ROLE OF A PASTOR

Pastors’ roles are normally determined by the rules of the church bodies with which they are associated, their own understanding of their role and the expectations of their congregations. However, it is worth looking at what the Bible has to say about this role.

The word “pastor” means “shepherd” and implies that a pastor is given the role of caring for God’s flock. Not all those who carry out the work of a pastor are referred to as pastors. Depending on their denomination, they may be called a minister (which means “servant”), presbyter (which means “elder”), parish priest (which refers to their leading people in worship), clergy (which refers to their having been called to this role), or vicar (which refers to their serving on behalf of the one they represent). These different titles reflect the orientation of various denominations towards pastoral ministry, but in essence all who bear these titles are pastors, shepherds of God’s people.

In the OT God is frequently spoken of as a shepherd with the people of Israel as his flock (Pss 23:1-4; 80:1). Kings were also described as shepherds of their people, responsible for providing them with food, protecting them, binding up their wounds, strengthening the weak and seeking those who strayed. When they failed to carry out these responsibilities, the Lord rebuked them for their failure to care for his flock and promised to replace them (Jer 23:1-4; Ezek 34).

Jesus Christ shows all the qualities of the true shepherd, whose coming is prophesied in Ezekiel 34:11-16. In John 10:11-18 he describes himself as the good shepherd and gives details about the qualities required of a good shepherd.

The apostles who assumed leadership of the early church saw their role as continuing Jesus’ ministry as a shepherd. In his farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus, Paul exhorted them to tend, oversee, protect and guard the flock under their charge (Acts 20:28-31; see also 1 Pet 5:2-3). Paul mentions pastors and teachers in his list of the gifts God has given the church (Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28).

This clarified that there is a specific role of “pastor” within the church, and that it is intended to equip believers to serve the Lord better. In his letters to Timothy, Paul set out the qualifications for appointment to these positions (1 Tim 3:1-13).

It may be helpful to divide the responsibilities of a pastor into three categories, all of which are modelled on the role of the Chief Shepherd – Jesus Christ (1 Pet 5:4).

• Incarnational role. Just as Jesus identified with us by coming to live among us, so pastors must commit to identifying with the congregation they serve. The pastor’s knowledge of them must go beyond merely knowing their names to knowing their needs and struggles. Such personal knowledge makes it possible to minister to individual needs and offer spiritual guidance. Preaching and teaching will become more relevant as the pastor comes to know and be known by the congregation at a deep level (John 10:4). Pastors who adopt an incarnational approach will be able to pray more effectively, and discipling within the congregation will be more effective.

• Jesus trained his disciples by sharing his life and ministry with them. In the same way, a pastor who identifies with the congregation will begin to recognise spiritual gifts and resources within the congregation. The pastor’s job will then include acting as a coach and mentor, training the local congregation to work as a team so that ministry can be carried out by the whole people of God. This approach demands that the pastor have a vision of the plan of God for the church and for the local congregation. It requires integrity and love in the pastor’s own life and conduct, for otherwise it will be impossible to effectively guide, protect and nurture the congregation.

• Representational role. The pastor is called to represent God to the congregation by preaching and teaching so that the people come to understand all that God has said (Acts 20:27). This highlights the importance of pastors’ teaching ministry. They are to be like faithful watchmen, proclaiming God’s message to those they are called to protect (Ezek 33:16). This is a serious responsibility. They serve as shepherds of a flock that belongs to God, and they must care for it as he would care for it and teach it what he would want it to know (1 Pet 5:2).

• It is important to note that in his representational role, the pastor is not acting like an OT priest and representing the congregation before God. The NT describes all believers as priests (1 Pet 2:9). The pastor is simply the one who leads in worship and administers the sacraments.

• Restorative role. Pastors are called to bind up wounds and restore broken relationships, to seek the lost and restore them to God. They must work to bring about reconciliation and healing in relationships that have gone sour. They need to learn to identify the ways in which people are wronged, neglected, marginalised and discriminated against, and help address the factors leading to conditions of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. They should fight for their people’s legitimate rights. They must act as facilitators and mediators, which means they will also have to address the poverty that cripples people and the unjust systems that contribute to keeping them in poverty.

This role is hard and requires sacrificial commitment to the needs of the flock.

Most Christians in South Asia live as minorities among other communities who are much larger and more powerful, and who are very sensitive to any suggestion of missionary work. In such situations, pastors need to encourage their congregation to dialogue with their neighbours, not as an act of compromise but in an attempt to bring them too into the flock of Christ.

