This comes through best in the story of his first visit to Athens after he became a Christian (Acts 17:16-34). He had first of all gone on a sightseeing tour of the city’s temples (v.23; I’ve never gone sightseeing to temples. Maybe I need to).

Paul showed a wonderful sensitivity to the Athenians, while being sensitive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. Some commentators try to say that Paul’s reliance on “wisdom” did not find approval with God, and he did not therefore make many converts by this methodology (v.34; neither was Jesus able to perform any miracles in Nazareth. What are we to make of that then?) Immediate success is not the measure of God’s approval of a method. (Such a view is what has queered our assessment so that some among us have been able to promote a gospel of health and wealth in line with that sort of thinking). The fact is that in the course of time there were Greeks who came to Christ, and a Greek Church did come into being.

In his speech at Athens, instead of being critical of their idolatry, Paul used their religiousness as a bridge for the gospel to cross over on (vv.22,23). He seems to have made a study of their literature to find something common to their shared humanity (v.28). Unlike him, we have a tendency instead to quote from the Bible, as if others are just bound to accept the veracity and the validity of the Bible.

Apostolic Advice

Writing to the church at Corinth, Paul advised that Christians need to stay connected to the non-Christian world, even though their ethics and beliefs are totally contrary to the essential tenets of our faith! (Cor.5:9,10). He advocated freely interacting with non-Christians. No one was to have any reservations about such interaction. In the midst of socialising with non-Christians, Christians were not themselves to raise questions of conscience. In the context of food offered to idols he said that Christians were to simply eat it without asking questions. They were to avoid such food only if the host himself made it a point to say that it had been offered to idols (10:27). Instead we seem almost to have a magical view of idols that suggests that somehow they are invested with some spiritual power and that we will somehow be affected adversely. We have this fear, even though we claim, “Greater is He that is in [us], than he that is in the world” (1 Jn.4:4).

Why do we fear? Our God is the God of all the earth. Heaven is His throne, and earth His footstool. There is no place on earth where His power does not hold sway. India belongs to God. Jesus is risen over India too. He is Lord.

The Christian’s Mark

The mark of the Christian is love. “By this shall all know that you are my disciples: your love…” (Jn.13:35). Jesus declared that love among Christians would have the power to attract others. They should see our love for one another as one that would not exclude them and would instead draw them into the circle of our love.

The inclusive power of Christian love is not demonstrated when we close our hearts to non-Christians and refuse to love them until they become Christians. A non-Christian asked a minister of the gospel: “Do you love us in order to convert us? Or do you seek our conversion because you love us?” Ponder that. Do you think that Jesus stopped loving the rich young ruler when he turned his back on Jesus and rejected the way of Christ (Mk.10:21)? Our motives and our actions should clearly communicate just one thing: “The love of Christ touches you (just as you are, right where you are) through me.” Bryant Myers of World Vision, wrote in the MARC newsletter (May 1999), “Kosuke Koyama reminds us that the world needs good neighbours more than good messages. The gospel is a relationship mediated by relationships.”

Christian Witness

In the context of one partner in a relationship not being a Christian, the Apostle Peter said that there comes a time to shut up and let our lives and our actions do the talking (1 Pet.3:1). That rule should apply to close friendships, and not just to family ties.

He also counselled that in hostile situations, Christians have to wait to be asked to give an explanation for the hope they have. Waiting to be asked does not in any way diminish the sanctified place of the Lord Jesus in our lives. Rather, the waiting is a consequence of giving Jesus honour in our lives (v.15). Peter himself learnt that lesson early. In the first few instances of evangelism recorded in the book of Acts, witnessing to Christ occurred only when their spectators asked questions or showed curiosity (2:12; 3:11; 4:7). What the early Christians did was to create situations that aroused wonder, and prompted questioning.

The lesson we need to learn is that we cannot force the pace of evangelisation. That is for God to decide. Our task is to simply love and it is the character of love to bear everything, endure everything, and never fail (1 Cor.13:7,8). It is the “more excellent way” (12:31). In the end, all that matters and endures are “faith, hope and love…but the greatest is love” (13:13).

MISSION WISDOM

Members of the RSS came calling to collect money for disaster relief to be done by them. I told them that we have already done that as a church. So they pushed off quietly. From time to time there are reports in newspapers about the RSS having intentions to do door-to-door campaigns to promote their projects. What are we going to do then?

Our Lord Jesus told the Apostles, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matt.10:16). Significantly what Jesus said was in the context of the evangelistic task assigned to His disciples. They were asked to preach the message of the nearness of the kingdom of God and to bring healing to people in trouble, and in that context they were to be like sheep on the one hand and like snakes on the other.

Sheep are characterized as being vulnerable creatures. Predators find them easy to prey on. While retaining our vulnerability in order to reach a world full of people who are hurting in one way or the other, Christ’s disciples are to have the shrewdness or craftiness of snakes. They are not to be stupidly vulnerable.

This characterization of snakes does not have anything to do with facts of the physical world. It has to do with the story of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It showed craftiness in dialogue and debate as it engaged in persuading Eve and Adam to its way of thinking. Disciples should be sharp when they are trying to win people for Christ. But they should also be vulnerable like sheep.

Jesus sent out His disciples like “sheep among wolves”. Shepherds do not do that. They will not knowingly send sheep where the wolves are. But Jesus the Good Shepherd does. Jesus says to His disciples that they will be out in the world, so they must be on their guard.

Know Your Situation

Hostility is inevitable when you follow Jesus. Jesus told His disciples that the circle of hostility will keep growing tighter all the time. It may start with power structures being against us (vv.17-18). Then religious groups may oppose us (v.17) and finally our own family circle may turn against us (v.21).

Christians should have knowledge of what is going on. They should know where the hostility is coming from. They should have knowledge of their situation and what they are dealing with. If we do not have such awareness, then we waste our energies because all our efforts are misdirected and irrelevant to our situation.

Expect Divine Intervention

Jesus told His disciples that in spite of being surrounded by hostility they were not to worry (v.19). As Frederick Dale Bruner says, though trouble is the habitat of Christian work, trust is the habit (The Christbook: A Historical/Theological Commentary: Matthew 1-12, Word Books, 1987, p.379).

The Christian has the assurance that God is there in every situation they face. His name is “I AM WHO I AM.” Our God is constant. He does not give up on us. He does not abandon or desert. True to His name He will always be there and it will be for you personally that He is there. When God is for us, then no matter who is against us the hostility does not count (Rom.8:31).

The first aspect of God’s intervention to save us when we face trials is that what we have to say will be given to us. That is the assurance that Jesus gave His disciples. He told them not to worry about what to say, because God is going to inspire them. “When they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (vv.19-20).

What shall we say then when the RSS comes knocking? There have been rumours that the RSS are going to go around distributing pictures of Bharat Mata and insist that everyone display them in their homes as proof of their patriotism. There is a problem with their pictures of Bharat Mata. She looks suspiciously similar to mythological female Hindu deities.

