Exodus. 1: 15-21 – Resisting Genocide
“But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live” (V. 17)
Exodus 1:8-14 talks about the new dynasty or first act to control the Hebrews. Exodus1:15-22 discusses the Pharaoh's genocide or second act to control the Hebrews. This text describes King of Egypt (Pharaoh)’s policy of genocide against the slave population. This paragraph thus escalates the harshness of policies, commensurate with an escalation of anxiety. The Pharaoh failed to stop the multiplication by his hard service and cruelty and so devised the next plan of action (vv.15-22) in which the midwives were instructed to kill all male Hebrew children.
State Sponsored Genocide.
In this narrative unit, the King speaks three times. The first time, he issues a command t the two midwives who assist in birthing among slaves(v.16). His command is that all boy babies should be eliminated. It is of peculiar importance that in this entire unit, “the Israelites” are not at all mentioned. Now it is all “Hebrews” This term, with its cognates known all over the ancient Near East, refers to any group of marginal people who have no social standing, own no land, and who endlessly disrupt ordered society. They are “low-class folks” who are feared, excluded, and despised. It is the common assumption of scholars that the biblical “Hebrews” are a part of this lower social class of hapiru who are known in non-biblical texts. The King’s second speech is again addressed to the midwives (v.18). The instruction of v.16 has been ignored. Now the King, accustomed to obedience, conducts an investigation in to this defiance of imperial command. Finally, he speaks a third time and issues a massive and programmatic command (v.22).
Subaltern (midwives) Resistence.
The midwives, instructed in v.16 to kill, are said to disobey the king (v.17). The reason gives for such disobedience is that they “feared God” more than they feared the new King, and for that reason they refused to participate in the state authorised killing. The exchange between the king and the midwives is ominous, touching the bottom of social reality. The midwives (whose names we know, Shiphrah and Puah) and the king (who is given no name) voice life and death respectively. Their encounter is a revisit of the drama of chaos versus order. Ironically, the champion of imperial order is, in fact, the agent of chaos, for he will terrorize the very possibility of life. Midwives counter genocide ; in so doing, they bear witness to the mothering power of God, whose will for life overrides the killing, and whose power for life is undeterred by the death dispensed by the powerful.
Prayer- God of midwives, help us to resist the genocides in different forms in around our society. Help us to fear God than powerful emperors. Amen
Thought for the day- How do we read this text in the context of violence in Sri Lanka, Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other countries including India.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Luke.13:10-17 - Life Affirming God
Luke.13:10-17 - Life Affirming God
When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, “Woman, you are set free from your ailment” (V.12)
For the last time in the Gospel, Jesus enters a synagogue and restores a woman’s life and challenges the life negating structures. The woman’s condition is attributed to “a spirit of weakness”. For 18 years she had been bent over, unable to stand up straight. The term translated “weakness can simply mean illness”. Several features of the story suggest that the woman’s condition may be seen as indicative of her diminished status as a woman
Breaking the stereotyped religiosity The description of the woman as daughter of Abraham is unusual. It is placed first in the Greek sentence (v. 16), a position of emphasis. This description will be matched in 19:9 by Jesus' insistence that Zacchaeus is "a son of Abraham," a point that Jesus makes against the crowd, which rejects Zacchaeus as a "sinner." Similarly, it is probable that Jesus insists the woman is a daughter of Abraham because she has been robbed of her rights as a member of the covenant people, since she is identified as the bearer of an unclean spirit. Her physical position -- bent over -- can be taken as symbolic of her social position, just as Zacchaeus's short statute can represent his vulnerability before the crowd. Jesus goes beyond the stereotyped spirituality and its attributes.
Restoring life and dignity of the bent over Woman. Jesus releases the woman from her ailment by a pronouncement and the laying as of hands. The physical act again suggests a further significance. The laying as of hands was normally accompanied by prayer and served as an act of blessing. Jesus laid hands as the sick, but the laying on of hands was also used as a conferral of blessing. In the end, Jesus confers as the woman a status of dignity; She is a “daughter of Abraham” Jesus is the process of releasing the captive, freeing the oppressed, and raising up children to Abraham. As in the other scenes in Luke in which Jesus responds to the needs of a woman, this scene points to a new status for women in the Kingdom of God.
This is in fact paradigmatic of Jesus’ mediation of the Kingdom to the women who are demeaned, denied their proper status, and oppressed by religious and social restrictions. Because of her physical condition, the woman carried shame, but by the end of the story she has been released from her shame and Jesus’ opponents have been shamed. The leader of the synagogue wants to make the issue Jesus’ violation of the Sabbath, but Jesus returns the focus to the needs and dignity of the woman. Leader construes his role as maintaining proper observance of the Sabbath rather than celebrating the release of the woman from her “weakness”. The story of the stooped women is, in fact, the story of many women today.
Prayer – God of marginalized, helps us to see the unseen, hear the unheard cries, and stretch out our hand when all goes away. Amen
Thought for the Day- Restoring the stooped down womanhood is one of the challenges of today.
When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, “Woman, you are set free from your ailment” (V.12)
For the last time in the Gospel, Jesus enters a synagogue and restores a woman’s life and challenges the life negating structures. The woman’s condition is attributed to “a spirit of weakness”. For 18 years she had been bent over, unable to stand up straight. The term translated “weakness can simply mean illness”. Several features of the story suggest that the woman’s condition may be seen as indicative of her diminished status as a woman
Breaking the stereotyped religiosity The description of the woman as daughter of Abraham is unusual. It is placed first in the Greek sentence (v. 16), a position of emphasis. This description will be matched in 19:9 by Jesus' insistence that Zacchaeus is "a son of Abraham," a point that Jesus makes against the crowd, which rejects Zacchaeus as a "sinner." Similarly, it is probable that Jesus insists the woman is a daughter of Abraham because she has been robbed of her rights as a member of the covenant people, since she is identified as the bearer of an unclean spirit. Her physical position -- bent over -- can be taken as symbolic of her social position, just as Zacchaeus's short statute can represent his vulnerability before the crowd. Jesus goes beyond the stereotyped spirituality and its attributes.
Restoring life and dignity of the bent over Woman. Jesus releases the woman from her ailment by a pronouncement and the laying as of hands. The physical act again suggests a further significance. The laying as of hands was normally accompanied by prayer and served as an act of blessing. Jesus laid hands as the sick, but the laying on of hands was also used as a conferral of blessing. In the end, Jesus confers as the woman a status of dignity; She is a “daughter of Abraham” Jesus is the process of releasing the captive, freeing the oppressed, and raising up children to Abraham. As in the other scenes in Luke in which Jesus responds to the needs of a woman, this scene points to a new status for women in the Kingdom of God.
This is in fact paradigmatic of Jesus’ mediation of the Kingdom to the women who are demeaned, denied their proper status, and oppressed by religious and social restrictions. Because of her physical condition, the woman carried shame, but by the end of the story she has been released from her shame and Jesus’ opponents have been shamed. The leader of the synagogue wants to make the issue Jesus’ violation of the Sabbath, but Jesus returns the focus to the needs and dignity of the woman. Leader construes his role as maintaining proper observance of the Sabbath rather than celebrating the release of the woman from her “weakness”. The story of the stooped women is, in fact, the story of many women today.
Prayer – God of marginalized, helps us to see the unseen, hear the unheard cries, and stretch out our hand when all goes away. Amen
Thought for the Day- Restoring the stooped down womanhood is one of the challenges of today.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
St. Luke. 1:26-38. “Annunciation to Virgin Mary: Taking Risk for the Kingdom of God”.
St. Luke. 1:26-38.
Today we pondering upon the theme, “Annunciation to Virgin Mary: Taking Risk for the Kingdom of God”.
Let me read verse from the Gospel Portion today Luke. Mary said, Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word”.
Let us pray, God of true wisdom, as we engage ourselves with your words be with us and envision us with new imagination and commitment. Amen.
The study of the gospel according to St. Luke is a richly rewarding experience. As theologian from the margins he tells the story of the insignificant people such as women, children, lepers, outcasts and gentiles. As a sociologist he deals the issues of the lower strata and describes how they will be in the kingdom of God. He is best story teller and a genuine communicator because he tells the redemptive history of God by narrating many figures of Jesus’ time. He presents Jesus in a wider canvas of God’s historical interventions. Luke is a good story teller and has the penetrating insight of a prophet. As a result, the Gospel is engaging and offers a perspective on the redemptive events of Jesus’ ministry. Luke’s distinctive attention to God’s work among ordinary people continues to be evident. The infancy narrative features the role of Zechariah and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary rather than Joseph is the principal character in Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus. The angel Gabriel appeared first to Zechariah, an old priest going about his duties in the Temple, and then to a young girl not yet married. God chose the lowly rather than the high and mighty to fulfill the plan of redemption. Instead of sending Gabriel to a queen or princess, God sent the angel to a young girl betrothed to a carpenter. They lived in an insignificant town in an unimportant province of the Roman Empire.
This Sunday is dominated by the presence of Mary, who places herself before God in her conditions as a lowly one, someone who believes God because God is the only God. Let me explore three insights from the above read text.
God’s Redemption through Powerless. Redemption starts from Nazareth not from Jerusalem. Nazareth was a little village, despised among the Jews. Story of God’s mighty works does not involve Emperors like Herod but a devout old couple and a woman form the low status. The world’s standard leads us to attribute power and worth to the royal functionary, who was but a puppet of Rome. God chose instead the poor and humble as the venue for the great work of redemption. History would remember the dominant figures as Powerful. But the old, the poor, the humble, and the insignificant are not to be overlooked; they are God’s chosen people, redemption history starts from there. Midwives described in Exodus Shipra and Pua are the best examples of this kind of God’s engagement. Redemption means decolonizing the colonized world. Sinful powers or colonizers will be in search of power and glory and they look things from an elite and rich perspective. They could not experience the pains, struggles, and tears of the majority. The images they have, the imagination they have are the emperors. The images, imaginations and visions of God are subaltern, grass rooted and ordinary. V.28 says, O favored one, it means you are the recipient of a gift or a privileged one. The angel explains this with the additional phrase; the Lord is with you. God’s redemption history by putting down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree; God has filled the hungry with good things, and rich God has sent empty away (1:52). God do these things by using the powerless, meek, weak and lowly. Where do we stand? Are we the mini conquerors, invaders, or the agents of powerful neo-colonization or we are with the people who are eagerly waiting for justice, peace, and redemption. Then we could experience God’s annunciation like Mary experienced.
A Paradigm of God’s Discourse with Humanity. The discourse between Mary and Gabriel is the paradigm of the God’s liberative discourse. In this discourse God trusts Mary and, in turn, she places her trust in God, who converts her in to a person of faith. There is no reason for fear; surrender is the response to the call. See the content of the discourse, it is nothing but redemption of the creation (V.32-ff). The Lord looks upon Mary asking her faith and this faith inaugurates the discourse. This discourse led towards the salvation of all. This discourse reveals that God would enter human life with all its depravity, violence, and corruption. Therefore, the discourse ultimately is an announcement of hope for whole creation. Discourses are meaningful only when we see the others as equal instead of seeing them inferior. Genuine discourses carry the message of liberation and it enhances life. The real discourse creates a public sphere, it criticizes the royal consciousness, it energizes people to go beyond the numbness of the world, and it is redemptive. True discourse creates community and it empower the powerless. Discourse with God energized Mary to go beyond the numbness of the world (means silent spectator in the midst of false spirituality and powers of death). Do we ever experience this kind of discourse? What is the nature of our discourse with God and others? Is it criticize the royal consciousness or sinful consciousness? Is it redemptive?
An Empowered woman and a true disciple. Mary’s trust and humility do not prevent her from initiating a discourse with God’s messenger. She does not simply listen and accept the announcement. The power of the spirit prompts her active participation. It is the collaboration of someone who knows she is in God’s hands. Mary said, “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word”. This 12 or 13 year old girl from a backwater village in a small part of the Roman empire quite simply says ‘yes' to God and risks all the consequences. Mary’s yes to motherhood communicates the Messiah to us. Thus, Mary has her place in the history of salvation. Mary’s motherhood is more than a personal gift; it is a gift to humankind in Mary. Some commentaries suggest that Luke is showing Mary as the first Christian disciple in this story. Obedience is more than just doing what we are told, it is the recognition that we are not our own, we are not totally autonomous individuals and that ultimately we are God's. Mary’s true commitment inaugurated the new era of salvation. Mary’s commitment starts from here and it continued till the death of her son on the cross. What we learn from her commitment? Mary’s commitment does not contain any economic motive but it is a political act since it challenges the powerful. It is not with any hidden agendas but it is transparent in nature and it is for others. One of the philosophical questions, which have occupied thinkers for centuries, is that human authenticity. What is authentically human? Human living is different from any other in that it is essentially other-directed. And the intentional absence of the other is hell. In contrast, the highest form of self-transcendence is the self-surrender to another in love, which is the abiding imperative of what is to be human. Thus transcending oneself, one becomes oneself. Mary surrendered herself to God and she finds herself and the premise and nature of her engagement with God. We are called to live for others and we are asked to share our gifts for the redemption of the whole creation. Mary’s motherhood is more than a personal gift; it is a gift to humankind in Mary.
God chose Mary, as a channel of redemption, even though she is powerless. God’s redemption never starts from the royal consciousness but from pure in hearts. God’s discourse is redemptive, it criticizes the royal consciousness and it enhances life. True discipleship means taking risks for God and it is always other directed not intentional absence from others.
May the God of Mary help us to be the agents of God’s intervention in the midst of hopelessness and chaos.
Today we pondering upon the theme, “Annunciation to Virgin Mary: Taking Risk for the Kingdom of God”.
Let me read verse from the Gospel Portion today Luke. Mary said, Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word”.
Let us pray, God of true wisdom, as we engage ourselves with your words be with us and envision us with new imagination and commitment. Amen.
The study of the gospel according to St. Luke is a richly rewarding experience. As theologian from the margins he tells the story of the insignificant people such as women, children, lepers, outcasts and gentiles. As a sociologist he deals the issues of the lower strata and describes how they will be in the kingdom of God. He is best story teller and a genuine communicator because he tells the redemptive history of God by narrating many figures of Jesus’ time. He presents Jesus in a wider canvas of God’s historical interventions. Luke is a good story teller and has the penetrating insight of a prophet. As a result, the Gospel is engaging and offers a perspective on the redemptive events of Jesus’ ministry. Luke’s distinctive attention to God’s work among ordinary people continues to be evident. The infancy narrative features the role of Zechariah and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary rather than Joseph is the principal character in Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus. The angel Gabriel appeared first to Zechariah, an old priest going about his duties in the Temple, and then to a young girl not yet married. God chose the lowly rather than the high and mighty to fulfill the plan of redemption. Instead of sending Gabriel to a queen or princess, God sent the angel to a young girl betrothed to a carpenter. They lived in an insignificant town in an unimportant province of the Roman Empire.
This Sunday is dominated by the presence of Mary, who places herself before God in her conditions as a lowly one, someone who believes God because God is the only God. Let me explore three insights from the above read text.