• To sum up, in the words of the Apostle Paul, the goal of pastoral work “is to present everyone fully mature in Christ”. To this end the pastor must work day and night to proclaim Christ, warning and “teaching everyone with all wisdom” (Col 1:28).

N. G. Mathew

Continue Reading

RITUALS AND FESTIVALS

South Asian society is religiously pluralistic and rituals and festivals are an integral part of community life. Christians have to decide whether to participate in these festivities and how to respond to them.

There is no easy solution, but it may help us to move towards a better understanding if we begin by defining our terms. Rituals are ceremonies consisting of a series of actions performed in a prescribed order by an individual or a community. Although we generally associate them with religious rites, there are also social rituals (for example, we are taking part in a social ritual whenever we greet someone by shaking hands with them). Any repeated action that has symbolic meaning may be considered a ritual. Rituals can have physical, spiritual, social and psychological dimensions and are commonly used in celebrations of births and marriages, at funerals, and when making oaths or seeking purification.

Festivals, on the other hand, are occasions of communal feasting or celebration, and often have religious, seasonal and cultural significance. They may last for only one day or for several days, and in the course of them people will observe certain rituals. Festivals meet specific social, psychological or religious needs, and create solidarity in a community or between families. Some festivals like Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are purely cultural. Others celebrate the changing seasons, as when agrarian societies celebrate harvest festivals or the phases of the moon or the position of the sun.

Religious festivals celebrate specifically religious events. For example, for Hindus, Sikhs and Jains, the festival of Diwali celebrates the victory of good over evil.

In a society where culture and religion are closely intertwined, it can be difficult to distinguish the religious and cultural elements in rituals and festivals. An obvious way to do this would be to investigate their origins, but even that may not clarify the issues. For example, eggs are universally used as a symbol of new life, especially in relation to the festival of Easter, but historically the roots of this symbolism are pagan. Yet the church has seen no need to refuse to use the egg as a powerful symbol.

Christians are called to be salt and light in the communities they live in. The challenge before us is to adapt rituals and festivities without compromising biblical teaching. One way of doing this is contextualisation, in which we absorb the methods but not the content of these practices. We will have a greater impact on our community if we adopt its rituals and festivals but fill them with new meanings than if we isolate ourselves from our neighbours by refusing to share in their lives.

Customs and practices that are clearly religious must be politely avoided – for example, partaking of prasad offered by a friend or colleague who has returned from a religious pilgrimage, adorning oneself with a bindi (understood as the third eye of Shiva), participating in ancestor worship and the like. But customs and practices that are sufficiently neutral, religiously speaking, may be adapted and filled with Christian meaning. Examples would be the use of yellow flower petals in worship or of a thali necklace rather than a ring in a marriage service. In a multi-religious context, we must strive to be both authentic Christians and authentic South Asians.

Bal Krishna Sharma

 

Continue Reading

RESURRECTION AND REINCARNATION

The Christian understanding of resurrection is very different from the idea of reincarnation as found in religions such as Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism. The Hindu Vedas teach that the dead will inherit an afterlife, wearing “another body”. Svarga (heaven) is the reward for a virtuous life, and a dark world, naraka loka, serves to punish evildoers. But the Upanishads that followed the Vedas declare that the performance of virtuous acts like sacrifices is insufficient to retain a place in heaven and leads only to continued births in this world.

Hence a belief in karma (the consequence of all one’s actions in this life and in previous ones) and samsara (the endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth) emerged. A person’s present life is believed to be the fruit of acts performed in previous lives. Karma is thus the law of automatic justice. All present pleasures, pains and sufferings are the direct results of past actions. The soul transmigrates from one life form to another human or nonhuman being, depending on one’s karma.

Karma and reincarnation have been employed to explain social inequalities and human suffering and to justify the traditional caste system. These concepts tend to breed indifference towards suffering.

While the Hindu ideal would be to live virtuously in the present so as to obtain a better rebirth, the ultimate goal is moksha, liberation from the cycle of samsara and achieving union of atman (the soul) with the ultimate reality, Brahman.

Reincarnation in Buddhism is not the re-embodiment of a soul, spirit or person but is the transference of karmic bundles of action from one life to another. The primary goal of a Buddhist is nirvana (cessation). This goal is reached by following the path that the Buddha taught. Those who have not attained nirvana are still subject to the cycle of samsara.

Belief in the resurrection is foundational to the Christian faith, but is wholly dissimilar to reincarnation. According to Judeo-Christian teaching, humans have only one life, not an infinite series of lives.

Our status and situation in the present are not the result of past karma. However, there is a judgement at the end of our lives (Heb 9:27). The prophet Daniel says, “multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2). This “awakening” is echoed in the book of Revelation, where all the dead are resurrected and judged, receiving either eternal life or condemnation (Rev 20:4-6,11-15).