Should Christians compromise in the name of patriotism or out of fear that they will be regarded as traitors? As I reflected on this problem that I could face in the not so distant future in India, God gave me the thought that I could ask the RSS to give me a map of India instead. Worldly wisdom would say display the picture of Bharat Mata and avoid confrontation. So what if she is depicted as a goddess? We know that she is not a goddess. In fact there are no gods and goddesses. There is only one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So what is the harm in displaying this picture and buying some peace? That is what worldly wisdom would advise us to do.

But we cannot do this because it would be willingness to compromise our witness. We are agreeing to hide our identity as Christians. Such compromise is always only the beginning. Once we begin to drift from what is right and good, it can go on and on, little by little. We can and will justify further compromise. There is another side to this. When those who are opposed to our faith see our willingness to give up what is important to our identity, they will push us further along the way. They know they just have to do it a little at a time for us to not be concerned about the downward slide.

So instead of looking for ways to justify compromising our identity, we should listen to God speak in our hearts. He will give us the wisdom to say what is right and appropriate. If our enemies will not accept that, then the Lord will give us the grace to say, “Our God is able to save us from this fire. But even if it is His will not to do so, we want you to know that we cannot compromise on our identity as those who serve Jesus” (cf. Dan.3:17-18). The Word of God says, “The wise see danger ahead and avoid it, but fools keep going and get into trouble” (Pro.22:3, NCV).

The Spirit Speaks

Jesus told His disciples that they would not be guided by their own wisdom. It would be the Spirit of the Father who would speak through them. God who spoke through the prophets, psalmists and sages will give us discernment and wisdom to answer those who try to undermine our faith or destroy it.

It is important though to note that Jesus says that the Spirit who speaks to us is the Spirit of the Father. There are many spirits abroad (1 Jn.4:1). It is necessary therefore to connect everything to the historical revelation given by God. We must ensure that the Spirit who speaks in our hearts today is the Spirit who spoke through the prophets and the apostles, and the Spirit who spoke through our Lord Jesus. Anything and everything you see or hear is not from God. Not every remarkable phenomenon is of God.

The trouble today is that our fascination with the extraordinary has aroused a craving for new and unique experiences. We stand in danger of accepting all kinds of experiences, because we think that if it can be experienced it must be valid. In Moses’ day, the Egyptian magicians were able to imitate Moses and perform wonders. But that did not make them alright. Today Sai Baba is performing signs. But that does not make him alright. Not even when someone performing a sign or wonder, takes the name of Jesus, are we to think that God has communicated to us through that person’s performances or utterances. We have to check to see if they speak for God.

The Bible is God’s Word. It is the truth revealed. However the truth was revealed in other cultures and environments and situations. We live in a time when there are different conditions of life that the Word of God does not comment about, because those situations and conditions did not exist. We can only apply principles and guidelines given in the Bible. That is why we need the Spirit of God to give us fresh guidance for our special circumstances. However what we hear in our hearts must match what has been revealed. Because God will not contradict Himself, we can take the Word of God as the standard of fresh revelations. There can be nothing that contradicts what has been revealed already.

Times to Avoid Conflict

Though Jesus reassured His disciples that there really was no need for them to worry because their Father would take care of them, He also told them that there would be times when they must avoid conflict. “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another” (Matt.10:23). While trouble is not unnatural to the Christian who stands for Jesus, we are not to invite trouble or seek it in our lives. There are times when Christians must run away instead of staying. There is nothing shameful about that. The Lord Jesus Himself escaped from danger when He needed to.

When Jesus went to Nazareth for the first time after being anointed by the Spirit for His ministry, the residents of Nazareth took offence at what Jesus had to say. He pointed out that God in His sovereignty had chosen to send His prophet Elijah not to a widow in Israel but to an alien, and while there were many people in Israel who suffered from leprosy, the Prophet Elisha healed only the Syrian Naaman. They were furious with Him for suggesting that God was going to pass over them in the same way and tried to throw Him down a cliff, but Jesus managed to escape somehow (Lk.4:23-30).

In the Gospel According to John two more instances are cited when there were attempts on the life of our Lord, before the divinely appointed time, when Jesus quietly escaped a lynching by simply slipping away (8:59; 10:39). Jesus was not foolhardy nor did He tempt providence. He could have mocked His attackers saying that they could do nothing to Him. He could have shown bravado and invited them to do their worst. Instead, the strong Son of God made good His escape. But He was no coward. When the time came for Him to move toward Jerusalem, even though He knew what lay ahead, He pressed ahead relentlessly.

When the Devil tempted Him to jump from the highest pinnacle of the temple, Christ’s response was, “Scripture clearly says, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (Lk.4:9-12). That was what He practised all through His life and ministry. And He is our example.

Be Like Jesus

Jesus told His disciples, “A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master” (Matt.10:24-25). Earlier He had asked them to be shrewd like snakes and innocent like doves. Here He asks them to be like Him. So the shrewdness He wants them to manifest is not the shrewdness of snakes, but His own shrewdness. More than once His enemies tried to trick Him into saying or doing the wrong thing. Once they asked Him whether taxes should be paid. Whatever He answered would have been wrong. If He said that taxes were to be paid, Jewish leaders would denounce Him as a traitor to the national cause. If He said taxes were not to be paid, they would have reported Him to the authorities for advocating revolt. But Jesus cleverly asked for a coin, then asked whose inscription it carried. When they said, “Caesar’s”, He immediately gave the classic answer, “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s and give God what is God’s” (22:15-22).

Similarly we are to have the innocence, not of doves, but of Jesus. He challenged the people of His time, “Who can convict me of sin?” (Jn.8:46). Of course, we ourselves are not sinless or perfect like Jesus. But we are not to be guilty of wrongdoing. We are liable to persecution, but we should never be liable to prosecution. Scripture says, “God is pleased with you when, for the sake of your conscience, you patiently endure unfair treatment. Of course, you get no credit for being patient if you are beaten for doing wrong. But if you suffer for doing right and are patient beneath the blows God is pleased with you. This suffering is all part of what God has called you to. Christ, who suffered for you, is your example. Follow in His steps. He never sinned, and he never denied anyone. He did not retaliate when He was insulted. When He suffered, He did not threaten to get even. He left His care in the hands of God, who always judges fairly” (1 Pet.2:19-23, NLT).

Don’t Be Afraid

Disciples of Jesus Christ are not to hide their identity. They are to proclaim what they hear from the rooftop. What they have learnt in the dark, must be brought out into broad daylight (Matt.10:26-27). They are to confess Him and not deny Him before people. How they represent Him is crucial to how they will be received in heaven. “Whoever acknowledges me before people, I will acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before people, I will disown before my Father in heaven” (vv.32-33).

Christians should not be afraid of body-killers. They cannot kill our souls. One way or the other we are to depart from this life. So if someone takes our life, they only speed us on our way. If we must be afraid of anyone, let us fear the One Who can send us to hell (v.28). Fear God and fear nothing else, because if we have no fear of God, we will be afraid of everything else.