God’s Redemption through Powerless. Redemption starts from Nazareth not from Jerusalem. Nazareth was a little village, despised among the Jews. Story of God’s mighty works does not involve Emperors like Herod but a devout old couple and a woman form the low status. The world’s standard leads us to attribute power and worth to the royal functionary, who was but a puppet of Rome. God chose instead the poor and humble as the venue for the great work of redemption. History would remember the dominant figures as Powerful. But the old, the poor, the humble, and the insignificant are not to be overlooked; they are God’s chosen people, redemption history starts from there. Midwives described in Exodus Shipra and Pua are the best examples of this kind of God’s engagement. Redemption means decolonizing the colonized world. Sinful powers or colonizers will be in search of power and glory and they look things from an elite and rich perspective. They could not experience the pains, struggles, and tears of the majority. The images they have, the imagination they have are the emperors. The images, imaginations and visions of God are subaltern, grass rooted and ordinary. V.28 says, O favored one, it means you are the recipient of a gift or a privileged one. The angel explains this with the additional phrase; the Lord is with you. God’s redemption history by putting down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree; God has filled the hungry with good things, and rich God has sent empty away (1:52). God do these things by using the powerless, meek, weak and lowly. Where do we stand? Are we the mini conquerors, invaders, or the agents of powerful neo-colonization or we are with the people who are eagerly waiting for justice, peace, and redemption. Then we could experience God’s annunciation like Mary experienced.
A Paradigm of God’s Discourse with Humanity. The discourse between Mary and Gabriel is the paradigm of the God’s liberative discourse. In this discourse God trusts Mary and, in turn, she places her trust in God, who converts her in to a person of faith. There is no reason for fear; surrender is the response to the call. See the content of the discourse, it is nothing but redemption of the creation (V.32-ff). The Lord looks upon Mary asking her faith and this faith inaugurates the discourse. This discourse led towards the salvation of all. This discourse reveals that God would enter human life with all its depravity, violence, and corruption. Therefore, the discourse ultimately is an announcement of hope for whole creation. Discourses are meaningful only when we see the others as equal instead of seeing them inferior. Genuine discourses carry the message of liberation and it enhances life. The real discourse creates a public sphere, it criticizes the royal consciousness, it energizes people to go beyond the numbness of the world, and it is redemptive. True discourse creates community and it empower the powerless. Discourse with God energized Mary to go beyond the numbness of the world (means silent spectator in the midst of false spirituality and powers of death). Do we ever experience this kind of discourse? What is the nature of our discourse with God and others? Is it criticize the royal consciousness or sinful consciousness? Is it redemptive?
An Empowered woman and a true disciple. Mary’s trust and humility do not prevent her from initiating a discourse with God’s messenger. She does not simply listen and accept the announcement. The power of the spirit prompts her active participation. It is the collaboration of someone who knows she is in God’s hands. Mary said, “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word”. This 12 or 13 year old girl from a backwater village in a small part of the Roman empire quite simply says ‘yes' to God and risks all the consequences. Mary’s yes to motherhood communicates the Messiah to us. Thus, Mary has her place in the history of salvation. Mary’s motherhood is more than a personal gift; it is a gift to humankind in Mary. Some commentaries suggest that Luke is showing Mary as the first Christian disciple in this story. Obedience is more than just doing what we are told, it is the recognition that we are not our own, we are not totally autonomous individuals and that ultimately we are God's. Mary’s true commitment inaugurated the new era of salvation. Mary’s commitment starts from here and it continued till the death of her son on the cross. What we learn from her commitment? Mary’s commitment does not contain any economic motive but it is a political act since it challenges the powerful. It is not with any hidden agendas but it is transparent in nature and it is for others. One of the philosophical questions, which have occupied thinkers for centuries, is that human authenticity. What is authentically human? Human living is different from any other in that it is essentially other-directed. And the intentional absence of the other is hell. In contrast, the highest form of self-transcendence is the self-surrender to another in love, which is the abiding imperative of what is to be human. Thus transcending oneself, one becomes oneself. Mary surrendered herself to God and she finds herself and the premise and nature of her engagement with God. We are called to live for others and we are asked to share our gifts for the redemption of the whole creation. Mary’s motherhood is more than a personal gift; it is a gift to humankind in Mary.
God chose Mary, as a channel of redemption, even though she is powerless. God’s redemption never starts from the royal consciousness but from pure in hearts. God’s discourse is redemptive, it criticizes the royal consciousness and it enhances life. True discipleship means taking risks for God and it is always other directed not intentional absence from others.
May the God of Mary help us to be the agents of God’s intervention in the midst of hopelessness and chaos.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Subaltern, Deconstricting Christ and Re-imagined Sacramental Church
Reflection on John 13:1-17
Who makes news? Answers will be different like, high profile politicians, sports persons, celebrities, Rich, “successful persons”, World leaders and so on. Usually women, black, dalit and people from subaltern sections very rarely make news in the media. Mainstream media always looks the marketability of the persons so that they could sell them to make profit. Who wants the stories of a subaltern community and their life situations? Here comes the relevance of the Gospels. Gospels contains stories of insignificant people and thereby it is an alternate media which read the community living from the subaltern perspective. John’s gospel chapter 13: 1-17 contains a story which doesn’t have news value or marketability at that time where dominant and powerful have seen historical realities from the point of view of the elite and powerful. Gospel writers, the real journalists or researchers, who had a “third eye” question the dominant power structures through their bold writings.
John gives more importance to the washing of the feet than the Last Supper. I wonder why washing of the feet not included in the sacraments of the church. The passage begins with Jesus washing disciple’s feet. Shortly after they celebrated Passover, Jesus abruptly rose from dinner and began washing his disciples' feet. Foot washing is a lesson Jesus uses to convey the importance of the cross. This text carries a deeper meaning in the Christological and theological understanding of God-self.
Let me share three insights from my reading of this text.
Firstly, A Subaltern Christ in a Colonial Premise.
Jesus’ enacted parable occurred in a socio-religious and political premise where dominant power symbols were ruling over the subaltern communities like gentiles, women and outcasts. Foot-washing was not primarily a ceremonial custom. It was practically important because people walked in sandals through dusty, muddy and manure-filled streets. Your feet got dirty and stinky. Not surprisingly, washing someone else's feet was regarded as one of the most demeaning tasks anyone could perform. Like a scavenger, shudra, slave, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. While doing this he finds his self in the subaltern life situations and he identifies with them. When colonial rulers and their agents taught us to call them “Lord”, Jesus implicitly asks us to call him servant of the servants. The term “Lord” lost its original meaning by using it by the colonial rulers or the perpetrators of the violence and hegemony under the umbrella of mission. Ironically our God is a Subaltern God, one who does the duties of the slaves, low caste sections like dalits. In that sense the identity of Christ definitely will challenges the colonial perceptions like seeing our brothers and sisters and the rest of the creation as “other”. Obviously colonial premise formulate theologies and theories which support the perpetrators of violence and they ask us to serve them. But Christ, servant of servants is ready to wash our feet. What a contradiction!
Secondly , A Deconstructing Christ in the Constructed Role Settings.
In Jewish society, foot washing was considered too menial a job for a Jewish slave, and was a task reserved for gentile slaves, wives and children. It was reserved for household slaves. The foot washing event is given in detail. These details are intended to draw the reader’s attention to the absurdity of the event. Here Jesus deconstructs his role as master or teacher to a slave. Every human construct contains the dominant values of that time and most probably it will be hierarchical, patriarchal, and oppressive because these constructions are made by the powerful people. Sometimes these constructs carry a kind of pseudo - order in the society like caste system. Sometimes people may ask, in caste system everybody have particular job assigned to do and let them do that particular job, why we have to disturb the order by questioning the caste system. Likewise we have gender roles. Men have special roles and women have particular roles to play. But the issue is the power relations and the issue of justice and freedom. We have the notion that dalits, blacks, poor are supposed to do the menial duties of this society- these human constructions denies dignity, freedom, justice, equality in their relationship. Jesus took off his robe, and tied a towel around himself- A symbol of deconstructing himself. He rises from the dinner table during mealtime (John 13:2b states that it was "during supper") and girds himself with a towel in a manner similar to the way in which a servant would gird his loins prior to engaging in a menial task We pastors used to wear girdle to remember this act but today it became a symbol of power and - The verb used to describe Jesus’ removal of clothes in v.4 is the same verb used by Jesus to describe laying down his life. The fourth evangelist’s verb choice signals the connection between the foot washing and Jesus’ struggle against the satanic forces.
Thirdly, A Re-Imagined Sacramental Church.
The washing of the feet was an expression of welcome and service, and it was practiced with people recognized as having some kind of superiority, social or otherwise. Jesus’ action led towards a discourse through this prophetic action, he asked his disciples to re-imagine the community living with Christ. Unless and until you deconstruct yourself you cannot be the part of the Kingdom of God. Christ challenges his disciples to become an alternate community in the midst of powerful royal consciousness. Bonhoeffer said, “The church is church only when it exists for others”. Church has to take off its robe of power and numbness towards royal consciousness. Jesus Christ inverts the terms, and his love brings him to serve even the most humble. “So, if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you”.The cross is the ultimate critique of the royal consciousness and clears the way for a newly imagined community.
Here church is placed below and the people are placed in higher position. But what happened today? We became rulers and the common people became Lazarus who was in front of the rich man’s house.
Theology is not only to be thought; it is to be lived. We are here to deconstruct the theologies which support the unjust, sinful, colonial power structures. We are supposed to do that because our God has shown this model through the washing of the feet of the disciples. Today, we are living in a neo-colonial premise where a minority dominates, exploits others in different ways. Christ asks us to challenge these human constructs since it destroys the image of God. Late Juhanon Marthoma metropolitan wrote in 1952, “The church takes pride in its traditions, its increasing numbers, its prospering institutions. It tends to forget its Lord and master, and its own early struggles”. We need people towards this tribe, people of vision, commitment and boldness. Yes-we need to re-imagine our church as sacramental because our God asks to be like that.
Who makes news? Answers will be different like, high profile politicians, sports persons, celebrities, Rich, “successful persons”, World leaders and so on. Usually women, black, dalit and people from subaltern sections very rarely make news in the media. Mainstream media always looks the marketability of the persons so that they could sell them to make profit. Who wants the stories of a subaltern community and their life situations? Here comes the relevance of the Gospels. Gospels contains stories of insignificant people and thereby it is an alternate media which read the community living from the subaltern perspective. John’s gospel chapter 13: 1-17 contains a story which doesn’t have news value or marketability at that time where dominant and powerful have seen historical realities from the point of view of the elite and powerful. Gospel writers, the real journalists or researchers, who had a “third eye” question the dominant power structures through their bold writings.
John gives more importance to the washing of the feet than the Last Supper. I wonder why washing of the feet not included in the sacraments of the church. The passage begins with Jesus washing disciple’s feet. Shortly after they celebrated Passover, Jesus abruptly rose from dinner and began washing his disciples' feet. Foot washing is a lesson Jesus uses to convey the importance of the cross. This text carries a deeper meaning in the Christological and theological understanding of God-self.
Let me share three insights from my reading of this text.
Firstly, A Subaltern Christ in a Colonial Premise.
Jesus’ enacted parable occurred in a socio-religious and political premise where dominant power symbols were ruling over the subaltern communities like gentiles, women and outcasts. Foot-washing was not primarily a ceremonial custom. It was practically important because people walked in sandals through dusty, muddy and manure-filled streets. Your feet got dirty and stinky. Not surprisingly, washing someone else's feet was regarded as one of the most demeaning tasks anyone could perform. Like a scavenger, shudra, slave, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. While doing this he finds his self in the subaltern life situations and he identifies with them. When colonial rulers and their agents taught us to call them “Lord”, Jesus implicitly asks us to call him servant of the servants. The term “Lord” lost its original meaning by using it by the colonial rulers or the perpetrators of the violence and hegemony under the umbrella of mission. Ironically our God is a Subaltern God, one who does the duties of the slaves, low caste sections like dalits. In that sense the identity of Christ definitely will challenges the colonial perceptions like seeing our brothers and sisters and the rest of the creation as “other”. Obviously colonial premise formulate theologies and theories which support the perpetrators of violence and they ask us to serve them. But Christ, servant of servants is ready to wash our feet. What a contradiction!
Secondly , A Deconstructing Christ in the Constructed Role Settings.
In Jewish society, foot washing was considered too menial a job for a Jewish slave, and was a task reserved for gentile slaves, wives and children. It was reserved for household slaves. The foot washing event is given in detail. These details are intended to draw the reader’s attention to the absurdity of the event. Here Jesus deconstructs his role as master or teacher to a slave. Every human construct contains the dominant values of that time and most probably it will be hierarchical, patriarchal, and oppressive because these constructions are made by the powerful people. Sometimes these constructs carry a kind of pseudo - order in the society like caste system. Sometimes people may ask, in caste system everybody have particular job assigned to do and let them do that particular job, why we have to disturb the order by questioning the caste system. Likewise we have gender roles. Men have special roles and women have particular roles to play. But the issue is the power relations and the issue of justice and freedom. We have the notion that dalits, blacks, poor are supposed to do the menial duties of this society- these human constructions denies dignity, freedom, justice, equality in their relationship. Jesus took off his robe, and tied a towel around himself- A symbol of deconstructing himself. He rises from the dinner table during mealtime (John 13:2b states that it was "during supper") and girds himself with a towel in a manner similar to the way in which a servant would gird his loins prior to engaging in a menial task We pastors used to wear girdle to remember this act but today it became a symbol of power and - The verb used to describe Jesus’ removal of clothes in v.4 is the same verb used by Jesus to describe laying down his life. The fourth evangelist’s verb choice signals the connection between the foot washing and Jesus’ struggle against the satanic forces.
Thirdly, A Re-Imagined Sacramental Church.
The washing of the feet was an expression of welcome and service, and it was practiced with people recognized as having some kind of superiority, social or otherwise. Jesus’ action led towards a discourse through this prophetic action, he asked his disciples to re-imagine the community living with Christ. Unless and until you deconstruct yourself you cannot be the part of the Kingdom of God. Christ challenges his disciples to become an alternate community in the midst of powerful royal consciousness. Bonhoeffer said, “The church is church only when it exists for others”. Church has to take off its robe of power and numbness towards royal consciousness. Jesus Christ inverts the terms, and his love brings him to serve even the most humble. “So, if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you”.The cross is the ultimate critique of the royal consciousness and clears the way for a newly imagined community.
Here church is placed below and the people are placed in higher position. But what happened today? We became rulers and the common people became Lazarus who was in front of the rich man’s house.
Theology is not only to be thought; it is to be lived. We are here to deconstruct the theologies which support the unjust, sinful, colonial power structures. We are supposed to do that because our God has shown this model through the washing of the feet of the disciples. Today, we are living in a neo-colonial premise where a minority dominates, exploits others in different ways. Christ asks us to challenge these human constructs since it destroys the image of God. Late Juhanon Marthoma metropolitan wrote in 1952, “The church takes pride in its traditions, its increasing numbers, its prospering institutions. It tends to forget its Lord and master, and its own early struggles”. We need people towards this tribe, people of vision, commitment and boldness. Yes-we need to re-imagine our church as sacramental because our God asks to be like that.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Let us pray......
We thank you, merciful God,
for the beauty of the earth and the sea,
for mountains, plains and rivers,
for the singing of the birds and the grace of flowers.
We thank you for all good gifts,
and pray that they may be preserved for those who come after us.
Let our thankfulness for your rich creation grow, joyfully.
Let us taste the meal you have prepared in the world to come.
We pray that we all may inherit the treasures of the holy,
and that we may live in your heavenly city,
in the name of Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord,
who lives and governs with you in the oneness of the Holy Spirit,
for ever one God, in a world without end.
Amen
for the beauty of the earth and the sea,
for mountains, plains and rivers,
for the singing of the birds and the grace of flowers.
We thank you for all good gifts,
and pray that they may be preserved for those who come after us.
Let our thankfulness for your rich creation grow, joyfully.
Let us taste the meal you have prepared in the world to come.
We pray that we all may inherit the treasures of the holy,
and that we may live in your heavenly city,
in the name of Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord,
who lives and governs with you in the oneness of the Holy Spirit,
for ever one God, in a world without end.