For Christians, the doctrine of resurrection is built upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who profoundly affects their present life as well as the life to come (John 11:25-26). First, in this life, believers are saved from spiritual death and experience victory over sin. The Spirit of the risen Christ works in their lives to make them alive to God (Rom 6:8- 11; 8:11). Secondly, in the life to come, the resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for believers to be saved from physical death and experience victory over death (1 Cor 15:55- 57). Christ is the firstfruits of all who will rise from the dead. Just as Jesus rose bodily from the dead, so believers will be raised from the dead and receive a new body at the time of Christ’s second coming.

Those in Christ who are alive at his coming will be translated to glory (1 Cor 15:20-23, 51-52; 1 Thess 4:13-18). Paul describes our resurrection body in terms of a heavenly, spiritual, imperishable, glorious and powerful mode of existence (Matt 22:30; 1 Cor 15:35-

44; Phil 3:20- 21) – as seen in the resurrected Jesus. Resurrected believers are morally and spiritually perfected (Eph 1:4; Col 1:22; Jude 24) and experience fullness in understanding (1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2).

A South Asian thinker, P. Chenchiah, argues that belief in the resurrection of the body counters the Hindu and Buddhist doctrine of maya (the belief that the world we experience is an illusion), and is evidence of God’s love for material creation. Thus life after death is not an absorption into God but an embodied life.

Further, the resurrection involves a transformed community of believers who enjoy the presence of God forever (Rev 21:1-5) whereas the wicked and unrighteous are also resurrected in the end, but are condemned to everlasting punishment (Rev 20:12-15). Indeed, the risen Christ can be justifiably regarded as the firstfruits of the life of the kingdom of God, in which the power of death and oppression are overcome.

Finally, we may look at the resurrection of Christ as a clue to the future consummation of the entire created order and the seed of a redemptive movement that has already begun. R. Panikkar and Stanley Samartha have elaborated on this idea in their writings.

In summary, the Christian doctrine of resurrection is absolutely unlike the Hindu and Buddhist ideas of reincarnation. Instead of an endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth, Christians expect a future life in a new heaven and new earth. While there is divine judgement after life on earth, there is present hope for all people. Christ offers forgiveness of sins through his atoning death on the cross. His resurrection promises a victorious earthly life and a glorious resurrected afterlife for the believer.

Enoch Charles

Continue Reading

RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM

Today the word “fundamentalism” is associated with religious extremists who adopt a very narrow view of the fundamental principles of their faith and are fiercely intolerant of all who disagree with them. They are prepared to use violence and terror to fulfil their religious and political agendas. They believe that martyrdom for their cause is honourable and will bring rewards after death. Those who do not support or share these fundamentalist views face intimidation, physical attack and even death.

Fundamentalism is not a new phenomenon. It has occurred throughout the centuries, particularly in missionary religions like Christianity and Islam that have fixed doctrinal teaching. However, the word “fundamentalist” itself only originated in the USA at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. It was used to describe a new brand of Protestantism that arose in reaction to liberalising trends within American Protestantism, which, according to these fundamentalist Protestants, were undermining faith in God’s word and the uniqueness of Christ. The distinguishing marks of this movement were faith in Christ as the only Saviour and an absolute reliance on the Bible, which was often interpreted in fairly literal ways without much regard for the historical context in which it was written. Christian fundamentalists demanded rigid discipline, banned all practices they considered liberal, and aggressively propagated their own brand of thinking.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, practically all religions developed some kind of fundamentalist sect. We find them in Judaism and in Islam, where they rigidly enforce Sharia law in places like Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Algeria and Egypt. Even historically tolerant religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoarastrianism now have their own versions of intolerant sects.

The most important feature of fundamentalism is its insistence that it alone knows the truth of its religion. It demands unquestioning conformity and uniformity of thought. It condemns those who think otherwise as incorrect and as distorters of the truth. It does not encourage critical and analytical thinking or scientific approaches to solving the mysteries of the universe. Instead, it advocates a return to ancient religious customs and “original” cultural moorings and social practices. It has little patience with preaching love, compassion and peace.

Given its respect for a supposedly purer past, fundamentalism is decidedly politically conservative. It has no concern for the rights of minorities. Instead it preaches a return to rigid patriarchal religious views that oppress women and minorities. For example, virtues like modesty, chastity and self-sacrifice are held to apply particularly to women, even though the moral code of the religion calls on both genders to show these traits. But these virtues are distorted into tools to keep women submissive and exclude them from certain roles.