We have nothing to fear. Remember God is on our side because He is there in our lives (Rom.8:31). We have a God Who cares. He cares for sparrows. How much more He will care for us! We are worth more than sparrows to Him. He made us in His own image. Even the hairs of our heads are numbered. Not one can fall without His consent (Matt.10:29-31).

Keep Priorities

In the end, Jesus told His disciples that they needed to put Him first in their lives. Even if there is opposition from within the family, and quite often there is, our love for Him should be greater than our love for father or mother, son or daughter. Neither opposition from the family, nor our love for our family should interfere with our commitment to Christ. Jesus said categorically, “Anyone who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (vv.37-38). Jesus comes first.

Trouble is, He comes with a cross. Jesus said, “Anyone who does not take his or her cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (v.38). There is a cross for everyone. No question about it being there. The cross is however not something we seek. Rather it is given and it is ours to accept.

The cross has been understood in many ways. Sometimes people think of it as a Christian symbol. As such it has only ornamental value. It is used on top of worship places or worn as a pendant on a chain around the neck. Others think of their “little sins”, such as their bad temper, as crosses. They are not crosses. They are plain old sins. If they are crosses, they are crosses only for those whom we inflict our bad temper on. Then there are those who regard their struggle with chronic illness, as their particular cross. If they are crosses, then we are not to seek healing for them or try to be rid of them. Instead, a cross is something we are to make no attempt to get rid of. We are to carry it with honour.

The cross is what the world confers on you for being a Christian. That is why we cannot avoid taking up the cross if we are followers of Christ. That is why we cannot try to get rid of the cross that is given to us.

From what Jesus said to His disciples as they were sent on a mission, it is apparent that there are some givens of the Christian life. There will be trouble and there will be the cross of discipleship. Above all there is the presence of God. There is divine intervention in our lives. We will have the Spirit’s input, for we will be given wisdom and we will be given courage.

PUNISHING CRIME

Gladys Staines forgave the murderers of her husband and her two young sons. She said that this is what the Lord Jesus taught her.

In India Christians are known mostly because of the existence of mission schools, colleges and hospitals. Once these institutions used to be known for providing quality services without favouring the rich and the powerful. Rather, they were known for their inclination to favour the poor and the underprivileged.

In recent years that reputation (shall we say ‘witness’?) has suffered. Today there are many Christian schools and colleges that stand accused of corruption and favouritism. The increased pressures from the public and the interference of politicians and bureaucrats are partly to blame. However the main cause of their disrepute is that many heads of Christian institutions instead of having a “missionary spirit’ are motivated by flagrant greed and a lust for the disparity of illegitimate perks, privileges and advantages. Whatever the reason, Christian institutions are today perceived to be no different from all the other educational institutions run as businesses.

In this social context, Gladys’s declaration of forgiveness came as a fresh evidence of the Christian gospel being different from all other philosophies. This other-worldliness aroused people’s interest. What power could enable a person to give up natural vengeful feelings and meet hatred with love?

The face of Christianity in India however has not consistently been that of forgiveness, love and compassion. There have been occasions when Christians have retaliated when attacked. There have also been places and times when Christians have been the aggressors. But when Gladys said that she forgave the assassins of her dear husband and her two sons, the nation sat up in wonder.

Pride in Cause

The killing of Graham Staines and his sons does not fall in the category of crimes of greed (cheating, robbery, land-grabbing, adulteration of food and medicine, etc.), crimes of aggression (abusing and enslaving the poor, the landless, and women and children), crimes of hate (murder, maiming, acid attacks, beating up, etc.) or crimes of wilful negligence (rash driving, failure to provide safety measures in factories, etc.). The assassination of Graham and his sons was done in the name of ideology. The destruction of the Babri Masjid was also something done in the name of a belief.

Those who commit crimes of greed, aggression, hate or negligence are criminals through and through, and have no hesitation in adding to their crimes by lying to escape from punishment for their crimes. Their consciences are deadened. In fact, it should be expected that they will lie. What is a lie compared to the enormity of their crimes? Why would they hesitate to lie after committing heinous crimes?

On the other hand, those who do something because of their beliefs should not ever resort to denying their actions. Those who believe that they were right in bringing down the Babri Masjid or burning Graham Staines and his sons to death should not be ashamed of what they did. They should proudly claim their exploits at any cost. If they are guilty by the law of the land so be it. They should bear the punishment as martyrs of the causes they espouse. They should have a sense of pride about what they did. To deny their deeds in order to avoid punishment is a betrayal of their faith and their cause. They might as well admit that in their hearts they themselves believe that it was not right to do the things they did. Their denials prove that their deeds were nothing more than crimes. They confess that theirs was not an act of faith motivated by their love for their cause, but a crime of hate. If they are not to be regarded as common criminals, then they should manifest the courage of their convictions and lay claim to what they did.

As matters stand, Dara Singh and his accomplices have been found guilty of murdering Graham and his sons. Once again, Gladys Staines was put on the spot to be asked about her reaction to the death penalty being awarded to them. Gladys reiterated that she had forgiven the murderers and that was that, but she cannot be expected to comment on how the state carries out its duty to uphold the law.

The verdict in the case has prompted a debate on whether India should continue to have the death penalty.

Theory of Punishment

In the past all human societies had capital punishment. The most basic notion back of the punishment is that of retribution. The phrase “eye for eye” captures the essence of retribution. Most people may not know that that phrase is from the Old Testament. “Anyone who takes the life of a human being must be put to death…Anyone who injures a neighbour must be injured in the same way: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury” (Lev 24:17-20, NIVI). “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Dt. 19: 21, NIVI).

Gandhi said that practising the “eye for eye” code of conduct will only end in the world being full of blind people. While Gandhi himself claimed to have got his concept of ahimsa from the Gita, even a casual study will show that the god Krishna advocates war and urges Arjun not to hesitate in attacking the enemy. The truth is, Gandhi was greatly influenced by Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, and the stories of Leo Tolstoy, the Russian Christian storyteller.

Our Lord Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek also…You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt.5:3 8-39, 43-48, NIVI).

Only those, who are willing to embrace the teaching of Christ, as Gandhi did on this matter, will be able to give up vengeance and return good for evil. The rest will want revenge, and actively pursue it to become executors of their own ideas of what justice demands.

It therefore becomes the states’ responsibility to curb the vengeful feelings and prevent people from taking the law into their own hands. If people don’t know the source of the phrase “eye for eye” being the Old Testament, they are even less likely to know that the Old Testament also provided sanctuaries for accidental killings. To protect those not guilty of premeditated murder, Israel was to have sanctuaries for them to flee to, and as long as they stayed within the confines of those cities, they were safe (Dt. 19: 1-13).

The Mosaic Law recognised the human tendency to take revenge, “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, limb for limb”. The law of sanctuaries is an acknowledgement that even an accidental killing arouses raw anger, hatred and vengeful feelings.

I remember hearing a story of a missionary family, travelling by car in an Arab land, fatally knocking down a child that ran onto the road in front of their car. They stopped to express their sorrow. But the dead child’s father just took his gun and shot their little girl in the backseat of the car. In ancient Israel that would not have happened because the missionary family would have found sanctuary.