Amen
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Climate Change - A Justice Issue
Climate change will not only increase global poverty and human insecurities, but also enhance regional disparity as well intra and intergenerational inequity if urgent actions are not taken now by the global communities. The following stories give important glimpse about - how climate change will increase inequity and poverty.
Story 1: The Traveling Mother
A woman in El-Salvador in Latin America was traveling to join her husband who had been posted on an international NGO job in Dakar, Senegal in Africa. She was in her advanced stage of pregnancy. A few hours into the flight, the plane faces turbulence and had to land in an airport in Florida, USA. Because of the turbulence and nervousness she gave birth to a premature baby in the USl. This baby could have been born a few hours earlier in El-Salvador or the next day in Dakar, Senegal. This is purely a chance of circumstances. We can model the future consumption history of this child depending on where she was born. The fact that the child was born in the US she would consume ten times more petroleum, would travel many times more by cars and airlines, would consume meat many times more and also use and waste water by a huge margin. In the process of evolution in the mother’s womb, each child, irrespective of place of origin, has similar nutritional allocation. But it is the society where she is born that very often decides the consumption patterns. In the final analysis it is the consumption pattern and utilization of resources that created the GHGs resulting in Climate Change.
Story 2: The Migrating People
On 21 February, 2007 Henry Chu, Staff Writer of the Los Angeles Times reports “Climate Change laps at Bangladesh’s shores rising oceans are already a reality there, and thousands of people could be displaced. Global warming has a taste in this village. It is the taste of salt. Only a few years ago, water from the local pond was fresh and sweet on Samit Biswas’s tongue...for one meter sea level rise, there will be 35 million people displaced by middle to end of 21st century. One Mr. Borhan, the leader of a small coastal community in Bangladesh said that “Anybody in my island hardly uses any petrol, gas or coal. We never get on a car or plane. Why should I or my children drown because somebody else wants to have a good life? Where is the justice in this?”
The enormous, forceful and devastating cyclone Sidr that hit the coast of Bangladesh in November 2007, had not only killed over 10,000 people but also devastated the lives and livelihoods of over 30 million people. The next devastating cyclone Nargis generated in the Bay of Bengal had spared Bangladesh but had severely hit Myanmar coast on 4 May 2008 killing more than one hundred thousands of people and injured millions. Most recently, cyclone Aila hit the coasts of Bangladesh and India on 25 April 2009 killing over 300 people. Many people of coastal districts were made homeless for weeks and were suffering from serious food and water insecurity. Thousands of them would be thrown into poverty. The poor in the developing countries are the worst affected by those climate extremes, they are in the forefront of climatic disasters and have least capacity to cope with the risks.
Poverty situation may further deteriorate in Asia and Africa due to climate change impacts. The number of poor has increased in Bangladesh sharply in the last 2-3 years from 38% to 48% due to climatic disasters as well as economic and social crisis. Currently, over 860 million people are suffering from severe food insecurity and chronic malnourishment in the world. About 95% of them are in developing countries. Inequitable access to food is the major factor behind this, but global warming and climatic events are also contributing to food insecurity.
Key challenges and urgent actions
Climate change is a result of unequal development and consumption and it is enhancing inequity across the world. The impacts are also unequally distributed, where poor in developing countries are becoming the worst victims. Mitigating climate change, eradicating poverty and promoting sustainable and equitable economic growth as well as political stability all demand the same solutions. We must reduce GHG emission urgently and immediately to save the planet and human civilization. The key challenges for all of us are:
to stop climate change through urgent mitigation measures now and create effective framework for post 2012 commitment with greater participation of both developed and developing countries to halt dangerous climate change;
to explore how to live in a warmer climate which is now unavoidable; and
to promote low carbon sustainable economic development and modify the life style of the rich who do the most harm through luxuries and over consumption.
A deeper cut of carbon emission is urgently needed. The vulnerable communities also require resources, institutional capacity and appropriate technologies for advancing adaptation to climate change. Fighting climate change and poverty requires multiple, but combined and accelerated efforts by the governments, business and private sector, development agencies, relevant actors and vulnerable communities. A fairer and more equitable world will be a more secured world too.
All efforts of climate change must take the dimension of equity, fairness and justice into consideration in decision making. Though there are discussions in equity and fairness in Mitigation, i.e. GHG emission, there is hardly any discussion yet in equity and justice in adaptation. The future discourse must take this adaptation into consideration. Any adaptation related funds should be considered as a compensation rather that an endowment. Similarly, a displaced population should have the right to choose where they want to find their new homes as a matter of right and not a favor by the GHG emitters who has caused the problem in the first place.
This is an article by Dr. Atiq Rahman, Executive Director of BCAS, Dhaka and the Winner of the UN Environmental Award- the Champion of the Earth 2008
Story 1: The Traveling Mother
A woman in El-Salvador in Latin America was traveling to join her husband who had been posted on an international NGO job in Dakar, Senegal in Africa. She was in her advanced stage of pregnancy. A few hours into the flight, the plane faces turbulence and had to land in an airport in Florida, USA. Because of the turbulence and nervousness she gave birth to a premature baby in the USl. This baby could have been born a few hours earlier in El-Salvador or the next day in Dakar, Senegal. This is purely a chance of circumstances. We can model the future consumption history of this child depending on where she was born. The fact that the child was born in the US she would consume ten times more petroleum, would travel many times more by cars and airlines, would consume meat many times more and also use and waste water by a huge margin. In the process of evolution in the mother’s womb, each child, irrespective of place of origin, has similar nutritional allocation. But it is the society where she is born that very often decides the consumption patterns. In the final analysis it is the consumption pattern and utilization of resources that created the GHGs resulting in Climate Change.
Story 2: The Migrating People
On 21 February, 2007 Henry Chu, Staff Writer of the Los Angeles Times reports “Climate Change laps at Bangladesh’s shores rising oceans are already a reality there, and thousands of people could be displaced. Global warming has a taste in this village. It is the taste of salt. Only a few years ago, water from the local pond was fresh and sweet on Samit Biswas’s tongue...for one meter sea level rise, there will be 35 million people displaced by middle to end of 21st century. One Mr. Borhan, the leader of a small coastal community in Bangladesh said that “Anybody in my island hardly uses any petrol, gas or coal. We never get on a car or plane. Why should I or my children drown because somebody else wants to have a good life? Where is the justice in this?”
The enormous, forceful and devastating cyclone Sidr that hit the coast of Bangladesh in November 2007, had not only killed over 10,000 people but also devastated the lives and livelihoods of over 30 million people. The next devastating cyclone Nargis generated in the Bay of Bengal had spared Bangladesh but had severely hit Myanmar coast on 4 May 2008 killing more than one hundred thousands of people and injured millions. Most recently, cyclone Aila hit the coasts of Bangladesh and India on 25 April 2009 killing over 300 people. Many people of coastal districts were made homeless for weeks and were suffering from serious food and water insecurity. Thousands of them would be thrown into poverty. The poor in the developing countries are the worst affected by those climate extremes, they are in the forefront of climatic disasters and have least capacity to cope with the risks.
Poverty situation may further deteriorate in Asia and Africa due to climate change impacts. The number of poor has increased in Bangladesh sharply in the last 2-3 years from 38% to 48% due to climatic disasters as well as economic and social crisis. Currently, over 860 million people are suffering from severe food insecurity and chronic malnourishment in the world. About 95% of them are in developing countries. Inequitable access to food is the major factor behind this, but global warming and climatic events are also contributing to food insecurity.
Key challenges and urgent actions
Climate change is a result of unequal development and consumption and it is enhancing inequity across the world. The impacts are also unequally distributed, where poor in developing countries are becoming the worst victims. Mitigating climate change, eradicating poverty and promoting sustainable and equitable economic growth as well as political stability all demand the same solutions. We must reduce GHG emission urgently and immediately to save the planet and human civilization. The key challenges for all of us are:
to stop climate change through urgent mitigation measures now and create effective framework for post 2012 commitment with greater participation of both developed and developing countries to halt dangerous climate change;
to explore how to live in a warmer climate which is now unavoidable; and
to promote low carbon sustainable economic development and modify the life style of the rich who do the most harm through luxuries and over consumption.
A deeper cut of carbon emission is urgently needed. The vulnerable communities also require resources, institutional capacity and appropriate technologies for advancing adaptation to climate change. Fighting climate change and poverty requires multiple, but combined and accelerated efforts by the governments, business and private sector, development agencies, relevant actors and vulnerable communities. A fairer and more equitable world will be a more secured world too.
All efforts of climate change must take the dimension of equity, fairness and justice into consideration in decision making. Though there are discussions in equity and fairness in Mitigation, i.e. GHG emission, there is hardly any discussion yet in equity and justice in adaptation. The future discourse must take this adaptation into consideration. Any adaptation related funds should be considered as a compensation rather that an endowment. Similarly, a displaced population should have the right to choose where they want to find their new homes as a matter of right and not a favor by the GHG emitters who has caused the problem in the first place.
This is an article by Dr. Atiq Rahman, Executive Director of BCAS, Dhaka and the Winner of the UN Environmental Award- the Champion of the Earth 2008
Friday, August 21, 2009
Story of Zacchaeus - A differant Reading.
Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay four times the amount. (Luke 19:8)
Luke tells the story of Jesus coming to Jericho. A large crowd has turned out to catch a glimpse of him. Among them is Zacchaeus. He tries to push through the crowd to get a better look but is unable to move to the front row. So he has to run ahead and climb a sycamore tree in order to get a good view of the wandering rabbi who is talked about so much. The fact that the crowd turns its back to Zacchaeus is revealing. He is the chief tax collector and the text underscores that he is a rich man. Hence, he is an important figure in Jericho.
Today, such a man would claim a front seat – and would probably get it – for, regardless of how it was acquired, wealth is accepted and demands privilege. We see in the text that in Jericho the ordinary people do not accept wealth as such. They see that Zacchaeus accumulated his wealth by collaborating with the enemy, the Roman Empire. He bought the privilege to collect taxes and his success depended on how ruthless he was in collecting them from his fellow human beings.
He is rich but he is an outcast. The people of Jericho say: ‘He may be rich. He is cheating us. He is exploiting his power. But one thing is true. We may be poor but we are Abraham’s children. He is rich but he is lost.’ When Jesus comes, he reveals the truth. The truth about human contempt and envy, about human hopes and hidden despair. This is just one of the many stories in the Bible which describe Jesus’ encounters with the rich. It resonates with the lives of people all over the world and their experiences of poverty and wealth.
Jesus opts for the lost one. He invites himself to the house of Zacchaeus. ‘I must stay at your house today.’Why this urgency? There were many others in Jericho who would have wanted Jesus to come to their house.The others around him find it very disturbing that he should prefer the hospitality of a well-known sinner! Does he not understand the kind of person Zacchaeus is?
This is a very peculiar ‘preferential option’, not for the rich and the affluent. It is his preferential option for the one who is lost, regardless of his or her earthly possessions. It is unmerited grace that comes to the house of Zacchaeus. This grace does not worry about the potential of being misunderstood and reviled. Genuine grace has its own results.
That Jesus should go to Zacchaeus is a remarkable turn – indeed a scandalous ‘diversion’ for the self respecting citizens of Jericho. But the story does not end there. His friendship for Zacchaeus provokes another drastic turn: a conversion that is good news indeed!
Zacchaeus announces that he will give half of his goods to the poor. He adds: ‘and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.’ This sounds spectacular and completely unrealistic to us, that a man would deprive himself of all his belongings! Now, it must be understood that according to the laws of those times, a fourfold restoration was required. The explanation is that the interest that was demanded by tax collectors and money lenders was often so excessive that it amounted to as much as 100 per cent, or more. This may sound exorbitant to us since we – many of us living in richer nations – already complain about much lower rates in our own countries.
However, if you look at the inflation of debts imposed on so many countries in the so-called Third World, the practice of the Roman tax collectors does not look extraordinary at all. One could easily give examples of debts that have risen so steeply because of inflated compound interest. A fourfold forgiveness of the original debt would not appear to be exaggerated at all.
Again, the goal is to restore the full business capacities of the defrauded parties, not to give them alms. Justice is something radically different from charity. Does the story of Zacchaeus, then, have a lesson for contemporary policies regarding debt relief ? The really new thing that Zacchaeus announces is his decision to give half of his goods to the poor. This was not in the laws or practices of his time and it is not in the laws of today. We can see this as a practical example of the basic law of the Torah: love your neighbour as yourself. So you share with that neighbour half of what you have.
The story of Zacchaeus is remarkable because it talks about reparations-reparations as a consequence of God’s grace, of sincere repentance and a complete change of heart. Hence, this is a story of costly grace.
As Jesus hears about the plans of his host, Zacchaeus, he says: ‘Salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.’ After the announcement of the reparations scheme, here Jesus talks about salvation which encompasses the whole life, a wholehearted change of attitude and a new practice. ‘You have done the right thing’, Jesus says to Zacchaeus. ‘You are also a son of Abraham. Of course you are! You are part of the covenant. Who would dare deny you that?’ So this story has a happy ending.
But some questions remain: what will the people of Jericho say to this? Will they be glad to receive Zacchaeus back into their community? Will they be ready to receive his money and to change their attitudes? Or will they prefer to stay poor and hold on to their contempt? For receiving such a generous gift, without the feeling of being humiliated even further, is also an act of grace.
‘Salvation has come to this house’, says Jesus. Has salvation also come to Jericho? The story does not tell us anything about it. It is the open end of the gospel. It is where we come in. What is the role will we play? That of Zacchaeus? Or are we Jericho?
This story took from the article "Poverty,Wealth and Ecology, Impact of Economic Globalisation"- WCC Resources.
Luke tells the story of Jesus coming to Jericho. A large crowd has turned out to catch a glimpse of him. Among them is Zacchaeus. He tries to push through the crowd to get a better look but is unable to move to the front row. So he has to run ahead and climb a sycamore tree in order to get a good view of the wandering rabbi who is talked about so much. The fact that the crowd turns its back to Zacchaeus is revealing. He is the chief tax collector and the text underscores that he is a rich man. Hence, he is an important figure in Jericho.
Today, such a man would claim a front seat – and would probably get it – for, regardless of how it was acquired, wealth is accepted and demands privilege. We see in the text that in Jericho the ordinary people do not accept wealth as such. They see that Zacchaeus accumulated his wealth by collaborating with the enemy, the Roman Empire. He bought the privilege to collect taxes and his success depended on how ruthless he was in collecting them from his fellow human beings.
He is rich but he is an outcast. The people of Jericho say: ‘He may be rich. He is cheating us. He is exploiting his power. But one thing is true. We may be poor but we are Abraham’s children. He is rich but he is lost.’ When Jesus comes, he reveals the truth. The truth about human contempt and envy, about human hopes and hidden despair. This is just one of the many stories in the Bible which describe Jesus’ encounters with the rich. It resonates with the lives of people all over the world and their experiences of poverty and wealth.
Jesus opts for the lost one. He invites himself to the house of Zacchaeus. ‘I must stay at your house today.’Why this urgency? There were many others in Jericho who would have wanted Jesus to come to their house.The others around him find it very disturbing that he should prefer the hospitality of a well-known sinner! Does he not understand the kind of person Zacchaeus is?
This is a very peculiar ‘preferential option’, not for the rich and the affluent. It is his preferential option for the one who is lost, regardless of his or her earthly possessions. It is unmerited grace that comes to the house of Zacchaeus. This grace does not worry about the potential of being misunderstood and reviled. Genuine grace has its own results.
That Jesus should go to Zacchaeus is a remarkable turn – indeed a scandalous ‘diversion’ for the self respecting citizens of Jericho. But the story does not end there. His friendship for Zacchaeus provokes another drastic turn: a conversion that is good news indeed!