Fundamentalism tends to attract financial support from those whose religious and economic status is threatened by change. Thus it is often well-funded. But its oppressive ideology has negative effects on the oppressed and on the health, education, social and justice systems in a country. In South Asian societies, it tends to deepen social divisions such as those based on caste, and sometimes deliberately fans such divisions for political gain.

Fundamentalism thus presents a major obstacle to Christian witness and to any effort to challenge unjust systems and discrimination of any kind.

P. S. Jacob

 

Continue Reading

RELIGIOUS CONVERSION

Human beings have the capacity to think and to make choices and decisions. One of the choices they must make concerns their religion. The freedom to make this choice is regarded as a basic human right and is enshrined in the constitutions of many countries. For example, Article 25 of the Constitution of India states that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. This does not include a right to forcible conversion. Religious conversion must be a free personal and responsible act under the grace of God.

In everyday language, when one “converts” one thing into another, one changes its purpose and use. The same is true of religious conversion. It involves changing one’s mind and direction. A faith that was once thought to be unimportant now assumes central importance in someone’s life. The person now lives with a new truth and a new understanding of reality. This inevitably means that the person will reject some aspects of the way he or she lived before and adopt a new set of behaviours. In Christian terms, this can be described as repentance.

Jesus began his ministry with a call to repentance: “Repent and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15). He illustrated what he meant by repentance and conversion in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32). The younger son’s journey into a far country with his share of the family wealth signifies human departure from God to sin. It caused an estrangement between the young man and his father. But eventually the young man became aware of what he had lost, honestly confessed his sins, recognised that he was unworthy and longed to return to his father’s house. The father anticipated his wayward son’s return and waited with the mercy the son did not deserve, unconditionally loved his estranged son and received him back into his house with a celebration intended for the whole community.

These steps show us the meaning of Christian conversion. It involves acknowledgement of one’s separation from God and turning back to God (1 Thess 1:9). The son needed an inward spiritual change to make him become aware of his separation from God, repent of the sin that had caused it and become willing to accept the welcome God offers. He then again became part of his community, living humbly in reconciliation with the people around him. It is the same with conversion. People need to give up their old sinful ways, live humbly, and live reconciled to God and to those around them.

The story of the lost son also makes it clear that the change that takes place with conversion is not simply a matter of deciding to change, using the power of the finite human will. There was no way the son could force the father to accept him and welcome him back.

That choice lay with the father. In the same way, in Christian conversion the self is passive in accepting what it cannot change, but active in seeing the need for salvation and opening the self to the possibility of conversion, and in accepting the gift of God’s grace when it comes. Repentance and dependence upon God are essential elements of Christian conversion.

Some object to the very idea of conversion, arguing that it uses the cloak of religion to disguise many other motives. Studies have shown that conversion has even been employed as an instrument of social protest. The Dalits of India, for example, have long struggled to escape the oppression inflicted upon them in the name of social stratification. Conversion to Christianity offered them an opportunity to improve their social status and achieve equality, for Christianity teaches that all are welcomed by God. This has been described as a temporal and material reason for conversion. However, is not desire for equality also a spiritual reason?

Others in South Asia allege that conversion to Christianity reflects an illegitimate Western influence and undermines their national and cultural heritage. Such thinking has resulted in moves to introduce anti-conversion laws in some countries and states. But such thinking underestimates what constitutes culture. Conversion does slowly bring cultural change in that the new convert takes on a new view of the world, but it does not overthrow an entire cultural history. The world around a convert does not change overnight. The convert serves as a change factor within his or her existing community, but does not undermine that community. The gospel rightly heard does not praise one culture and condemn another. Rather it evaluates all cultures by its criteria of truth and righteousness.

Cultural hostility to the very idea of conversion has led some Christian converts to worship Christ without undergoing water baptism as a sign of public confession of their faith. Their argument is that baptism may be misinterpreted as a sign that one is abandoning one’s community and losing one’s identity. When this happens, people like Dalit converts to Christ may lose benefits previously afforded them by law, just because they now worship Christ. This legally discriminatory practice in some South Asian countries causes some Christians to abstain from any outward rituals of affiliation.

Salvation is received by faith and not by works. Thus Christian conversion does not necessarily require one to change one’s name, adopt a foreign culture or adhere to certain rituals. Rather, the reality of saving faith in conversion is attested by its practical effect, “the work produced by faith” (1 Thess 1:3). Conversion to Christ creates reconciled people who work for justice amidst injustice, for truthfulness amidst deception, and for peace in the centre of a violent society. This enables them to participate in authentic social transformation. Moreover, in general, converts to faith in Christ learn the value of being industrious and independent, seeking to be sustained by God’s grace rather than by handouts from others. The energy of converts to Christ is visible in their witness to newfound faith and new-found love.