Those who favour capital punishment argue that it will serve as a deterrent against homicidal tendencies. It is true that the fear of punishment will stop some from committing crimes. However it is only when the law is seen to have teeth and when the law is observed taking its course, that the fear of punishment will deter anyone. In our day the governments of various states have not been perceived to be faithful in performing their duty in regard to bringing criminals to justice. Delays have made it possible for accused persons to pay witnesses to turn hostile. This has happened in some high profile cases as rich and powerful or well-connected persons have been able to get away with murder after publicly and openly shooting persons dead or killing people by their rash, drunken driving.

System Failure

Question is how much retribution should there be? Must it necessarily be “life for life”?

Most of those who oppose the death penalty do so on the grounds that it is a cruel punishment. The argument that we need to be more humane in the treatment of criminals will however be totally unacceptable to those who are the kith and kin of victims. Most people are not going to be philosophical about how to treat criminals. They have a craving for blood, which will not go away with such opinions. If there is any talk of the rights of criminals, they will angrily raise the question of the rights of the victims and their families.

The only reason for amending the law in regard to the death penalty would be the recognition that all over the world we do have a system failure today. There is a very definite possibility of investigating authorities having manufactured the evidence with a view to closing a case in a target-oriented set up. Extracting confessions by third degree methods may in theory be disallowed, but it is now unquestionably routine practice. Money power and vested interests often implicate innocent persons in order to let the guilty go scot-free. Human depravity has certainly corrupted our systems for dispensing justice.

For all those who have been denied justice, capital punishment is so final it takes away any future opportunity for discovery of the truth and redress. The death of our Lord is a case in point. When He was executed there was a miscarriage of justice. That it was according to God’s plan is another matter. But the Lord Jesus did not deserve to die according to the law.

Around the world there have been instances of quite a few who have been set free after their cases were reopened and re-examined. For the sake of all such persons who are condemned wrongly, the death penalty must be abolished.

On the other hand, there needs to be reformation in the systems of justice. The police must be freed from the sense of having to fulfil quotas of arrests. When there is clear evidence of guilt, it must not be thrown out or suppressed on some technical grounds. Investigations need to focus on bringing criminals to justice not on the closure of the cases.

Even after the death penalty is abolished, punishments still need to be severe enough to befit the crimes. This means for instance that a life imprisonment should not be commuted to a mere seven to ten years. While torture is not okay, hard labour would be appropriate. Criminals need to be made to pay for their deeds.

Biblical Standard

But can Christians advocate or support the abolishment of capital punishment when the Bible itself prescribes it as a punishment? What needs to be noted is that there is nothing in the New Testament to affirm the death penalty.

All the commandments imposing death as the penalty are in the Old Testament. Idolatry and worshipping other gods (Ex.22:20), blaspheming God (Lev.24:16), Sabbath-breaking (Num.15:32-36), cursing parents (Lev.20:9), rebelliousness toward parents (Dt.21:18-21), sorcery (Lev.20:27), murder (Dt.19:21), kidnapping (Dt.24:7) and prohibited sexual activity (Lev. 20: 10-14,18; Ex.22:19), were all punishable by death under the covenant law of Israel.

There is no way any Christian today could suggest that the death penalty should be awarded for all of the acts that the Old Testament did not allow. Neither can we advocate a selective application. Who gives us the right to do that?

All of the deeds condemned by the Old Testament belong to the covenant law of the theocratic nation of Israel. Disciples of Christ on the other hand are not incorporated as a nation, but as a community of believers. The New Testament is the covenant for Christians.

The moral law represented essentially by the Ten Commandments has universal application. The New Testament reaffirms every one of the Ten Commandments, except the one on Sabbath-keeping, which was the exclusive covenant sign between God and Israel (Ex.31: 13, 16-17).

Clearly all the requirements and prohibitions of the covenant law of Israel cannot be imposed on all people. Neither can the death penalty be imposed in full accordance with the Old Testament’s dictates.

Christ’s Verdict

This notion that the Old Testament’s imposition of the death penalty cannot be upheld, because ancient Israel’s laws are not universal, could be viewed as an inference. However, we do have a scriptural record of how the Lord dealt with the demand that He uphold the death penalty.

A woman, caught in the act of adultery, was brought to the Lord for judgement. Jesus responded first by writing in the mud with His finger. What did He write? I think that the Lord wrote the law’s stipulation that both the man and the woman shall be held guilty. There was a failure of the system of justice so that it was not equal for all. It certainly was not fair to the woman who was caught and harassed while the influential man who was her partner in crime was allowed to go scot-free. So the Lord reminded them of the totality of the law. The Lord then looked up and said that the one who was sinless should be the first to stone her. Once again He began to write on the ground. Some ancient Greek texts indicate that the second time He wrote “the sins of each of them.” Everyone dropped the stones they had picked up to throw at the woman and slinked away. The Lord was left alone with her, but He didn’t stone her, even though He Himself, as the one without sin, qualified to carry out the execution.

The Lord who came to fulfil the law forgave her. The Lord Jesus by this decision of His annulled the death penalty, though it was in force in that place and time for that crime (Jn.8:1-11).

In the end the Lord Himself took the place of one who was guilty of crimes that deserved to be punished by death. That was the Lord’s final verdict on the death penalty. He delivered it from the cross on Calvary. He set the guilty free.

When Gladys Staines proclaimed forgiveness to the assassins who killed her husband and her little boys, she stood with our Lord to say that she did not require the death of those who sinned against her family. Let the peoples of India take note of the power of the Lord’s love.

NO PATCHWORK FAITH

While I was in seminary some thirty years ago, contextualisation was the latest theological bandwagon that everyone who wanted to appear to be sophisticated and intellectual was climbing on to. Liberals in India were insisting on its absolute necessity for being relevant in India, but were not careful to root their ideas and efforts in God’s Word. They derived all their notions of contextualisation from a religion, scriptures and cultures that were non-Christian. Back then, while accepting the basic idea of the need for contextually relevant methods of communicating the gospel, Evangelicals were uncomfortable with the experiments by Roman Catholics and Protestant Liberals. The performance of aarti (offering flowers before an idol), intoning om (the sound representing the primal energy of Brahma) and so on were considered unacceptable forms of indigenisation.

Evangelicals, unable to come up with an evangelical version of contextualisation, have sometimes just imitated Liberals. In doing so, such Evangelicals are Johnnies-come-lately, just as Evangelicals have been in so many other areas. They are too lazy to be creative in theologising, and simply take the easy way out in appearing radical among other Evangelicals merely by aping and mimicking what others in other groups have done.

A Sad Story

Quite a few years ago I had a friend who was converted from Hinduism and had become an ardent defender and propagator of the Christian faith among non-Christians. Raj would boldly and uncompromisingly present the gospel.

He gave up his construction business because of the pressures of corruption in that line of work. Then for a while he worked as a radio speaker for a Christian broadcasting ministry. However they also required him to raise funds for the ministry, and when he proved unsuccessful, they terminated his services.