Zacchaeus announces that he will give half of his goods to the poor. He adds: ‘and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.’ This sounds spectacular and completely unrealistic to us, that a man would deprive himself of all his belongings! Now, it must be understood that according to the laws of those times, a fourfold restoration was required. The explanation is that the interest that was demanded by tax collectors and money lenders was often so excessive that it amounted to as much as 100 per cent, or more. This may sound exorbitant to us since we – many of us living in richer nations – already complain about much lower rates in our own countries.
However, if you look at the inflation of debts imposed on so many countries in the so-called Third World, the practice of the Roman tax collectors does not look extraordinary at all. One could easily give examples of debts that have risen so steeply because of inflated compound interest. A fourfold forgiveness of the original debt would not appear to be exaggerated at all.
Again, the goal is to restore the full business capacities of the defrauded parties, not to give them alms. Justice is something radically different from charity. Does the story of Zacchaeus, then, have a lesson for contemporary policies regarding debt relief ? The really new thing that Zacchaeus announces is his decision to give half of his goods to the poor. This was not in the laws or practices of his time and it is not in the laws of today. We can see this as a practical example of the basic law of the Torah: love your neighbour as yourself. So you share with that neighbour half of what you have.
The story of Zacchaeus is remarkable because it talks about reparations-reparations as a consequence of God’s grace, of sincere repentance and a complete change of heart. Hence, this is a story of costly grace.
As Jesus hears about the plans of his host, Zacchaeus, he says: ‘Salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost.’ After the announcement of the reparations scheme, here Jesus talks about salvation which encompasses the whole life, a wholehearted change of attitude and a new practice. ‘You have done the right thing’, Jesus says to Zacchaeus. ‘You are also a son of Abraham. Of course you are! You are part of the covenant. Who would dare deny you that?’ So this story has a happy ending.
But some questions remain: what will the people of Jericho say to this? Will they be glad to receive Zacchaeus back into their community? Will they be ready to receive his money and to change their attitudes? Or will they prefer to stay poor and hold on to their contempt? For receiving such a generous gift, without the feeling of being humiliated even further, is also an act of grace.
‘Salvation has come to this house’, says Jesus. Has salvation also come to Jericho? The story does not tell us anything about it. It is the open end of the gospel. It is where we come in. What is the role will we play? That of Zacchaeus? Or are we Jericho?
This story took from the article "Poverty,Wealth and Ecology, Impact of Economic Globalisation"- WCC Resources.
A Divided World
There is strong empirical evidence for the view that economic liberalization policies – widely touted as the pathway to prosperity and convergence – have caused the gap between rich and poor in global and national terms to further widen in recent years. The 2005 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report states:
At the start of the twenty-first century we live in a divided world. The size of the divide poses a fundamental challenge to the global human community … The world’s richest 500 individuals have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million. Beyond these extremes, the 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day – 40 per cent of the world’s population – account for only 5 per cent of the world’s income … uman development gaps within countries are as stark as the gaps between countries … There will be an additional 380 million people living on less than one dollar a day by 2015.
Indeed, a critical concern is that wealth appears to be flowing from the poor to the rich within and between countries – a trend that is hugely unjust. The 2004 UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNDP) Annual Report describes the yearly net transfer of US$200 billion from poor to rich countries in the form of capital flight, debt and interest payments and profit repatriation of multinational corporations.
How we can talk about peace and justice without economic justice?
At the start of the twenty-first century we live in a divided world. The size of the divide poses a fundamental challenge to the global human community … The world’s richest 500 individuals have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million. Beyond these extremes, the 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day – 40 per cent of the world’s population – account for only 5 per cent of the world’s income … uman development gaps within countries are as stark as the gaps between countries … There will be an additional 380 million people living on less than one dollar a day by 2015.
Indeed, a critical concern is that wealth appears to be flowing from the poor to the rich within and between countries – a trend that is hugely unjust. The 2004 UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNDP) Annual Report describes the yearly net transfer of US$200 billion from poor to rich countries in the form of capital flight, debt and interest payments and profit repatriation of multinational corporations.
How we can talk about peace and justice without economic justice?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Polyphonic Community.
Two days back I met one of my friends and had a casual talk regarding their family and all. Meanwhile we also discussed about the house and its renovation. My friend said, “one of the problems of today’s buildings are no privacy at all, anybody can enter anywhere at any time. If we open the front door the visitor may reach till kitchen without any hindrance”. Today when we plan to construct a building, our discussion starts with the privacy. Each person demands “separate” rooms and other facilities. There is a shift in the idea of privacy. Earlier there was a freedom or space to interfere each other in their personal or public matters. But now the things changed. Nobody has the right to interfere in the matters of other persons even in the case of children.
Boundary Wall is a symbol of our tendency to avoid others from our ‘personal’ matters. When I was a small boy the concept of boundary wall was not an essential thing, but today it is an essential thing. Neighbors usually have conversation from house to house. Some times friends or relatives had the freedom to enter in to the house without any kinds of formalities. They come and talk and share our food and even had the freedom to interfere in our family matters. Even neighbors, relatives, family friends had the space to get involved in our family matters with good intention and respect.
Can you give me some sugar please? Our Ammachi’s sister has come Sometimes guests will come without prior notice or phone call (once phone was a luxury item) and they will stay one or more days with us. It will be a testing time for those who are in the kitchen. Because, at that time we never used to store provisions or food items like we do today. May be coffee powder, tea powder or sugar will not be there. Then children will be sent to neighbor houses to borrow the things we need. It was a common practice and we never felt bad to do that. They also come to our home when they need some other things. Some times I felt that in the village we had a mutual understanding in owning and using many things like furniture, weapons, plates etc.
“Children go and collect the benches and chairs from our neighbors”. In those days marriage receptions were held in our home and the neighbors take initiative to make all necessary arrangements. We children were enthusiastic in collecting chairs, benches, tables from the neighborhood. We children get involved in cleaning the furniture and plantain leaf and in many other things and it was a celebration. Privacy was a not an issue that time. Villagers used to share everything including their pains, agonies, joy, achievement etc (No matter our neighbors believe in Islam, Hinduism, Christian) I really experienced the polyphonic community living in my village. Everybody knows each other by name and they had the freedom to correct, encourage and intervene each other.
But where do we stand now?
Do we like a community oriented life which is interconnected and inter-dependent?
We became more individualistic where there is no space for the members of the community, isn’t it?
Do we like a homogenous community or a polyphonic community?
Polyphonic existence will help us to imagine God, Creation and our fellow beings differently.
Boundary Wall is a symbol of our tendency to avoid others from our ‘personal’ matters. When I was a small boy the concept of boundary wall was not an essential thing, but today it is an essential thing. Neighbors usually have conversation from house to house. Some times friends or relatives had the freedom to enter in to the house without any kinds of formalities. They come and talk and share our food and even had the freedom to interfere in our family matters. Even neighbors, relatives, family friends had the space to get involved in our family matters with good intention and respect.
Can you give me some sugar please? Our Ammachi’s sister has come Sometimes guests will come without prior notice or phone call (once phone was a luxury item) and they will stay one or more days with us. It will be a testing time for those who are in the kitchen. Because, at that time we never used to store provisions or food items like we do today. May be coffee powder, tea powder or sugar will not be there. Then children will be sent to neighbor houses to borrow the things we need. It was a common practice and we never felt bad to do that. They also come to our home when they need some other things. Some times I felt that in the village we had a mutual understanding in owning and using many things like furniture, weapons, plates etc.
“Children go and collect the benches and chairs from our neighbors”. In those days marriage receptions were held in our home and the neighbors take initiative to make all necessary arrangements. We children were enthusiastic in collecting chairs, benches, tables from the neighborhood. We children get involved in cleaning the furniture and plantain leaf and in many other things and it was a celebration. Privacy was a not an issue that time. Villagers used to share everything including their pains, agonies, joy, achievement etc (No matter our neighbors believe in Islam, Hinduism, Christian) I really experienced the polyphonic community living in my village. Everybody knows each other by name and they had the freedom to correct, encourage and intervene each other.
But where do we stand now?
Do we like a community oriented life which is interconnected and inter-dependent?
We became more individualistic where there is no space for the members of the community, isn’t it?
Do we like a homogenous community or a polyphonic community?
Polyphonic existence will help us to imagine God, Creation and our fellow beings differently.
A man laughed at the unjust, established order of things – John Abraham.
John Abraham ( August 11, 1937 - 31 May 1987 ), was a Ma layali Indian filmmaker , screenwriter , a nomadic, a man who tried to democratise the film and a person who questioned all hypocrite and wicked attitudes of the society. Abraham graduated out of the film institute with gold medals in screenwriting and film direction.
He was more famous for his style of living and way of thinking than for his films. He attained a mythical status, living a nomadic kind of life. He rebelled all the established ways of life as well as art. John was a compulsive traveler, without any belongings, mostly without even another pair of clothing. John can be anywhere-in conscious or unconscious state; drunk or sober; in groups or alone.
The media called him Otttayan. He was also an alcoholic, and died after falling from the rooftop in Kozhikode on May 31, 1987. Adoor Gopalakrishnan said, “If anyone asks for the most important aspect of John's cinema, I would have to mention at the outset, their engrossing black humor”.
A man who touched many lives, an icon, a maverick filmmaker, a rebel, an enigma, an extraordinarily free soul … these epithets sound clichéd when one describes filmmaker John Abraham. ‘Ningalude Viswasthan, John,’ a video essay by C. Sarat Chandran brings us closer to the person who lived life on the edge, through reminiscences of those who were close to him.
The John Abraham folklore, or mystique if you like, is to be understood in terms of not just the films he made, but the mythical life he led that mocked decisively at norms and notions of accepted social behaviour. While trying to question the tyranny of the market, he moved with common people who consisted in a large measure of poor, illiterate villagers.
It was under the leadership of Abraham that Odessa Collective came into existence in 1984 with a street drama in Fort Kochi named Nayakali. Odessa was an attempt by a group of movie enthusiasts to change the history of film production and distribution by making it a collaborative effort with the public and thus act as an empowering and liberating medium. Their first film, Amma Ariyan, was produced with contributions from the general public. Odessa also collected funds for the film by screening Charlie Chaplin's The Kid. Amma Ariyan was screened on a non-commercial basis throughout the state.
Abraham's first attempt in direction came in 1967 named Vidyarthikale Ithile Ithile. It was the Tamil film Agraharathil Kazhuthai (1977) that elevated Abraham to fame. John Abraham is recognised as a genius in Malayalam cinema. He made his mark with the Tamil film Agraharathil Kazhuthai, but is possibly remembered most for his efforts in starting a people's cinema movement called Odessa
Considered an avant-garde film director and writer, he completed only four films, namely Vidyarthikale Ithile Ithile (1972), Agraharathil Kazhuthai (1977, Tamil), Cheriachante Krurakrithyangal (1979, Malayalam) and Amma Ariyan (1986, Malayalam), all four written and directed by him.
He has left behind a number of complete and incomplete scripts. A collection of his stories had been published under the title Nerchakkozhi. Another collection of his stories has been published posthumously under the title John Abrahaminte Kathakal by Pakshikkottam Books, Thiruvananthapuram, in 1993.
Although he was influenced by ideology, but he denied bond with it when came to films, at least beyond a point. His most significant contribution was that he sowed the seeds of ‘people’s film’ and displayed the ‘audacity’ to take on the establishment and challenging distribution network. It is sad that the movement did not grow beyond Odessa, get the nourishment it deserved and muster the strength it ought to have.
Poet Balachandran Chullikad spoke for all of us when he summed it up thus, “I too shared the ideas John had nurtured, but lacked his courage and his tenacity.” We all stuck to the beaten track, didn’t we?
Like the John the Baptist after whom he was named who gave his head to a tyrannical king and a dancing girl but not his faith. He challenged the powers of the market with the power of the poor people. That was the faith and praxis of John.
I have many differences of opinions with him but still I respect him in many ways as a man who moved with common people with different perception and imagination.
He was more famous for his style of living and way of thinking than for his films. He attained a mythical status, living a nomadic kind of life. He rebelled all the established ways of life as well as art. John was a compulsive traveler, without any belongings, mostly without even another pair of clothing. John can be anywhere-in conscious or unconscious state; drunk or sober; in groups or alone.
The media called him Otttayan. He was also an alcoholic, and died after falling from the rooftop in Kozhikode on May 31, 1987. Adoor Gopalakrishnan said, “If anyone asks for the most important aspect of John's cinema, I would have to mention at the outset, their engrossing black humor”.
A man who touched many lives, an icon, a maverick filmmaker, a rebel, an enigma, an extraordinarily free soul … these epithets sound clichéd when one describes filmmaker John Abraham. ‘Ningalude Viswasthan, John,’ a video essay by C. Sarat Chandran brings us closer to the person who lived life on the edge, through reminiscences of those who were close to him.
The John Abraham folklore, or mystique if you like, is to be understood in terms of not just the films he made, but the mythical life he led that mocked decisively at norms and notions of accepted social behaviour. While trying to question the tyranny of the market, he moved with common people who consisted in a large measure of poor, illiterate villagers.
It was under the leadership of Abraham that Odessa Collective came into existence in 1984 with a street drama in Fort Kochi named Nayakali. Odessa was an attempt by a group of movie enthusiasts to change the history of film production and distribution by making it a collaborative effort with the public and thus act as an empowering and liberating medium. Their first film, Amma Ariyan, was produced with contributions from the general public. Odessa also collected funds for the film by screening Charlie Chaplin's The Kid. Amma Ariyan was screened on a non-commercial basis throughout the state.
Abraham's first attempt in direction came in 1967 named Vidyarthikale Ithile Ithile. It was the Tamil film Agraharathil Kazhuthai (1977) that elevated Abraham to fame. John Abraham is recognised as a genius in Malayalam cinema. He made his mark with the Tamil film Agraharathil Kazhuthai, but is possibly remembered most for his efforts in starting a people's cinema movement called Odessa
Considered an avant-garde film director and writer, he completed only four films, namely Vidyarthikale Ithile Ithile (1972), Agraharathil Kazhuthai (1977, Tamil), Cheriachante Krurakrithyangal (1979, Malayalam) and Amma Ariyan (1986, Malayalam), all four written and directed by him.
He has left behind a number of complete and incomplete scripts. A collection of his stories had been published under the title Nerchakkozhi. Another collection of his stories has been published posthumously under the title John Abrahaminte Kathakal by Pakshikkottam Books, Thiruvananthapuram, in 1993.
Although he was influenced by ideology, but he denied bond with it when came to films, at least beyond a point. His most significant contribution was that he sowed the seeds of ‘people’s film’ and displayed the ‘audacity’ to take on the establishment and challenging distribution network. It is sad that the movement did not grow beyond Odessa, get the nourishment it deserved and muster the strength it ought to have.
Poet Balachandran Chullikad spoke for all of us when he summed it up thus, “I too shared the ideas John had nurtured, but lacked his courage and his tenacity.” We all stuck to the beaten track, didn’t we?
Like the John the Baptist after whom he was named who gave his head to a tyrannical king and a dancing girl but not his faith. He challenged the powers of the market with the power of the poor people. That was the faith and praxis of John.
I have many differences of opinions with him but still I respect him in many ways as a man who moved with common people with different perception and imagination.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Work in the Field
A young man crossed the desert and finally came to the monastery of Scete. There, he asked to hear one of the abbot’s lectures - and was granted permission.
That afternoon, the abbot’s discourse was about the importance of work in the field.
After the lecture, the young man said to one of the monks:
"That was amazing. I thought I would hear a fine sermon about virtues and sins, and the abbot spoke only of tomatoes, irrigation and so forth. Where I come from, all believe that God is merciful: all one must do is pray."