Another group then employed him as they were venturing into contextualised evangelism among Hindus. Even though the group had a fairly large number of Hindu converts with sufficient knowledge of the Bible and Christian doctrine, the theologian for this effort was an Occidental, who had no real understanding of things Indian. Theoretically, John Smith was an expert. He had read more books on Hinduism and Indian Christian Theology than most Indian Christians, including myself. He insisted that Raj should no longer attend church services so that his Christian identity would be hidden.

Raj’s wife who had followed him into the Christian faith had given up putting sindhoor (vermilion powder—the mark of the North Indian Hindu married woman) in the parting in her hair. Now Raj asked Nalini to put on sindhoor again. She refused. She said that putting it on again would be like going back on her commitment to Christ. John Smith then went to Raj’s home and said to Nalini, “Please put it on for my sake.” John Smith triumphantly told me that Nalini had done so voluntarily. I said, “Nonsense! It just shows how little you understand the Indian psyche. As a guest in her home, and a white man at that, she was simply pressurised by you.”

Later on I challenged John Smith to give back the old Raj who so uncompromisingly had stood for Christ. As time went on Raj’s marriage was strained more and more, his home broken, and he died without any Christian fellowship.

Recently I saw some video footage with John Smith in it. He was at a Hindu style wedding between two Christians, Jack and Jill. Reflecting on what I saw, I was reminded of another wedding.

A Christian Wedding

Almost seven years ago I conducted a church wedding for Babita and Narasimha, two Hindu converts. Approximately two hundred people attended the wedding, of whom only about forty were Christians. The rest were all Hindus. The Hindu father of the bride walked her down the aisle to the strains of the traditional bridal march. The ceremony and vows were not different from what would have been done and said if the bride and groom had been from solid Christian backgrounds. At the end of the service, some of the Hindu participants took home the printed order of the service, remarking that it was the most meaningful wedding they had attended.

The reception was held in a hall in the nearby temple complex, where Hindus could have their weddings solemnised in the temple and thereafter have the festivities in an attached hall. The bridal couple wondered if I would object. I said that I could not expect a Hindu gentleman to have access to the facilities of a Christian institution. It was wonderful that their families were countenancing and celebrating their marriage and Babita’s father, as the host, was free to arrange the wedding reception anywhere he chose.

At the hall there were small idols of Ram and Sita on the salad table. Some Christians said that I should exercise my authority as pastor and ask the hosts to remove the idols. I said, “I’m going to do no such thing. It’s their party. If you feel uncomfortable about the idols, just don’t eat the salad. There are other things you can eat.”

On the other hand the wedding of the two Christians Jack and Jill was totally Hindu in appearance—from decorations (an upright coconut in a brass vessel—looking a bit like a shiva lingum—with marigold flowers arranged around it) to rituals, everything looked Hindu.

While the wedding was still in the preparation stages, when I expressed my misgivings about some things that were planned, Jack asked me to write to a so-called swamiji, who was going to be the one in charge of the wedding ceremony. I challenged the swami on several issues. He did not reply me, because he obviously did not have any biblical answers to the points I raised. Also, I think he was rather keen to play Brahmin, which would not have been possible if he had accepted biblical standards to be observed at the wedding.

Defining “Indian”

At various points during this wedding, there was one swami introducing some aspect or the other of the rituals saying that it was according to Indian culture. First of all, this notion that “Indian” is “Hindu” must not only be rejected, but it must also be opposed. I am an Indian, but I am not Hindu, and indeed have no desire to appear to be one or to be mistakenly identified as one. Indians can be Hindus or Muslims or Christians or Sikhs or Parsees or adherents of any of the other religions prevalent in India. Therefore to have Hindu ceremonies on the grounds of appearing Indian is utter nonsense. If something is to be classified as embracing the essence of what is Indian it must have features that are common to all, and not what will serve to narrow down its identity to any one community of India. The swami who was introducing every ceremonial act as an aspect of Indian culture was obviously foisting Hindu rituals on the gathering. He protested too much.

On the other hand, was the marriage between Hindu converts Babita and Narasimha not Indian because we followed a traditional order of a Christian wedding in India? I submit rather that theirs was the Indian wedding, while the wedding between Jack and Jill, though according to Hindu rituals was just play-acting, as it did not constitute the culture, customs or behaviour patterns of the bride and groom. Nothing just happened in due course, but needed a swami to constantly instruct the bride and groom, and other key participants and all the guests what to do, as no one knew what exactly was the Indian thing to do. The quaintness of the rituals was of course fascinating.

My observation has been that among Protestant Christians, the indigenisation movement is made up of Westerners or those Indians who want to impress Westerners with a view to extracting more monetary support for their work. While I was still in seminary there used to be an expatriate missionary in the country who projected himself as an expert in contextualisation of the faith to fit a Hindu audience. About a decade later it became apparent that Western missions were shifting their focus to reaching Muslims as Islam was the fastest growing religion and had hitherto been largely neglected because Muslims were hard to evangelise. When the missionary saw that there was more money in Muslim evangelism and that he could go on more international jaunts by attending conferences focusing on Muslim work, he simply switched lanes.

I am by no means suggesting that there is no need for indigenisation. Rather, I am contending that if Evangelicals are serious about it, they would be creative in their attempts without compromising Christian belief, identity and character, instead of embracing it superficially or with ulterior motives.

Brahmins of Sanskrit

In all the indigenisation efforts there has been a tendency to resort to chanting Sanskrit slokas (verses). In objecting to this, I do not imply that Sanskrit is a Hindu language. It is an ancient Indian language, and is no more Hindu, than Greek and Latin are Christian languages. However the use of Sanskrit, an uncommon language, goes against all that Christ’s gospel stands for. God has always communicated with His people in the language of the people. In biblical times Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek (vulgar Greek of the marketplace, not the classical Greek of scholarship) were languages spoken by the people—the common people.

The Lord’s intentions of how His message is to be re-presented are critical to understanding and appreciating His work. The Incarnate God who spoke Aramaic and the Holy Spirit who transmitted truth in the vulgar Greek of the marketplace would most certainly not hide the message in a language unknown to the common people of India.

The thrust of the Incarnation is that there will be no further need for the mediation of a priestly class of people. However when messages are hidden in secret languages, there must necessarily be a priest or a holy man to give the interpretation. Mediation by a priest is a total denial of the Christian doctrine that “there is only one mediator between God and humankind—Christ Jesus, one who shared our humanity and gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Ti.2:5) and in violation of the concept of the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet.2:9). Let’s put it this way: if Jesus came to India in our day, He wouldn’t be speaking Sanskrit. That’s the point. Talking Sanskrit isn’t something Jesus would do.

C.S. Lewis pertinently said, “Any fool can write learned language. The vernacular is the real test. If you can’t turn your faith into it, then either you don’t understand it or you don’t believe it” (Readings for Meditation and Reflection, edited by Walter Hooper, p. xiv).

Power of “Om”

All too often those who want to adopt Indian worship styles have mindlessly slipped in the intoning of om at Christian services. Several years ago, students of the United Theological College, Bangalore, shocked conservative Christians by incorporating the words “om shanti, shanti” in a service. More recently, an evangelical group published an order of service with both the cross and om on the cover. And sure enough, it happened at Jack and Jill’s Hindu style wedding; one of the chants began with om.

Some people say that it is a meaningless sound. But it is not meaningless. It is a mantra (magical spell) of the primal creative force of Brahma. Prabhu Guptara, who hails from a Hindu background, quotes the Rig Veda to give the meaning of om:

om ity etad brahmano nedistam nama yasmad uccaryamana

eva samsara-bhayat tarayati tasmad-ucyate tara iti

om asya jananto nama cid-viviktan mahaste visno

sumatim bhajamahe om tat sat

tato ‘bhut trird-omkaro yo ‘vyakta prabhavah svarat

yat tal-lingam bhagavato brahmanah paramatmanah

[One who chants om, which is the closest form of Brahman, approaches Brahman. This liberates one from the fear of the material world, therefore it is known as tarak brahman. O Vishnu your self-manifest name, om, is the eternal form of cognizance. Even if my knowledge about the glories of reciting this name is incomplete, still, by the practice of reciting this name I will achieve that perfect knowledge. He who has unmanifested potencies and is fully independent, manifests the vibration omkara, which indicates Himself: Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavanare the three forms He manifests].

Guptara is right in concluding, “This indicates a ‘magical’ dimension, not mere meaninglessness.” Therefore any Christian who chants “om” denies the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus, and breaks the commandment to not have any other gods than the God whose revelations are recorded in the Bible.

For argument’s sake let us accept the notion that it is a meaningless sound. Then, we must ask, what is a Christian doing offering what is meaningless to God in worship?

Some Christians have tried to justify the use of om by arguing that the New Testament borrowed the concept of logos (word) from Greek philosophy. That is not how it happened. The Apostle John did not borrow from the Greeks. He did begin the gospel by saying, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God…” But John was not the one who started using the word Logos to represent Christ. He did so to counter Gnosticism, the heresy that denoted that Jesus was less than Father God by describing Him as the Logos. What John did was to take the false teaching of Gnostics and correct their understanding of Jesus as the Logos. However he did not invest the concept with its Greek meaning. For Greeks the logos was reason. For John the Logos was word, fitting in with the Old Testament view that God created by His Word—God said, and it was so (Gen.1:3ff)—and the revelation of God was by the Word spoken. In the end the Word was incarnate.

Om is not a word that can be divested of its meaning and given another. There is no parallel for it in biblical literature. Some have argued that one can use om to think of Jesus/the Triune God. That is akin to saying that one can sit in front of an idol of Ram/Krishna/Siva and think of the true God. This is what Aaron led Israel into doing. He described the golden calf as the God who led Israel out of Egypt and even gave it the covenant name of God. Note that he never said that some Egyptian or Canaanite god freed Israel. What he did was to represent God in a way that God did not permit (see Ex. 32:6—the word “Lord” appears in caps indicating that in Hebrew the text uses “YHWH”).

While om is used as a mantra in Hinduism, one Christian has justified Christians using it by saying that Krist Bhakthas don’t use it as a mantra, but to say to God, “Here I am to worship you.” This is just rationalisation. While it is possible that a sound can mean one thing in one language and another thing in another language, Om is a word that describes something abstract and therefore its meaning is based on the history of its usage—past and current. If words are used without reference to their usage there can be no communication among people. Moreover if the intention is to say to God, “Here I am to worship you”, why use a mantra that means something else? Why not just say to God, “Here I am to worship you”, without resorting to hocus-pocus?

Something Beautiful

Jack and Jill did incorporate something beautiful in their Hindu style wedding. However it had nothing to do with Hindu rites but with their own understanding of Christian community.

Jack and Jill had several elders offering them words of counsel. The couple went by turns to the groom’s mother, elder brother and wife, and other Christian couples who had already been married for some years. All of them quietly told the bride and groom what the Bible teaches about marriage, or read a passage of Scripture to them. The whole thing was extemporary though the counsellors were forewarned that they would have to do this.

This replaced the traditional wedding sermon. In view of this it would have been good to have a roving microphone to render all of them audible to the others witnessing the wedding, because one aspect of the Christian wedding is that those present learn something as they hear what the Word of God teaches about marriage. Some are encouraged and strengthened in their walk as Christian couples in a world that is contrary to the values of the Kingdom of God. Others who have lost their way by imitating what those around them do, are made aware of their errors and confronted with the holiness they are called to.

Unequal Marriage Vows Amended

At this Hindu rites wedding there were seven vows. Unlike the traditional Christian wedding, the wordings of the vows were different for bride and groom. In the original draft the vows were steeped in the idea that women are basically not equal to men. The vows were amended to reflect the equality that the Bible advocates.

For instance, in the draft version, while the groom promised to allow the bride to visit her family and not hinder her from fulfilling her obligations to her family, the bride was required to aid the groom in fulfilling his obligations to his own family. Though this was only in the draft, it bears reflection because this is no doubt the standard practice in India. Husbands don’t give any support to their wives’ families, even when the wives come from families where there are no sons to care for the parents, but the wives are expected to help their husbands’ families, serve their parents and fund the marriages of their sisters.

In the draft version of the seventh vow, the groom promised love while the bride promised love and submission. Of course this is no different from the old version of the Christian marriage service. At first glance it would therefore appear to have been right on target biblically. Doesn’t the Bible say that husbands ought to “love” their wives (Eph.5:25) and wives ought to “submit” to their husbands (v.22)? But these old wedding services made the wife promise more than just submission. It required her to reciprocate the husband’s love and also submit. When a wife has to promise more and the husband less, it is a denial of the biblical norm of men and women being created equally in the image of God (Gen.1:27), and being redeemed so that there is no differentiation of male and female in Christ (Gal.3:28).

While Jack and Jill’s wedding vows were amended to fit biblical teaching, at a Christian style wedding in Kottayam, Kerala, where I was present, the preacher referred to the fact that the late Princess Diana had refused to vow “to love and obey” her husband, and then went on to say that as a result the marriage broke down.

I have never been a fan of the late Princess, because in spite of her seeming Christian background and identity, in the public forums that she addressed she had said things that indicated that she did not believe in the uniqueness of Christ. Of course she was no different from most of the others in England’s royal family. Though the monarch of England bears the title “Defender of the [Christian] Faith”, almost everyone in the family appears to be unworthy of the title because they say things that affirm that they do not believe the Lord Jesus is the only way to Father God.

However I have to admit that the assessment of the preacher in Kottayam was unfair. First of all, it ignores the fact that the old order of the Church of England wedding service, required unequal commitments from the bride and groom. The bride was required to vow that she would “love and obey”, while the groom made a lesser commitment to the bride. In insisting on making the same commitment as her groom, the late princess was biblically correct, even without intending to affirm the Bible or its teachings. If anything, the Bible clearly lays the heavier burden on the husband. Instead of even remotely hinting that he could lord it over his wife, the husband was asked to be like the Master—serving and sacrificing for the welfare of the bride (Eph.5:25-33). In any case, what Paul said was prefaced by the requirement of mutual submission (v.21). A careful study of the passage would therefore indicate that the thrust of what Paul said was that for Christians in the marriage relationship (or any other relationship for that matter) the question is never “Who will be boss?” but always, “Who will be servant in the relationship?”