The monk smiled and replied:
"Here we believe that God has already done His part; now it is up to us to continue the process."
Story by Paulo Coelho
That afternoon, the abbot’s discourse was about the importance of work in the field.
After the lecture, the young man said to one of the monks:
"That was amazing. I thought I would hear a fine sermon about virtues and sins, and the abbot spoke only of tomatoes, irrigation and so forth. Where I come from, all believe that God is merciful: all one must do is pray."
The monk smiled and replied:
"Here we believe that God has already done His part; now it is up to us to continue the process."
Story by Paulo Coelho
A World in a Village
This statistic, which buzzes around the Internet, has be published in numerous places across the world:
If it were possible to reduce the population of the entire world to 100 inhabitants, maintaining the proportions of people which currently exist in the world, it would be made up as follows:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 Americans (North, Central and South)
8 Africans
52 would be women
48 men
70 non-white
30 white
89 would be heterosexual
11 homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the world’s wealth
80 would dwell in inhabitable housing
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would have a computer
1 (yes, just one) would have a university degree
And consider this: if you are more healthy than sick, you are luckier than a million people who will not see next week. If you never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of prison, the agony of torture, the pain of hunger, you are luckier than 500 million of the world’s inhabitants.
If you have food in the fridge, clothes in your closet, a roof over your head, a place to sleep, then consider yourself richer than 75% of the world’s inhabitants.
If you have money in the bank, a wallet or some loose change lying around somewhere, consider yourself among those with the best quality of life in the world.
This was found in Paulo Coelho's Blog
If it were possible to reduce the population of the entire world to 100 inhabitants, maintaining the proportions of people which currently exist in the world, it would be made up as follows:
57 Asians
21 Europeans
14 Americans (North, Central and South)
8 Africans
52 would be women
48 men
70 non-white
30 white
89 would be heterosexual
11 homosexual
6 people would possess 59% of the world’s wealth
80 would dwell in inhabitable housing
50 would suffer from malnutrition
1 would have a computer
1 (yes, just one) would have a university degree
And consider this: if you are more healthy than sick, you are luckier than a million people who will not see next week. If you never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of prison, the agony of torture, the pain of hunger, you are luckier than 500 million of the world’s inhabitants.
If you have food in the fridge, clothes in your closet, a roof over your head, a place to sleep, then consider yourself richer than 75% of the world’s inhabitants.
If you have money in the bank, a wallet or some loose change lying around somewhere, consider yourself among those with the best quality of life in the world.
This was found in Paulo Coelho's Blog
Towards Alternative Green Theologies - First two steps.
Developing a hermeneutic which reads the Bible from the perspective of the Earth community and deconstruct dominant theology are the two important steps we have to take before we engage ourselves towards Alternative Green Theologies.
The Earth crisis challenges us to read the Bible afresh and ask whether the biblical text itself, its interpreters or both-have contributed to this crisis. And also we have to deconstruct the dominant, anthropocentric, patriarchal theology and should move further towards a Green Theology which engages with the victims (Alternative Green Theology). It is not the matter interpreting the Creation story in different way but an ecological and subaltern approach to the Bible. Reading the Bible from the subaltern perspective questions the idea of domination and exploitation of the earth and its people in the arrogant assumption that creation exists merely for us to use and exploit. The topic for today’s discussion is “Towards Alternative Green Theologies” and the explanation given in the syllabus says that to develop a new theology we have to deconstruct the basic concepts. This deconstruction will be possible through new hermeneutical engagements from the subaltern perspectives
A close analysis of the way in which many Christian traditions, especially West, have read the Biblical texts reveals a strong tendency to devalue the earth. Earth devaluation, in turn, provides an intellectual justification for exploitation of the environment. The interpretations, readings have seen the redemption of human as the primary and the creation was secondary to creation. Christianity, and its sacred text, the Bible, have not been exempt from the search for a culprit. Lynn White Jr. criticized Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen. Without a critical hermeneutic engagement from the perspective of the victims including nature, women, Tribals, Dalits, Adivasis and other subaltern communities Green Theology is incomplete. The Alternative Green Theology which we are talking is not an isolated theological engagement only with nature by excluding other victims but we find ourselves in an earth community.
The Deconstruction of the Christian Theology
The ecological crisis challenges the very way we do theology in the 21st century and the way we read the Bible. According to Rosemary Radford Reuther, “From Bible and tradition, Christian Theology has inherited an understanding of natural reality that often views God over creation, more than in and with the natural world, and humans as other than part of the biotic community. Classical Western cultural traditions, codified between 500 BCE and 800 CE, of which Christianity is a major expression, have sacralized relationships of domination. The Bible has more promising leads, but our inherited view of God’s relationship to creation, and our relationship to nature, have modeled certain patterns of (male white) domination of women, slaves, Indians, blacks, and so on”. When theology loose it subaltern nature it creates disintegration and collapse in and around us. My proposal is that we have to redeem theology from the dominant consciousness and we should engage ourselves in the journey towards alternative theologies.
Our task is to develop a theology which is subaltern in nature and should deconstruct the existing basic theological concepts. Six Ecojustice Principles (developed by earth Bible team) will help us in this discourse (1) The Principle of Intrinsic Worth. The universe, earth and all its components have intrinsic worth/value. (2) The Principle of Interconnectedness. Earth is a community of interconnected living things that are mutually dependent on each other for life and survival. (3) The Principle of Voice. Earth is a subject capable of raising its voice in celebration and against injustice. (4) The Principle of Purpose. The universe, Earth and all its components, are part of a dynamic cosmic design within which each piece has place in the overall goal of that design. (5) The Principle of Mutual Custodianship. Earth is a balanced and diverse domain where responsible custodians can function as partners, rather than rulers, to sustain a balanced and diverse Earth community. (6) The Principle of Resistance. Earth and its components not only differ from injustices at the hands of humans, but actively resist them in the struggle for justice.
The doctrine of redemption has to be reinterpreted and analysed in relation with the whole cosmos. Human being cannot be whole in a wounded and exploited creation and also Creation cannot be in its fullness when human beings are alienated, excluded and divided between themselves and nature.
Towards an Ecojustice Hermeneutical Engagement.
We have to formulate a fresh approach to read the Bible. Rather than reflecting about the Earth as we analyse a text, we are seeking to reflect with earth and see things from the perspective of Earth. We need to develop an eco justice hermeneutic. McAfee recognizes that an ecological approach to the world is distinct from the theological concept of creation. We have to understand that oppression of women, Dalits, Adivasis, and other subaltern communities are interconnected. The eco justice hermeneutic we are talking about will help us to uncover oppression in all kinds. We take up the cause of justice for Earth to ascertain whether Earth and Earth community are oppressed, silenced or liberated in the Biblical text. In this hermeneutic struggle we acknowledge, before reading the biblical text, that as Western interpreters we are heirs to a long anthropocentric, patriarchal and androcentric approach to reading the text that has devalued Earth and that continues to influence the way we read the text. And declare, before reading the text, that we are members of a human community that has exploited, oppressed and endangered the existence of the Earth community.
Why we need a re-reading or deconstruction when we talk about Green Theology? Because many Biblical Texts are not only androcentric but anthropocentric, meaning that the Earth is quasi absent as the drama of human (male) life takes center- stage. Since the Bible has served ideologies and practices which have led to the exploitation and destruction of the earth, it is necessary to be cautious when approaching it with Earth consciousness.
Patriarchy, as a cultural ideology and phenomenon, depends upon the dual dominations of women and nature/Earth. Biblical scholars put two options about the Bible- the choices are explicit: to accept the patriarchal Bible as sacred and authoritative and to content to expose its patriarchy, or expose its patriarchy and reject it as sacred and authoritative. Eco-feminism challenges a patriarchal, hierarchical and dualistic world view and holds that the domination of the earth is inseparable with the oppression of women.
We all are on the way towards alternative theologies which takes this earth community as a unit. Any kind of domination, exclusion and division will destruct the image God. I hope that our theological discourses and engagements help us to move with God and Creation towards the fullness of life.
(This is a response on the paper "Towards Alternative Green Theologies")
The Earth crisis challenges us to read the Bible afresh and ask whether the biblical text itself, its interpreters or both-have contributed to this crisis. And also we have to deconstruct the dominant, anthropocentric, patriarchal theology and should move further towards a Green Theology which engages with the victims (Alternative Green Theology). It is not the matter interpreting the Creation story in different way but an ecological and subaltern approach to the Bible. Reading the Bible from the subaltern perspective questions the idea of domination and exploitation of the earth and its people in the arrogant assumption that creation exists merely for us to use and exploit. The topic for today’s discussion is “Towards Alternative Green Theologies” and the explanation given in the syllabus says that to develop a new theology we have to deconstruct the basic concepts. This deconstruction will be possible through new hermeneutical engagements from the subaltern perspectives
A close analysis of the way in which many Christian traditions, especially West, have read the Biblical texts reveals a strong tendency to devalue the earth. Earth devaluation, in turn, provides an intellectual justification for exploitation of the environment. The interpretations, readings have seen the redemption of human as the primary and the creation was secondary to creation. Christianity, and its sacred text, the Bible, have not been exempt from the search for a culprit. Lynn White Jr. criticized Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen. Without a critical hermeneutic engagement from the perspective of the victims including nature, women, Tribals, Dalits, Adivasis and other subaltern communities Green Theology is incomplete. The Alternative Green Theology which we are talking is not an isolated theological engagement only with nature by excluding other victims but we find ourselves in an earth community.
The Deconstruction of the Christian Theology
The ecological crisis challenges the very way we do theology in the 21st century and the way we read the Bible. According to Rosemary Radford Reuther, “From Bible and tradition, Christian Theology has inherited an understanding of natural reality that often views God over creation, more than in and with the natural world, and humans as other than part of the biotic community. Classical Western cultural traditions, codified between 500 BCE and 800 CE, of which Christianity is a major expression, have sacralized relationships of domination. The Bible has more promising leads, but our inherited view of God’s relationship to creation, and our relationship to nature, have modeled certain patterns of (male white) domination of women, slaves, Indians, blacks, and so on”. When theology loose it subaltern nature it creates disintegration and collapse in and around us. My proposal is that we have to redeem theology from the dominant consciousness and we should engage ourselves in the journey towards alternative theologies.
Our task is to develop a theology which is subaltern in nature and should deconstruct the existing basic theological concepts. Six Ecojustice Principles (developed by earth Bible team) will help us in this discourse (1) The Principle of Intrinsic Worth. The universe, earth and all its components have intrinsic worth/value. (2) The Principle of Interconnectedness. Earth is a community of interconnected living things that are mutually dependent on each other for life and survival. (3) The Principle of Voice. Earth is a subject capable of raising its voice in celebration and against injustice. (4) The Principle of Purpose. The universe, Earth and all its components, are part of a dynamic cosmic design within which each piece has place in the overall goal of that design. (5) The Principle of Mutual Custodianship. Earth is a balanced and diverse domain where responsible custodians can function as partners, rather than rulers, to sustain a balanced and diverse Earth community. (6) The Principle of Resistance. Earth and its components not only differ from injustices at the hands of humans, but actively resist them in the struggle for justice.
The doctrine of redemption has to be reinterpreted and analysed in relation with the whole cosmos. Human being cannot be whole in a wounded and exploited creation and also Creation cannot be in its fullness when human beings are alienated, excluded and divided between themselves and nature.
Towards an Ecojustice Hermeneutical Engagement.
We have to formulate a fresh approach to read the Bible. Rather than reflecting about the Earth as we analyse a text, we are seeking to reflect with earth and see things from the perspective of Earth. We need to develop an eco justice hermeneutic. McAfee recognizes that an ecological approach to the world is distinct from the theological concept of creation. We have to understand that oppression of women, Dalits, Adivasis, and other subaltern communities are interconnected. The eco justice hermeneutic we are talking about will help us to uncover oppression in all kinds. We take up the cause of justice for Earth to ascertain whether Earth and Earth community are oppressed, silenced or liberated in the Biblical text. In this hermeneutic struggle we acknowledge, before reading the biblical text, that as Western interpreters we are heirs to a long anthropocentric, patriarchal and androcentric approach to reading the text that has devalued Earth and that continues to influence the way we read the text. And declare, before reading the text, that we are members of a human community that has exploited, oppressed and endangered the existence of the Earth community.
Why we need a re-reading or deconstruction when we talk about Green Theology? Because many Biblical Texts are not only androcentric but anthropocentric, meaning that the Earth is quasi absent as the drama of human (male) life takes center- stage. Since the Bible has served ideologies and practices which have led to the exploitation and destruction of the earth, it is necessary to be cautious when approaching it with Earth consciousness.
Patriarchy, as a cultural ideology and phenomenon, depends upon the dual dominations of women and nature/Earth. Biblical scholars put two options about the Bible- the choices are explicit: to accept the patriarchal Bible as sacred and authoritative and to content to expose its patriarchy, or expose its patriarchy and reject it as sacred and authoritative. Eco-feminism challenges a patriarchal, hierarchical and dualistic world view and holds that the domination of the earth is inseparable with the oppression of women.
We all are on the way towards alternative theologies which takes this earth community as a unit. Any kind of domination, exclusion and division will destruct the image God. I hope that our theological discourses and engagements help us to move with God and Creation towards the fullness of life.
(This is a response on the paper "Towards Alternative Green Theologies")
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Critical Reading on the “Initial Statement Towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace”.
Eighth assembly of the WCC in Harare in 1998 decided to establish a Decade to Overcome Violence. Ninth assembly held in 2006 at Port Alegre decided to conclude the Decade in 2011 with an International Ecumenical Peace Convocation. They decided that an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace will be made on that occasion for discussion and action. We are discussing the initial statement of that declaration. The Initial Statement is designed to be something of a "starter".
The Initial Statement towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace emphasizes that our starting point is God's peace, as manifested in the life and death of Jesus Christ. It is not "our peace". We do not have to invent it. God's peace speaks to all aspects of our life and work. Peace or just peace, therefore, is not just an issue of political ethics among many others. It is the frame which determines our approach to all ethical issues. Therefore, the statement addresses the churches as agents of peace-building and identifies various ways in which this can be done. Since the churches are present at all levels of life, from the personal to the global, peace-building has to do with different aspects and tasks. Justice is a basic one, so is reconciliation.
The statement deals the issue of "peace with creation" also. Basically, a "peace declaration" is meant to enable the churches to reframe their understanding of what "God's peace" means for their witness in today's world. Hence it is a "mission statement". The statement is quite clear about the sad impact that Christian churches had by legitimizing armed conflicts for centuries. They need to repent for that. The statement gives a Biblical basis to the understanding of peace. It also describes the historical events through which God has spoken to the Church to strive for Peace. It portrays Trinity as the paradigm of God’s peace. Misuse of power always brings the violence. This declaration also highlights the scope of the Church’s engagement for peace.
Critical Reading on the Initial Statement.
Statement says that peace and well being do not happen but we need grace of God and human co-operation. It also challenges us to realize the interrelatedness of our entity by saying, “No one can be whole in a broken world”. Some critical observations are given below.
1.It is a traditional way of understanding peace and violence. It has given a detailed Biblical basis to understand the peace concept. But the statement lacks theological explorations made by the theologians and the scholars from sociological, economic, political and cultural backgrounds who read the history different ways in their contexts. Statement elaborately describes about church as an agent of peace building and the prophetic task of the church. It says that “The word of God has come to us through the Scriptures and within the churches” (point9). But where do we place the peace struggles of the other faiths, civil societies and the social movements? To what extent the patriarchal and discriminating church can play the prophetic role? Structural Church has the history of violence, conquests and subjugation. Then how do we justify our struggles for just peace? We need more introspection and self-criticism. Statement talks about the spiritual practices of peace. How we do we differentiate “spiritual” and “secular” practices of peace?