The preacher’s assessment of the late Diana was unfair because it ignored Prince Charles’s continued dalliance with his paramour that was responsible for driving his wife into tit-for-tat mode. When the woman alone is blamed for the breakdown of a marriage, people do the same thing that was done to the woman caught in adultery (Jn.8:3-5). She was caught in the act, but only she was hauled up for condemnation and punishment, while the man was let off. Our Lord did not approve of such discrimination and set her free from her accusers.

Deifying Elders

At the end of the Hindu rites wedding, Jack and Jill went around touching the feet of all the elders present just as a Hindu bride and groom would. This act goes beyond the biblical commandment to honour one’s parents. The Ten Commandments were written on two stone tablets. The commandment to honour parents was the fifth and therefore in the first tablet along with the commandments about how we ought to relate to God. That is how much importance was given to honouring parents. Cursing parents, like blaspheming God, carried the death penalty (Ex.21:17). Jesus countered the teaching of the Pharisees that the material support one ought to give one’s parents could be diverted to God’s temple for the sake of piety (Mk.7:9-13). Paul said that anyone who did not take care of parents and elderly relatives had denied the faith and was worse than an infidel (1 Ti.5:8). Yes, the Bible commands that parents and elders be honoured. But at the same time the Bible clearly teaches that they are not to be given the honour due to God alone. Jesus said that His disciples would love Him more than parents (Matt.10:37), and not allow filial duty to stand in the way of following Him (8:21-22). But by going beyond what the Bible prescribes, there is a hint that somehow there is a deficiency in what the Word of God commands, which needs be amended by Hindu customs.

Incidentally, Bengali Christians have got into this practice of touching the feet of elders. What needs to be noted is that Bengali Muslims have not similarly allowed Hindu practice to compromise Muslim standards of conduct. We need to take a cue from them in this matter of not adulterating our faith with customs that are alien. Anyway, when those whose cultural background never had the practice of touching the feet of anyone, do so, they are embracing something obnoxiously alien to Christian conduct.

As we read through the Bible there are several stories of encounters with angels. They came from heaven—God’s abode. They were supernatural. They evoked awe. But these heavenly beings objected to people falling down at their feet because obeisance is to be offered only to God.

But there were also angels who thought that they could usurp the place of God (Is.14:13-14; Ez.28:2). These fallen angels corrupted humankind. Right at the beginning our first parents were tempted to attempt to become like God (Gen.3:5-6). That corruption has lingered on in human society. There have always been people who love to assume that they are godlike while others are sub-human. Racism and casteism are the more obvious forms of it. But whenever people arrogate an oppressive authority and power over others who are in a subordinate role they try to take God’s place.

Parents who believe that they have the power of life and death over their sons and daughters, and exercise total control over them manifest this desire to play God. Cultural practices that affirm such a view of the relationship between parents and children go against the notion that God alone is worthy of worship. Touching the feet of elders falls into the category of customs that defy the commandment to worship God alone.

In Hinduism parents [and by extension all the elders of one’s family/community] have the rank or status of God and it is therefore proper to offer them the obeisance offered to God. This Hindu custom is categorically against the specific commandments of God that His people are not to bow in worship to any god or person or thing.

My wife Roshini had suggested a Christian alternative to touching the feet of elders. She said, “Why not wash feet in keeping with the example of Christ?” Sadly the couple chose to follow Hindu custom, rather than Christian. Their choice reflects what is basically wrong with the indigenisation movement. All the attempts and efforts are focussed on refusing Christian identity, but manifesting an eagerness to identify with what is definitely non-Christian.

Western Connection

There is nothing wrong in the desire to distance oneself from the western connection of Christianity. I find myself embarrassed about using the New American Standard Bible among non-Christians. When I travel, I carry the Bible in its cardboard box to prevent damage. I have put a sticker over the word “American” on the box so that my fellow travellers will not get the impression that Christianity is an American religion.

But the desire to not be associated with the West should not result in swinging to the extreme of embracing all that happens in Hinduism. Symbols and rituals currently in use among Hindus do not lend themselves to being adapted because of their very currency, as they are loaded with non-verbal messages that override any verbal messages. While Indian clothes, songs and food are okay, we have to be careful about rituals.

In the Christian wedding of Babita and Narasimha who were converted from Hinduism, eighty per cent of those who attended were Hindus. On the other hand at the Hindu style wedding of the Jack and Jill, most of those who attended were Christians, a number of whom were Western Christians. One therefore wonders what was the point of having Hindu rituals? To me it seemed like a pointless exercise. Moreover, in the city where the wedding took place young Hindu converts were offended by all of the Hindu rituals. Their point was that they had given up these very things that were done at the wedding. Were they wrong in giving up what they did?

As indicated earlier, my observation is that there are a number of Westerners involved in the indigenisation movement. But when they go around with a tikka on their foreheads, they can so easily be mistaken to be just one of “those Hippy white people who belong to the Hare Krishna group”. One could of course dismiss that as just a case of mistaken identity. A line from jurisprudence will help in clarifying the issue. “Justice must not only be done, but it must appear to be done”. In a similar way, the Christian must not only be Christian, but appear to be Christian, because the Christian witness depends not only on verbalisation but also the non-verbal messages that a Christian sends out.

Not a Patch

Even in our Lord’s day, people tried to make the new faith conform to the old ways and customs. They objected to the fact that it was not at all like the religion and customs of the Jews among whom it had made its beginning. They asked Jesus as to why His followers couldn’t be more like the majority and just fit in with everyone? In answer Jesus said, “No one patches up an old coat with a piece of new cloth, for the new patch will shrink and make an even bigger hole in the coat. Nor does anyone pour new wine into used wineskins, for the skins will burst, the wine will pour out, and the skins will be ruined. Instead, new wine is poured into fresh wineskins, and both will keep in good condition” (Matt 9:16-17, TEV).

Jesus was very clear. The faith begun by Him was not going to be used to patch up the holes in other faiths. In no uncertain terms, Jesus indicated that the Christian faith just doesn’t fit other belief systems. The attempts to make Christianity look like the faiths around it is damaging the Christian faith. It loses its uniqueness. No, more than that, it denies the uniqueness of Christ Himself.

Points of Contact

This is not to deny the value of finding points of contact that will help in drawing people to Christ. Our Lord Himself did that at the well of Samaria. He found something to talk about. His vulnerability as a person in need of a drink of water and His friendliness toward an outcast were the things that won Him an audience (Jn.4:7-15).

It is significant that when the woman tried to say that the faith of her fathers was as good as that of the Jews (v.20), Jesus categorically negated that view. He emphasised that the revelation of God was important in knowing the truth. There was no accommodation of practices that did not find their basis in the Word of God. Jesus said that the Samaritans just did not have the truth (v.22). In no uncertain terms He denied the validity of beliefs that did not come from the revealed truths of God. Beliefs and practices that do not have their origin in the revelation of God cannot be regarded as a step in the direction of God. They are not a way to experience God or serve Him. Jesus definitely did not subscribe to the view that “all roads lead to God” and therefore it was possible to accept the customs of those who did not live by the revelation of God.

Jesus also said that true worshippers would worship “in spirit and truth” (v.24). It is clear from what the Lord said that sincerity or devotion are not enough, but there needs to be truth-content in any act of worship. Non-Christian faiths cannot in themselves provide a means of drawing their adherents to Christ. It was not by accommodating her wrong beliefs, but by His offer of friendship that Jesus paved the way for the Samaritan woman to believe in Him. Rather He indicated that the truth was not something to be compromised. Truth itself cannot be modified. Only the presentation of the truth can be adjusted to suit local conditions.

Paul was one apostle who expertly found points of contact. He said, “I am not anyone’s slave. But I have become a slave to everyone, so that I can win as many people as possible. When I am with the Jews, I live like a Jew to win Jews. They are ruled by the Law of Moses, and I am not. But I live by the Law to win them. And when I am with people who are not ruled by the Law, I forget about the Law to win them. Of course, I never really forget about the law of God. In fact, I am ruled by the law of Christ. When I am with people whose faith is weak, I live as they do to win them. I do everything I can to win everyone I possibly can. I do all this for the [gospel]…” (1 Cor.9: 19-23, CEV).

When Paul was in Athens, he found a temple to the Unknown God and declared that he knew who the Unknown God was (Acts 17:23). It is important to note that Paul did not attempt to put the name of Christ on that temple, or to conduct any Christian worship at the temple of the Unknown God. He did not say that what was happening there could be assimilated into the practice of the Christian faith.

A point of contact must remain only a point. We must not allow it to become larger than a mere point, nor allow it to determine the character of the whole faith. Instead of merely finding a point of contact with Hinduism, the current efforts of all those in the indigenisation movement in India allow Hinduism to colour the whole Christian faith. What is happening is the Hinduisation of Christianity.

Is it Western?

Some Christians suggest that Christian worship in India is Western. It is true that the format of Christian worship does not resemble what happens in a Hindu temple. One should expect that. There would be differences in worship forms between groups that have differences in the way they view God. Theological differences will mean that there will be differences in the way God is approached. There should be no embarrassment that there are differences. Muslims have different forms of worship. So do Parsees. Just because their worship does not resemble Hindu worship, none of the adherents of these religions think that their worship is un-Indian.

Though they resemble what happens in the churches in the West, Christian worship services are not Western. The fact is that they are similar also to what goes on in the Eastern Orthodox churches. The reason is that Christian worship services are patterned more or less on services conducted in the Jewish synagogue, where corporate prayers (without sacrificial rituals) and the reading and exposition of the Word of God dominated the service. As such the form of Christian worship services predates the arrival of Western influence in India.

The Early Church worshipped and fellowshipped in homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; Rom.16:5; 1 Cor.16:19; Col.4:15). There were no priests and there were no rituals. The Lord had said that His followers would not worship in holy places and that their worship would be in spirit (Jn.4:21, 23). The book of Hebrews elaborates on how the Lord Jesus ended the whole ritual system of Temple-centred worship. As long as the Church worshipped in homes worship was not formal or ritualised. Christian worship was then neither Jewish nor pagan in form. It was just a homely affair. “Earliest Christianity had no sacred places, no shrines, no imposing temple structures, no cultic images of God or Christ to focus and stimulate devotion, no impressive public processions, no priesthood or sacrificial rites. All in all, in the context of the cultic expression of religion in the Roman era, earliest Christian worship would have seemed fairly modest, even unimpressive affair. It was definitely ‘low tech’” (Larry W Hurtado, The Origins of Christian Worship, p.40).

If some people feel that in worship there is a need to not appear to be like Christians of other countries, they would do well to go back to the earliest form of non-ritualistic Christian worship instead of aping and mimicking Hindu rituals. Becoming more ritualistic does not bring us closer to what God wants, but diverts us from the pattern set forth in the New Testament.

Danger or Blessing?

Paul did some reflecting about the Christian presence in the midst of cultures that were different. 1 Corinthians chapters 8 to 10 set forth his views on the subject.

In the church at Corinth (and probably elsewhere) there were people who pretended theological sophistication to justify hiding their Christian identity. They didn’t want to stand out by refusing to go along with people who worshipped idols. So they said, “We know that idols are not real. There is only God. So what we eat in pagan temples comes from God” (8:1-6). Paul’s response to such thinking was, “That’s fine. But you forget something. There are Christians who lack your sophistication in theology. Your liberty in Christ is confusing and endangering their faith” (vv.7-11). So the first point Paul teaches us is that as Christians we should not place stumbling blocks in the path of those who look to us for guidance in matters of faith. (Remember how Raj was diverted from his Christian enthusiasm?)

As Paul pressed the argument, he put it in no uncertain terms: “Flee from the worship of idols” (10:14). Idolatry and practices rooted in idolatry are not things we are to accommodate. We must not try to make them fit Christianity. There is a reason for being so rigid about this. Paul said that idols are not merely nothing. Demons are the powers behind idols (vv.19-20; we saw how om is not meaningless, but has the power of Brahma).

Paul concluded that Christians are not to search for what are the outer limits of what is legitimate or permissible for them. Everything that appears to be okay is not necessarily beneficial or able to build up people (vv.23-24). How does a tradition or custom or ritual make us stronger? Will adopting something bring blessing to us and to those who will imitate what we do as their elders in the faith? These are questions we must ask ourselves as we consider how we conduct ourselves in the midst of peoples of other faiths, cultures and customs.

In the end, Paul gave a very simple rule: Accept what you find in the marketplace (vv.25-26) and in the commonplace situations of life (v.27), but do not accept what comes from temples of idolatry (v.28).

Christianity is no patchwork faith. It stands alone, because there is no god like Jesus. He is the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life. Sure there is a need for national integration, but that does not consist of loss or confusion of identities. Pluralism is a fact of the modern world. There are literally thousands of ideologies. To admit that there is pluralism is also an admission that there are differences and integration is needed precisely because there are differences. Integration does not deny the right to be different. It affirms that right because integration consists of learning to coexist with those who are not like us.

The Christian faith is different. The beliefs and practices held by the Christian community in India will naturally bear a striking resemblance to those held by Christian communities around the world. On the other hand, the beliefs and worship rituals of Christians cannot bear any similarity to those of non-Christians. Such a difference must be expected and safeguarded.

When God brought Israel out of Egypt, He said to them, “You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices” (Lev 18:3). God expects His people not to allow surrounding religious cultures and practices to influence their conduct.

Being an Indian is a matter of patriotism to a race and a land. Being an Indian Christian is however, a matter of the spirit. It is a spiritual identity. It is belief in a different God, submission to a different Lord, and identification with a different community of faith that transcends national boundaries, without compromising patriotism.