2. It goes beyond the anthropocentric understanding of peace. In points 18 – 26 statement talks about the peace with the earth. In point 6 Statement says that “our salvation cannot be separated from the wellbeing of creation”. It also says that “Peace of God cannot be severed from peace on earth and with the earth”. But again the question remains, earth is our home or we are part of the earth. When we say earth is our home there we could see an inherent domination. The statement describes liturgy as the source of peace but where do we place the creation in an anthropocentric liturgy?
3. Just Peace challenges the Empires. Peace is not the absence of war as the statement also says. But discussion and engagement of just peace will be a threat to the empire builders. Without violence an empire cannot build and emperor cannot exist. Jesus’ birth disturbs the emperor Herod and also the religious empire in Jerusalem. This has to be discussed when we talk about the peace.
4. Just Peace also means Solidarity with the victims and taking sides with the wounded. In the just peace journey we have to move with the victims. Taking neutral decisions and compromise with the violence perpetuating structures dilute the whole issue. The communities which involve in the just peace struggle should have the courage to criticize the dominant violent structures. The statement took a diplomatic silence in the issues of questioning the empires and taking sides with the victims on the way towards just peace.
5. Media, Violence and Just Peace. Media plays an important role in our society in bringing violence or a justice. Some times the media was criticized by many for this reason. In countering the culture of violence media has to play a major role. The nexus between, money, power and media prevents media from this responsibility. Today media plays an important role in creating or destructing the society by influencing the perception of the people. Media should Communicate Peace for building viable communities by taking sides”. This declaration says nothing about the role of the media in inculcating peace in society.
This declaration do not show the courage to criticize the dominant structures which are perpetuating violence explicitly and subtle ways and negating just peace of majority including Dalits, women and marginalized. And I doubt it can energize the people involving in the struggles to establish just peace with a great hope because it bears all the limitations of the structural church. The whole statement revolves around the church and it hesitates to go beyond it and it also reluctant to read history from the subaltern perspective. The untold truths and unheard realities are many.
Just Peace Initial Statement and it’s Relevance in the Kerala Context.
WCC asks the churches to relate this statement with the just peace issues related with their context. Peace is not an abstract idea which will be discussed objectively. It has to be related with the people’s sufferings and struggles. The statement says that, “violence has untold expressions. At the personal level the most gruesome forms are intentional humiliation and hurt, sexual abuse, rape and murder, abandonment and starvation. At the level of societies and nations violence is expressed in acts of war and terrorism ….. refugees, in children being forced into soldering and prostitution, in farmers committing suicide because of unmanageable debts”. All these are not alien in our context too. Let me highlight some issues and church’s engagement on these issues.
1.Land Struggles. In Kerala there are struggles for a piece of land by the dalits, minorities and economically poor people. Peace without justice is a myth. Muthangha ( Wayanad ) and Chengara land struggles are the two examples. But Church is a spectator and took policy of diplomatic silence because dominant groups are against these struggles. In Chengara land struggle ecumenical organization called Kerala Council of Churches and one or two Bishops took a stand in favor of the landless people.
2. Plachimada Struggle. It is a struggle of the marginalised people for their right to live and right to avail God given natural water. Again structural church continues silent on these issues. But some organizations like SCM took a bold stand.
3. Farmer’s Suicides. In Kerala in a district called Wayanadu there were many suicides due to crops failure and debts. Again Church is still in its lethargic mood and hesitates to get into the real justice issues.
But in contrary Church was very much active in the struggles to safeguard the interests of “education business” and to protect the “dignity” of the Bishops and so on. Church politics and denominational conflicts are the “real” engagements and “discourses” of the Church today. The question of just peace is a pertinent issue in Kerala where still caste system in its explicit and subtle ways existing in and out side the church. Violence against women (domestic and public), Dalits, Adivasis and other minorities are the real issues. Church is not ready to take sides with the fisher folk in their struggles and the movements fight against ecological disaster. But a casteist and a church support patriarchy need to come out of its compromising stands to support dominant structures. Church is satisfied itself in doing some charity works. Although the Church in India deserves credit for sowing the seed of social revolution, it could not recognize or own its own offspring. The institutional framework it has built up over the centuries are being used to support exploitative and oppressive structures. It is true there are groups and movements within the Church which are its liberating missions. They need to be strengthened.
Let me conclude by concluding remarks of the statement, “..our peace-building will of necessity criticize, denounce, advocate, and resist as well as proclaim, empower, console, reconcile, and heal. Peace makers will speak against and speak for, tear down and buildup, lament and celebrate, grieve and rejoice”. We are called to strive for a just peace and need to have a vision of new heaven and earth.
The Initial Statement towards an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace emphasizes that our starting point is God's peace, as manifested in the life and death of Jesus Christ. It is not "our peace". We do not have to invent it. God's peace speaks to all aspects of our life and work. Peace or just peace, therefore, is not just an issue of political ethics among many others. It is the frame which determines our approach to all ethical issues. Therefore, the statement addresses the churches as agents of peace-building and identifies various ways in which this can be done. Since the churches are present at all levels of life, from the personal to the global, peace-building has to do with different aspects and tasks. Justice is a basic one, so is reconciliation.
The statement deals the issue of "peace with creation" also. Basically, a "peace declaration" is meant to enable the churches to reframe their understanding of what "God's peace" means for their witness in today's world. Hence it is a "mission statement". The statement is quite clear about the sad impact that Christian churches had by legitimizing armed conflicts for centuries. They need to repent for that. The statement gives a Biblical basis to the understanding of peace. It also describes the historical events through which God has spoken to the Church to strive for Peace. It portrays Trinity as the paradigm of God’s peace. Misuse of power always brings the violence. This declaration also highlights the scope of the Church’s engagement for peace.
Critical Reading on the Initial Statement.
Statement says that peace and well being do not happen but we need grace of God and human co-operation. It also challenges us to realize the interrelatedness of our entity by saying, “No one can be whole in a broken world”. Some critical observations are given below.
1.It is a traditional way of understanding peace and violence. It has given a detailed Biblical basis to understand the peace concept. But the statement lacks theological explorations made by the theologians and the scholars from sociological, economic, political and cultural backgrounds who read the history different ways in their contexts. Statement elaborately describes about church as an agent of peace building and the prophetic task of the church. It says that “The word of God has come to us through the Scriptures and within the churches” (point9). But where do we place the peace struggles of the other faiths, civil societies and the social movements? To what extent the patriarchal and discriminating church can play the prophetic role? Structural Church has the history of violence, conquests and subjugation. Then how do we justify our struggles for just peace? We need more introspection and self-criticism. Statement talks about the spiritual practices of peace. How we do we differentiate “spiritual” and “secular” practices of peace?
2. It goes beyond the anthropocentric understanding of peace. In points 18 – 26 statement talks about the peace with the earth. In point 6 Statement says that “our salvation cannot be separated from the wellbeing of creation”. It also says that “Peace of God cannot be severed from peace on earth and with the earth”. But again the question remains, earth is our home or we are part of the earth. When we say earth is our home there we could see an inherent domination. The statement describes liturgy as the source of peace but where do we place the creation in an anthropocentric liturgy?
3. Just Peace challenges the Empires. Peace is not the absence of war as the statement also says. But discussion and engagement of just peace will be a threat to the empire builders. Without violence an empire cannot build and emperor cannot exist. Jesus’ birth disturbs the emperor Herod and also the religious empire in Jerusalem. This has to be discussed when we talk about the peace.
4. Just Peace also means Solidarity with the victims and taking sides with the wounded. In the just peace journey we have to move with the victims. Taking neutral decisions and compromise with the violence perpetuating structures dilute the whole issue. The communities which involve in the just peace struggle should have the courage to criticize the dominant violent structures. The statement took a diplomatic silence in the issues of questioning the empires and taking sides with the victims on the way towards just peace.
5. Media, Violence and Just Peace. Media plays an important role in our society in bringing violence or a justice. Some times the media was criticized by many for this reason. In countering the culture of violence media has to play a major role. The nexus between, money, power and media prevents media from this responsibility. Today media plays an important role in creating or destructing the society by influencing the perception of the people. Media should Communicate Peace for building viable communities by taking sides”. This declaration says nothing about the role of the media in inculcating peace in society.
This declaration do not show the courage to criticize the dominant structures which are perpetuating violence explicitly and subtle ways and negating just peace of majority including Dalits, women and marginalized. And I doubt it can energize the people involving in the struggles to establish just peace with a great hope because it bears all the limitations of the structural church. The whole statement revolves around the church and it hesitates to go beyond it and it also reluctant to read history from the subaltern perspective. The untold truths and unheard realities are many.
Just Peace Initial Statement and it’s Relevance in the Kerala Context.
WCC asks the churches to relate this statement with the just peace issues related with their context. Peace is not an abstract idea which will be discussed objectively. It has to be related with the people’s sufferings and struggles. The statement says that, “violence has untold expressions. At the personal level the most gruesome forms are intentional humiliation and hurt, sexual abuse, rape and murder, abandonment and starvation. At the level of societies and nations violence is expressed in acts of war and terrorism ….. refugees, in children being forced into soldering and prostitution, in farmers committing suicide because of unmanageable debts”. All these are not alien in our context too. Let me highlight some issues and church’s engagement on these issues.
1.Land Struggles. In Kerala there are struggles for a piece of land by the dalits, minorities and economically poor people. Peace without justice is a myth. Muthangha ( Wayanad ) and Chengara land struggles are the two examples. But Church is a spectator and took policy of diplomatic silence because dominant groups are against these struggles. In Chengara land struggle ecumenical organization called Kerala Council of Churches and one or two Bishops took a stand in favor of the landless people.
2. Plachimada Struggle. It is a struggle of the marginalised people for their right to live and right to avail God given natural water. Again structural church continues silent on these issues. But some organizations like SCM took a bold stand.
3. Farmer’s Suicides. In Kerala in a district called Wayanadu there were many suicides due to crops failure and debts. Again Church is still in its lethargic mood and hesitates to get into the real justice issues.
But in contrary Church was very much active in the struggles to safeguard the interests of “education business” and to protect the “dignity” of the Bishops and so on. Church politics and denominational conflicts are the “real” engagements and “discourses” of the Church today. The question of just peace is a pertinent issue in Kerala where still caste system in its explicit and subtle ways existing in and out side the church. Violence against women (domestic and public), Dalits, Adivasis and other minorities are the real issues. Church is not ready to take sides with the fisher folk in their struggles and the movements fight against ecological disaster. But a casteist and a church support patriarchy need to come out of its compromising stands to support dominant structures. Church is satisfied itself in doing some charity works. Although the Church in India deserves credit for sowing the seed of social revolution, it could not recognize or own its own offspring. The institutional framework it has built up over the centuries are being used to support exploitative and oppressive structures. It is true there are groups and movements within the Church which are its liberating missions. They need to be strengthened.
Let me conclude by concluding remarks of the statement, “..our peace-building will of necessity criticize, denounce, advocate, and resist as well as proclaim, empower, console, reconcile, and heal. Peace makers will speak against and speak for, tear down and buildup, lament and celebrate, grieve and rejoice”. We are called to strive for a just peace and need to have a vision of new heaven and earth.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
God of landless people lives in Chengara….in hut…in poverty….!
Land Struggle in Chengara continues...even after two years...!
The Land struggle in Chengara, Pathanamtitta district, Kerala by landless Dalits and Adivasis (as well as scores of families from OBC communities, Muslims, Christians etc) from all parts of Kerala, started on 4 August 2007 and it completed two years in their struggle for human dignity and right to live. The movement is a fight to re-claim ownership of land that has been part of a long standing promise of the Government. At present nearly 7000 families, more than 20,000 people have entered the Harrison Malayalam Private Ltd Estate, living in temporary arrangements.
The Chengara Land struggle demands permanent ownership of agricultural ownership to the Dalits and Adivasis. The Sadhu Jana Vimochana Samyuktha Vedi (SJVSV), the movement that leads the struggle, has opted for the land take-over as a strategy remembering the tradition of the great leader Ayyankali, the militant Dalit leader whose mission was to ensure the liberation of Dalits from various forms of slavery, right to agricultural land, as well as right to education in Kerala.
For the people (who are involving in the struggle) it is a struggle for existence, dignity and self identity. It is a struggle based on the principle of right to live with dignity for the the Dalits and Adivasis.
Their struggle is not against anybody but it is a question of their rights, the right to live. This is a radical step in people's initiative to attain land rights. It exposes the socio-cultural reasons for landlessness among Dalits and Adivasis in Kerala. It says that 85% of the landless in Kerala are the Dalits, and Adviasis, who were also traditionally excluded from attaining wealth, power, titles and assets.
The SJVSV says that Dalits and Adivasis could not benefit from the land reform of 1970s since its major focus was on giving land to the tenants. In Kerala's context the caste and cultural hierarchy, with
strong oppressive segregation of these communities, did not allow them to be tenants. That is why many of them could not avail the benefits even today.
Most importantly the mainstream political parties, media, churches are not in the struggle of these people. The movement has till now survived attacks, threats, epidemics and hunger.
Chengara Pledge: As Recited by Soumya Babu, an 11 Year old Girl who said she will go to school only after shegetsland.
I love my country. I will try to learn about the Constitution and laws of my country. I will work for fulfilling the pristine objective of the Constitution.I will take part in the nation building process in my own way. I will not discriminate against any Indian on the basis of religion or caste.I understand us as owners of a great tradition as well as protectors of a great democracy.
Who is the owner of the land? This is the pertinent question we have to ask in the context of this struggle.
The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are aliens and tenets (Levitcus:25:23).
The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, ….(Psalms 24:1).
God is the owner of the land and we human beings are only the farmers of this land. But we(elite strata of the society) accumulated land and the God given resources by which many forced to live without a piece of land. Where do we stand? How do we theoligise this issue? Is it a negation of life? Dominant ideologies and its supporters portrayed this struggle as the violation as the state law. When MNCs,TNCs and the big shots of the society violate the laws, who cares? When the indigenous people and people who are the victims of the sinful and unjust structures fiht for their existence and right to live, power holders and its beneficiaries will come up as the protectors of the law as the Pharisees and the religious leaders of Jesus' time.
One thing is sure, God is the God of the poor and God takes side with landless and victims.Yesterday in the 'Varthavaram' programme of the Surya TV I have seen that even the small children raising slogans against the dominant unjust structures. Yes, I relises that prayers in the form of slogans coming out of their strong faith in a God of liberation. Yes, God lives in Chengara.God’s face reflects the pain of the people, will we able to see it? Listen carefully, we can hear God’s cry as in the cross...I think our numbness to unjust and life negating structures prevents us from seeing God in the struggles of the peolpe.
The Land struggle in Chengara, Pathanamtitta district, Kerala by landless Dalits and Adivasis (as well as scores of families from OBC communities, Muslims, Christians etc) from all parts of Kerala, started on 4 August 2007 and it completed two years in their struggle for human dignity and right to live. The movement is a fight to re-claim ownership of land that has been part of a long standing promise of the Government. At present nearly 7000 families, more than 20,000 people have entered the Harrison Malayalam Private Ltd Estate, living in temporary arrangements.
The Chengara Land struggle demands permanent ownership of agricultural ownership to the Dalits and Adivasis. The Sadhu Jana Vimochana Samyuktha Vedi (SJVSV), the movement that leads the struggle, has opted for the land take-over as a strategy remembering the tradition of the great leader Ayyankali, the militant Dalit leader whose mission was to ensure the liberation of Dalits from various forms of slavery, right to agricultural land, as well as right to education in Kerala.
For the people (who are involving in the struggle) it is a struggle for existence, dignity and self identity. It is a struggle based on the principle of right to live with dignity for the the Dalits and Adivasis.
Their struggle is not against anybody but it is a question of their rights, the right to live. This is a radical step in people's initiative to attain land rights. It exposes the socio-cultural reasons for landlessness among Dalits and Adivasis in Kerala. It says that 85% of the landless in Kerala are the Dalits, and Adviasis, who were also traditionally excluded from attaining wealth, power, titles and assets.
The SJVSV says that Dalits and Adivasis could not benefit from the land reform of 1970s since its major focus was on giving land to the tenants. In Kerala's context the caste and cultural hierarchy, with
strong oppressive segregation of these communities, did not allow them to be tenants. That is why many of them could not avail the benefits even today.
Most importantly the mainstream political parties, media, churches are not in the struggle of these people. The movement has till now survived attacks, threats, epidemics and hunger.
Chengara Pledge: As Recited by Soumya Babu, an 11 Year old Girl who said she will go to school only after shegetsland.
I love my country. I will try to learn about the Constitution and laws of my country. I will work for fulfilling the pristine objective of the Constitution.I will take part in the nation building process in my own way. I will not discriminate against any Indian on the basis of religion or caste.I understand us as owners of a great tradition as well as protectors of a great democracy.
Who is the owner of the land? This is the pertinent question we have to ask in the context of this struggle.
The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine; with me you are aliens and tenets (Levitcus:25:23).
The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, ….(Psalms 24:1).
God is the owner of the land and we human beings are only the farmers of this land. But we(elite strata of the society) accumulated land and the God given resources by which many forced to live without a piece of land. Where do we stand? How do we theoligise this issue? Is it a negation of life? Dominant ideologies and its supporters portrayed this struggle as the violation as the state law. When MNCs,TNCs and the big shots of the society violate the laws, who cares? When the indigenous people and people who are the victims of the sinful and unjust structures fiht for their existence and right to live, power holders and its beneficiaries will come up as the protectors of the law as the Pharisees and the religious leaders of Jesus' time.
One thing is sure, God is the God of the poor and God takes side with landless and victims.Yesterday in the 'Varthavaram' programme of the Surya TV I have seen that even the small children raising slogans against the dominant unjust structures. Yes, I relises that prayers in the form of slogans coming out of their strong faith in a God of liberation. Yes, God lives in Chengara.God’s face reflects the pain of the people, will we able to see it? Listen carefully, we can hear God’s cry as in the cross...I think our numbness to unjust and life negating structures prevents us from seeing God in the struggles of the peolpe.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Theological Reflection on Ephesians: 4:1-16
Church: A Rainbow Community of the Beloved and Equals.
Dr.George Zachariah,Dept.of Theology&Ethics, Gurukul Theological College,Chennai.
The Delhi High Court verdict on July 2nd, reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code continues to be a major controversial issue in our nation. Religious leaders are in the forefront aggressively challenging the verdict in the name of culture, tradition, and values. Various church bodies have already passed resolutions condemning the verdict. The hitherto silenced sexual minorities who have been forced to confine to the closets are also in the streets celebrating the verdict which decriminalized their lives. It is in this context of moral ambiguity and multiple perspectives, that we have gathered this evening as members of the body of Christ to reflect together the implications of this verdict for the being and the becoming of the Church in India. How do we become a Church to those brothers and sisters who are ostracized and excluded from the fuller communion of the Church? How can the Church reclaim its vision of a rainbow community of the beloved and equals?
The Church has always approached homosexuality as a moral issue, and we are reluctant to welcome and include homosexuals into our faith communities. Most of the churches unconditionally reject homosexuality as sinful and immoral, and refuse sacraments and ordination to people with homosexual orientations. In the case of some churches, they condemn homosexuality but not the homosexual person based on the principle of condemning the sin but not the sinner. A third position understands homosexuality not as a matter of sexual orientation, but due to the choice of the person. So for them, it is an addiction, from which the person can be saved by coming to Jesus. The role of the Church in such situation is to help homosexuals to change their sinfulness and abnormality by turning back to Jesus. Finally, there are also few churches which understand same sex relations as capable of expressing God’s purposes, and homosexuals are people with dignity because they reflect God’s image. On the whole, the Church is not a welcoming place to people with different sexual orientations.
Bible plays a significant role in discerning our response to homosexuality. “Homosexuality is sinful because the Bible says so” is the standard response to the recent debate not only by ordinary people, but also by bishops and church leaders. What does the Bible say about homosexuality is the question that we want to probe in order to make an opinion on this issue. This question does not recognize the importance of hermeneutics in understanding biblical texts. It stems from the dominant idea of biblical interpretation as an objective scientific study without subjective interest to dig out the original meaning of the original author buried in the text. We tend to believe that this approach of reading Bible is an innocent, unbiased, and scientific method with universal validity. This approach has been contested by readings from the margins.
Bible has played a significant role in the violence inflicted upon sexual minorities. This experience of scriptural violence compelled many homosexual people to hate Bible and to leave the Church. But the biblical abuse initiated by the heterosexist interpretations also led to the emergence of queer interpretative communities who read Bible from their standpoint to protect themselves from scripturally sanctioned violence and exclusion. Their attempt is to “take back the Word” not only to protect them, but also to celebrate their lives.
Queer biblical interpretation, has two functions. On the one hand it attempts to critique heterosexist interpretations that use Bible to condemn homosexuality and legitimize and perpetuate the exclusion of and violence against sexual minorities. But on the other hand, it is also a positive reading strategy to reclaim the Bible and to rediscover their subjectivity within the Bible. One of the positive methods of queer interpretations is known as Befriending the text. Even as we commit ourselves to transform our faith communities into just and inclusive communities, let us try to draw inspiration from the Bible using the method of befriending the text to enable and empower us for this great task.
In befriending the text the text of homosexual lives interacts with the text of scripture. “The point of reference for a queer reading of scripture is the notion that the Bible is our friend. When we approach the Bible as a friendly text, as a text that ‘does not harm,’ the terror of the scripture is transformed into the life giving word of God. We are able to find our story within it.” Befriending the text is a deep spiritual experience for sexual minorities because, it enables them to affirm that “we too have been graciously invited to God’s inclusive table; and we are taking back the word as we take back our Christian practices.”
The Epistle to the Ephesians is addressed to a multicultural church, primarily with Jewish and Hellenistic communities. The Epistle talks about the unity and reconciliation of the whole people of God through the agency of the Church. So the Church in the letter to the Ephesians is an inclusive church which celebrates diversity and differences. What is the theological reason for imagining Church as an inclusive community in a multicultural and pluralistic context? Is it just an attempt to be politically correct, or is there a theological rationale to argue that the Church is essentially an inclusive community? I would like to share with you three insights from our readings to help us in our search to become an inclusive community.
First of all Christian faith that affirms one body, one spirit, one hope, one lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God is not a rejection of diversities; rather it is an affirmation of the reconciliation of all diversities in Christ. Plurality and diversity are not accidents or deformities that need to be cured and treated. The reconciled diversity that we find in the one Lord, or one body, or one spirit, or one baptism is not the imposition of a particular worldview or practice or sexual orientation as normative for all. Rather as members of the one body, sharing the same baptismal vow of allegiance to the one Lord, our differences are being reconciled in Christ Jesus. So inclusiveness is not a choice that the Church ought to make. Rather inclusiveness is the basic characteristic of the Church. A Church with fortified walls practicing untouchability towards people who share the same image of God and who are marked by the sign of cross in the sacrament of baptism can not be considered as the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is a Church without walls extending its fellowship to all those who are beloved by God in Christ Jesus.
Secondly, our calling as Christians is not to exclude but to practice the spirit of reconciliation for unity in the bond of love and peace. The author of the epistle reminds us that, “I therefore, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” So if all our diversities are reconciled in Christ, then our calling is to lead a life worthy of this divine purpose of reconciliation for which God has called us. Often we exclude others out of our desire to become a holy people by condemning them as immoral and impure. But once again we are reminded this evening that holiness is not something that we achieve by sanitizing and insulating ourselves from the sinful world; but holiness is an invitation to become holy in the way of Jesus, the Christ. Holiness for Jesus meant challenging the purity maps of his time which excluded people on the basis of their health, ethnicity, class nature, and gender status. In that process he touched the leprosy affected people, he touched the ears and eyes of people with deformities, he touched human saliva, he dined with socially outcaste people, he protected notorious women, and he was crucified outside the city gates. Through touching the untouchables Jesus inaugurated God’s reign in our midst. The Church is duty bound to continue this mission of touching the untouchables. Christian mission of reconciliation presupposes the prophetic courage to touch the untouchables. Church becomes a first fruit of the reign of God only when we respond to this call in the bond of love and peace, and welcome into our midst those who are condemned as untouchables.
Thirdly, the Church is called to speak the truth in love to grow into the fullness of Christ. Speaking the truth in love is a difficult task. Speaking the truth that in Christ we are all reconciled with one another is a dangerous proposition. We are still reluctant to recognize casteism as the original sin of our country because we are afraid to speak the truth in love. We continue to be comfortable in excluding women from the total life of the Church because we are not yet ready to speak the truth in love. Our homophobia against people with different sexual orientations, and our anger against the Delhi High Court verdict expose our unwillingness to speak the truth in love. Speaking the truth in love demands from us the courage to expose the untruth of our dominant truth claims. Exposing our untruths is an invitation to a costly metanoia: a metanoia to transform our faith communities from our obsession with the prevailing dominant truth claims of our times to discover in love, new truths, truths that compel us to grow into the fullness of Christ. Growing into the fullness of Christ enables the Church to grow in love. From the fear of the unknown, the stranger, and the person who is different from us, we grow into the beauty of the rainbow where we celebrate the splendor of beauty without sacrificing our differences.
If this is the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ, we see the manifestation of the same Gospel in the judgment of the learned judges of the Delhi High Court. Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Murlidhar in their historic verdict made a distinction between public morality and constitutional morality. Public morality is informed by the dominant social norms and values. Constitutional morality, on the other hand envisions the highest ethical principles. Pubic morality is what the dominant system prescribes as good and moral. Legitimizing laws in the name of public morality is unethical as it prevents the possibility of the blossoming of the constitutional morality in the here and now. Again, for the learned judges the rationale for them to affirm constitutional morality above public morality was the principle of inclusiveness, the underlying theme of the Indian Constitution. As followers of the non-conformist Christ, the one who consistently quarreled with the priests of public morality, our call is to reject all laws that demonize, criminalize, and exclude human beings from the life of the Church and society.
This calls for corrections in the prevailing power inequities in the Church and society. Social and cultural norms should be re-imagined so that differences in caste, gender and sexuality are no longer ranked hierarchically in terms of superiority and inferiority. Differences should not be occasions for domination but for recognizing and validating variations within a richly diverse humanity.
A prayer of lament read to us by Paul Davis enabled us to listen to the agony of a person with different sexual orientation. “Let me have a share of your peace without obsessing that my “lifestyle” is not Christian, without hating myself, my fate, my body, and my heart. Let me live a life of joy and peace, secure in the knowledge that your grace fills me, that nothing I have done or desired or worried about can erase your love for me that you bid me come “just as I am.”
This is the vision of a rainbow community of the beloved and equals. It is a historic moment for us, the Indian Church, to make a decision. We can either continue to remain as an inhospitable religious club—a hostile community as the rapists of Sodom in Genesis 19, committing violence against the sexual minorities, or we can become a just and inclusive rainbow community celebrating our God given diversities by welcoming those who are different from us into our midst to experience Christian fellowship in a deeper way. God of love has called us as a community of friends and equals to be filled with God's love; to share God's unconditional love; to demonstrate God's love to others—whoever they are, whatever their background be; to declare and show by our actions that God loves all, and has no pre-existing conditions for loving all of God’s creations. May the God of love help us to become a Church to those who are demonized, criminalized, and excluded.
(Sermon delivered by Dr.George Zachariah at Gurukul Chapel on 2-8-2009)
Dr.George Zachariah,Dept.of Theology&Ethics, Gurukul Theological College,Chennai.
The Delhi High Court verdict on July 2nd, reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code continues to be a major controversial issue in our nation. Religious leaders are in the forefront aggressively challenging the verdict in the name of culture, tradition, and values. Various church bodies have already passed resolutions condemning the verdict. The hitherto silenced sexual minorities who have been forced to confine to the closets are also in the streets celebrating the verdict which decriminalized their lives. It is in this context of moral ambiguity and multiple perspectives, that we have gathered this evening as members of the body of Christ to reflect together the implications of this verdict for the being and the becoming of the Church in India. How do we become a Church to those brothers and sisters who are ostracized and excluded from the fuller communion of the Church? How can the Church reclaim its vision of a rainbow community of the beloved and equals?
The Church has always approached homosexuality as a moral issue, and we are reluctant to welcome and include homosexuals into our faith communities. Most of the churches unconditionally reject homosexuality as sinful and immoral, and refuse sacraments and ordination to people with homosexual orientations. In the case of some churches, they condemn homosexuality but not the homosexual person based on the principle of condemning the sin but not the sinner. A third position understands homosexuality not as a matter of sexual orientation, but due to the choice of the person. So for them, it is an addiction, from which the person can be saved by coming to Jesus. The role of the Church in such situation is to help homosexuals to change their sinfulness and abnormality by turning back to Jesus. Finally, there are also few churches which understand same sex relations as capable of expressing God’s purposes, and homosexuals are people with dignity because they reflect God’s image. On the whole, the Church is not a welcoming place to people with different sexual orientations.
Bible plays a significant role in discerning our response to homosexuality. “Homosexuality is sinful because the Bible says so” is the standard response to the recent debate not only by ordinary people, but also by bishops and church leaders. What does the Bible say about homosexuality is the question that we want to probe in order to make an opinion on this issue. This question does not recognize the importance of hermeneutics in understanding biblical texts. It stems from the dominant idea of biblical interpretation as an objective scientific study without subjective interest to dig out the original meaning of the original author buried in the text. We tend to believe that this approach of reading Bible is an innocent, unbiased, and scientific method with universal validity. This approach has been contested by readings from the margins.
Bible has played a significant role in the violence inflicted upon sexual minorities. This experience of scriptural violence compelled many homosexual people to hate Bible and to leave the Church. But the biblical abuse initiated by the heterosexist interpretations also led to the emergence of queer interpretative communities who read Bible from their standpoint to protect themselves from scripturally sanctioned violence and exclusion. Their attempt is to “take back the Word” not only to protect them, but also to celebrate their lives.
Queer biblical interpretation, has two functions. On the one hand it attempts to critique heterosexist interpretations that use Bible to condemn homosexuality and legitimize and perpetuate the exclusion of and violence against sexual minorities. But on the other hand, it is also a positive reading strategy to reclaim the Bible and to rediscover their subjectivity within the Bible. One of the positive methods of queer interpretations is known as Befriending the text. Even as we commit ourselves to transform our faith communities into just and inclusive communities, let us try to draw inspiration from the Bible using the method of befriending the text to enable and empower us for this great task.
In befriending the text the text of homosexual lives interacts with the text of scripture. “The point of reference for a queer reading of scripture is the notion that the Bible is our friend. When we approach the Bible as a friendly text, as a text that ‘does not harm,’ the terror of the scripture is transformed into the life giving word of God. We are able to find our story within it.” Befriending the text is a deep spiritual experience for sexual minorities because, it enables them to affirm that “we too have been graciously invited to God’s inclusive table; and we are taking back the word as we take back our Christian practices.”
The Epistle to the Ephesians is addressed to a multicultural church, primarily with Jewish and Hellenistic communities. The Epistle talks about the unity and reconciliation of the whole people of God through the agency of the Church. So the Church in the letter to the Ephesians is an inclusive church which celebrates diversity and differences. What is the theological reason for imagining Church as an inclusive community in a multicultural and pluralistic context? Is it just an attempt to be politically correct, or is there a theological rationale to argue that the Church is essentially an inclusive community? I would like to share with you three insights from our readings to help us in our search to become an inclusive community.
First of all Christian faith that affirms one body, one spirit, one hope, one lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God is not a rejection of diversities; rather it is an affirmation of the reconciliation of all diversities in Christ. Plurality and diversity are not accidents or deformities that need to be cured and treated. The reconciled diversity that we find in the one Lord, or one body, or one spirit, or one baptism is not the imposition of a particular worldview or practice or sexual orientation as normative for all. Rather as members of the one body, sharing the same baptismal vow of allegiance to the one Lord, our differences are being reconciled in Christ Jesus. So inclusiveness is not a choice that the Church ought to make. Rather inclusiveness is the basic characteristic of the Church. A Church with fortified walls practicing untouchability towards people who share the same image of God and who are marked by the sign of cross in the sacrament of baptism can not be considered as the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ is a Church without walls extending its fellowship to all those who are beloved by God in Christ Jesus.
Secondly, our calling as Christians is not to exclude but to practice the spirit of reconciliation for unity in the bond of love and peace. The author of the epistle reminds us that, “I therefore, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” So if all our diversities are reconciled in Christ, then our calling is to lead a life worthy of this divine purpose of reconciliation for which God has called us. Often we exclude others out of our desire to become a holy people by condemning them as immoral and impure. But once again we are reminded this evening that holiness is not something that we achieve by sanitizing and insulating ourselves from the sinful world; but holiness is an invitation to become holy in the way of Jesus, the Christ. Holiness for Jesus meant challenging the purity maps of his time which excluded people on the basis of their health, ethnicity, class nature, and gender status. In that process he touched the leprosy affected people, he touched the ears and eyes of people with deformities, he touched human saliva, he dined with socially outcaste people, he protected notorious women, and he was crucified outside the city gates. Through touching the untouchables Jesus inaugurated God’s reign in our midst. The Church is duty bound to continue this mission of touching the untouchables. Christian mission of reconciliation presupposes the prophetic courage to touch the untouchables. Church becomes a first fruit of the reign of God only when we respond to this call in the bond of love and peace, and welcome into our midst those who are condemned as untouchables.
Thirdly, the Church is called to speak the truth in love to grow into the fullness of Christ. Speaking the truth in love is a difficult task. Speaking the truth that in Christ we are all reconciled with one another is a dangerous proposition. We are still reluctant to recognize casteism as the original sin of our country because we are afraid to speak the truth in love. We continue to be comfortable in excluding women from the total life of the Church because we are not yet ready to speak the truth in love. Our homophobia against people with different sexual orientations, and our anger against the Delhi High Court verdict expose our unwillingness to speak the truth in love. Speaking the truth in love demands from us the courage to expose the untruth of our dominant truth claims. Exposing our untruths is an invitation to a costly metanoia: a metanoia to transform our faith communities from our obsession with the prevailing dominant truth claims of our times to discover in love, new truths, truths that compel us to grow into the fullness of Christ. Growing into the fullness of Christ enables the Church to grow in love. From the fear of the unknown, the stranger, and the person who is different from us, we grow into the beauty of the rainbow where we celebrate the splendor of beauty without sacrificing our differences.
If this is the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ, we see the manifestation of the same Gospel in the judgment of the learned judges of the Delhi High Court. Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Murlidhar in their historic verdict made a distinction between public morality and constitutional morality. Public morality is informed by the dominant social norms and values. Constitutional morality, on the other hand envisions the highest ethical principles. Pubic morality is what the dominant system prescribes as good and moral. Legitimizing laws in the name of public morality is unethical as it prevents the possibility of the blossoming of the constitutional morality in the here and now. Again, for the learned judges the rationale for them to affirm constitutional morality above public morality was the principle of inclusiveness, the underlying theme of the Indian Constitution. As followers of the non-conformist Christ, the one who consistently quarreled with the priests of public morality, our call is to reject all laws that demonize, criminalize, and exclude human beings from the life of the Church and society.
This calls for corrections in the prevailing power inequities in the Church and society. Social and cultural norms should be re-imagined so that differences in caste, gender and sexuality are no longer ranked hierarchically in terms of superiority and inferiority. Differences should not be occasions for domination but for recognizing and validating variations within a richly diverse humanity.
A prayer of lament read to us by Paul Davis enabled us to listen to the agony of a person with different sexual orientation. “Let me have a share of your peace without obsessing that my “lifestyle” is not Christian, without hating myself, my fate, my body, and my heart. Let me live a life of joy and peace, secure in the knowledge that your grace fills me, that nothing I have done or desired or worried about can erase your love for me that you bid me come “just as I am.”
This is the vision of a rainbow community of the beloved and equals. It is a historic moment for us, the Indian Church, to make a decision. We can either continue to remain as an inhospitable religious club—a hostile community as the rapists of Sodom in Genesis 19, committing violence against the sexual minorities, or we can become a just and inclusive rainbow community celebrating our God given diversities by welcoming those who are different from us into our midst to experience Christian fellowship in a deeper way. God of love has called us as a community of friends and equals to be filled with God's love; to share God's unconditional love; to demonstrate God's love to others—whoever they are, whatever their background be; to declare and show by our actions that God loves all, and has no pre-existing conditions for loving all of God’s creations. May the God of love help us to become a Church to those who are demonized, criminalized, and excluded.
(Sermon delivered by Dr.George Zachariah at Gurukul Chapel on 2-8-2009)
Secret of Happiness - A Story from Paulo Coelho's Alchemist
“A certain shopkeeper sent his son to learn about the secret of happiness from the wisest man in the world. The lad wandered through the desert for forty days, and finally came upon a beautiful castle, high atop a mountain. It was there that the wise man lived.
“Rather than finding a saintly man, though, our hero, on entering the main room of the castle, saw a hive of activity: tradesmen came and went, people were conversing in the corners, a small orchestra was playing soft music, and there was a table covered with platters of the most delicious food in that part of the world.
The wise man conversed with everyone, and the boy had to wait for two hours before it was his turn to be given the man’s attention.
“The wise man listened attentively to the boy’s explanation
of why he had come, but told him that he didn’t have time just then to explain the secret of happiness.
He suggested that the boy look around the palace and return in two hours.
“‘Meanwhile, I want to ask you to do something,’ said the wise man, handing the boy a teaspoon that held two drops of oil. ‘As you wander around, carry this spoon with you without allowing the oil to spill.’
“The boy began climbing and descending the many stairways of the palace, keeping his eyes fixed on the spoon. After two hours, he returned to the room where the wise man was.
“ ‘Well,’ asked the wise man, ‘did you see the Persian tapestries that are hanging in my dining hall? Did you see the garden that it took the master gardener ten years to create? Did you notice the beautiful parchments in my library?’
“The boy was embarrassed, and confessed that he had observed nothing. His only concern had been not to spill the oil that the wise man had entrusted to him.
“‘Then go back and observe the marvels of my world,’ said the wise man. ‘You cannot trust a man if you don’t know his house.’
“Relieved, the boy picked up the spoon and returned to his exploration of the palace, this time observing all of the works of art on the ceilings and the walls. He saw the gardens, the mountains all around him, the beauty of the flowers, and the taste with which everything
had been selected. Upon returning to the wise man, he related in detail everything he had seen.
“‘But where are the drops of oil I entrusted to you?’ asked the wise man.
“Looking down at the spoon he held, the boy saw that the oil was gone.
“‘Well, there is only one piece of advice I can give you,’
said the wisest of wise men.
‘The secret of happiness is to see all the marvels of the world, and never to forget the drops of oil on the spoon.’ ”
Source- The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.
“Rather than finding a saintly man, though, our hero, on entering the main room of the castle, saw a hive of activity: tradesmen came and went, people were conversing in the corners, a small orchestra was playing soft music, and there was a table covered with platters of the most delicious food in that part of the world.
The wise man conversed with everyone, and the boy had to wait for two hours before it was his turn to be given the man’s attention.
“The wise man listened attentively to the boy’s explanation
of why he had come, but told him that he didn’t have time just then to explain the secret of happiness.
He suggested that the boy look around the palace and return in two hours.
“‘Meanwhile, I want to ask you to do something,’ said the wise man, handing the boy a teaspoon that held two drops of oil. ‘As you wander around, carry this spoon with you without allowing the oil to spill.’
“The boy began climbing and descending the many stairways of the palace, keeping his eyes fixed on the spoon. After two hours, he returned to the room where the wise man was.
“ ‘Well,’ asked the wise man, ‘did you see the Persian tapestries that are hanging in my dining hall? Did you see the garden that it took the master gardener ten years to create? Did you notice the beautiful parchments in my library?’
“The boy was embarrassed, and confessed that he had observed nothing. His only concern had been not to spill the oil that the wise man had entrusted to him.
“‘Then go back and observe the marvels of my world,’ said the wise man. ‘You cannot trust a man if you don’t know his house.’
“Relieved, the boy picked up the spoon and returned to his exploration of the palace, this time observing all of the works of art on the ceilings and the walls. He saw the gardens, the mountains all around him, the beauty of the flowers, and the taste with which everything
had been selected. Upon returning to the wise man, he related in detail everything he had seen.
“‘But where are the drops of oil I entrusted to you?’ asked the wise man.
“Looking down at the spoon he held, the boy saw that the oil was gone.
“‘Well, there is only one piece of advice I can give you,’
said the wisest of wise men.
‘The secret of happiness is to see all the marvels of the world, and never to forget the drops of oil on the spoon.’ ”
Source- The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.
THE STORY OF THE PENCIL by Paulo Coelho
The story of the pencil
A boy was watching his grandmother write a letter. At one point he asked:
‘Are you writing a story about what we’ve done? Is it a story about me?’
His grandmother stopped writing her letter and said to her grandson:
‘I am writing about you, actually, but more important than the words is the pencil I’m using. I hope you will be like this pencil when you grow up.’
Intrigued, the boy looked at the pencil. It didn’t seem very special.
‘But it’s just like any other pencil I’ve ever seen!’
‘That depends on how you look at things. It has five qualities which, if you manage to hang on them, will make you a person who is always at peace with the world.’
‘First quality: you are capable of great things, but you must never forget that there is a hand guiding your steps. We call that hand God, and He always guides us according to His will.’
‘Second quality: now and then, I have to stop writing and use a sharpner. That makes the pencil suffer a little, but afterwards, he’s much sharper. So you, too, must learn to bear certain pains and sorrows, because they will make you a better person.
‘Third quality: the pencil always allows us to use an eraser to rub out any mistakes. This means that correcting something we did is not necessarily a bad thing; it helps to keep us on the road to justice.’
‘Fourth quality: what really matters in a pencil is not its wooden exterior, but the graphite inside. So always pay attention to what is happening inside you.’
‘Finally, the pencil’s fifth quality: it always leaves a mark. in just the same way, you should know that everything you do in life will leave a mark, so try to be conscious of that in your every action’
Source: Like the Flowing River by Paulo Coelho
A boy was watching his grandmother write a letter. At one point he asked:
‘Are you writing a story about what we’ve done? Is it a story about me?’
His grandmother stopped writing her letter and said to her grandson:
‘I am writing about you, actually, but more important than the words is the pencil I’m using. I hope you will be like this pencil when you grow up.’
Intrigued, the boy looked at the pencil. It didn’t seem very special.
‘But it’s just like any other pencil I’ve ever seen!’
‘That depends on how you look at things. It has five qualities which, if you manage to hang on them, will make you a person who is always at peace with the world.’
‘First quality: you are capable of great things, but you must never forget that there is a hand guiding your steps. We call that hand God, and He always guides us according to His will.’
‘Second quality: now and then, I have to stop writing and use a sharpner. That makes the pencil suffer a little, but afterwards, he’s much sharper. So you, too, must learn to bear certain pains and sorrows, because they will make you a better person.
‘Third quality: the pencil always allows us to use an eraser to rub out any mistakes. This means that correcting something we did is not necessarily a bad thing; it helps to keep us on the road to justice.’
‘Fourth quality: what really matters in a pencil is not its wooden exterior, but the graphite inside. So always pay attention to what is happening inside you.’
‘Finally, the pencil’s fifth quality: it always leaves a mark. in just the same way, you should know that everything you do in life will leave a mark, so try to be conscious of that in your every action’
Source: Like the Flowing River by Paulo Coelho
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Silence...the best Communicator
In the depth of silence
no words are needed,
no language required.
In the depth of silence
I am called to listen.
Yes, there I sat
there in that corner,
listening for silence,
longing for community.
suddenly the room is crowded,
crowded with speeches
voices in many languages
announcing
denouncing
proclaiming
demanding
self- justifying
shattering the silence.
Christian communication must announce
No, Christian communication must denounce,
No, Christian communication must promote sharing,
No, Christian communication must create community,
Yes, Christian communication must be hopeful
No, it must be graceful
Yes, it must have integrity
No, it must call for response.
Please stop, please!
Silence!
listen to the beating of your heart
Listen to the blowing of the wind,
the movement of the spirit,
Be silent- said the Lord,
and know that I am God.
And listen to the cry of the voiceless
Listen to the groaning of the hungry
Listen to the pain of the landless
Listen to the sigh of the oppressed
and to the laughter of children.
For that is authentic communication:
listening to people
living with people
dying for people.
Acknowledgement.
Kim,Yong-Bock(ed, Communication for Solidarity,CCA,1989.
no words are needed,
no language required.
In the depth of silence
I am called to listen.
Yes, there I sat
there in that corner,
listening for silence,
longing for community.
suddenly the room is crowded,
crowded with speeches
voices in many languages
announcing
denouncing
proclaiming
demanding
self- justifying
shattering the silence.
Christian communication must announce
No, Christian communication must denounce,
No, Christian communication must promote sharing,
No, Christian communication must create community,
Yes, Christian communication must be hopeful
No, it must be graceful
Yes, it must have integrity
No, it must call for response.
Please stop, please!
Silence!
listen to the beating of your heart
Listen to the blowing of the wind,
the movement of the spirit,
Be silent- said the Lord,
and know that I am God.
And listen to the cry of the voiceless
Listen to the groaning of the hungry
Listen to the pain of the landless
Listen to the sigh of the oppressed
and to the laughter of children.
For that is authentic communication:
listening to people
living with people
dying for people.
Acknowledgement.
Kim,Yong-Bock(ed, Communication for Solidarity,CCA,1989.
Not the colour...but what inside...
There was a man who made living selling balloons at a fair. He had all colours of balloons including, red ,blue, yellow and green.
Whenever business was slow, he will release a helium- filled balloon into the air and when children saw it to go up, they wanted to buy one. They would come up to him, buy a balloon and his sales would go up again. He continued the process all day.
One day he felt some one pulling at his jacket. He turned around and saw a little boy who asked,
“If you releases a black balloon ,would that also fly?”.
Moved by the boy’s concern, the man replied with empathy ,
”Son it is not the colour of the balloon; it is what inside that makes it goes up”.
Whenever business was slow, he will release a helium- filled balloon into the air and when children saw it to go up, they wanted to buy one. They would come up to him, buy a balloon and his sales would go up again. He continued the process all day.
One day he felt some one pulling at his jacket. He turned around and saw a little boy who asked,
“If you releases a black balloon ,would that also fly?”.
Moved by the boy’s concern, the man replied with empathy ,
”Son it is not the colour of the balloon; it is what inside that makes it goes up”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