Richard Howell

Continue Reading

RELIGIOUS ART AND SYMBOLISM

Since ancient times, religious beliefs have found expression in music, paintings, architecture, dance and ritual. Religion can even be said to have been the cradle of art, for both express complex ideas in ways that speak to the mind and the imagination. There is thus no natural hostility between religion and art. Hostility arises only when art distorts the essence of religion or misrepresents a religious concept.

Symbolism is an important element of religious art. For example, the cross is a symbol of Christianity and the crescent moon a symbol of Islam. Similarly, in Hinduism hand gestures convey meaning, whether represented on a statue, imitated by a guru or included in religious dances and dramas.

People sometimes use symbols such as markings, ornaments and special clothing to indicate their religious identity. For example, followers of Shiva may have three horizontal white lines on their forehead. Such symbols may also signal social status, as when a married Hindu woman applies vermilion to the parting of her hair and wears a marriage necklace, bangles and toe rings.

Over time, some symbols lose their association with one particular religion and become part of the wider culture. Thus in India, Jains, Roman Catholics, Muslims and some Protestant Christian women also wear a ring on their second toe to convey their married status.

This is a good example of how people adopt the religious art and symbols of the dominant religion in their region, while also making changes to suit their own religious affiliations. Such adaptation may be necessary if a minority group is to thrive within an area dominated by another religion.

Religious symbols can serve as symbols of power and domination or as an assertion about a religion’s place in a community, as when a mosque or temple is erected on a particular site. Politicians can also appropriate religious symbols. For example, a political party in India has taken the lotus as its symbol and saffron as its colour in an attempt to persuade the Hindu population to support its ideology.

Such political appropriation of religious symbols can cause miscreants to destroy symbols associated with other religions, thereby raising tensions within the community.

In reacting against the art and symbols of other faiths, some Christians miss the rich art and symbolism that is part of their Christian heritage. They fail to see that the Bible affirms the universality of art as a gift of God. In fact the very first chapter of the Bible can be interpreted as describing the “art” of God. He shaped everything that exists, and his “artwork” is a powerful symbol pointing to him as the creator (Rom 1:20).

As beings made in the image of the creator, we too are creative. Moreover God has confirmed that the material world is good. Not only did he create it, but he became incarnate in it and the Holy Spirit has come to be with us in it (Gen 1:31; John 1:14; 1 Cor 3:16). Thus we need not be hostile to all images and forms of art, for art (like human beings) only becomes sinful when it forgets its divine origin and begins to serve evil purposes.

Christians can and should engage with art and symbolism in their worship, living and witness. We should recognise these elements in the words of Scripture that we read, in the music we use in worship, and in the majesty of the ritual form of services in some traditions. We can meditate on what it means to say that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15) and that we are being transformed into his image (Rom 8:29). God’s spiritual nature is something that cannot be captured by any image of wood or stone (Acts 17:29), and that is why he forbade any worship of artefacts said to represent him (Exod 20:3-4). But in his grace he did send Christ as the perfect representation of himself (see also the article “Avatar and Incarnation”).

But what should we make of the art and symbols of the wider culture in which we live? First, we should recognise that the religious art and symbolism found in other faith traditions are not intentionally anti-Christian. They do, however, reflect the understanding of the nature of God and reality in each religion. Secondly, we should recognise that in many South Asian traditional cultures, religion and culture are inseparable. It is not easy to separate them or to isolate cultural elements and customs and Christianise them. Accepting certain symbols may be interpreted as accepting many of the beliefs of the religion from which they came. Yet without accepting them, we may not be able to communicate with people whose understanding of reality is bound up with such symbols. (That is also one reason why Christians should watch some movies and popular television shows.)

To the average South Asian non-Christian, Asian Christianity is a Western religion with Western art and symbolism. We should change this false perspective by using Asian art and symbolism. After all, Jesus Christ came from West Asia. The Western art left behind by the colonial powers is of religious and sociological significance, but the Asian church must develop its own religious art and symbolism.

What would such Asian Christian art look like? Here are a few examples to stimulate our thinking. The architects who designed the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies (SAIACS) in Bangalore adapted many of the outer structural features of Hindu temples. Some churches have also adopted elements of traditional South Asian worship; for example, the worshippers sit on the floor rather than on pews, and there are kuthu vizhakkus (lampstands), garlands and incense sticks. The worshippers sing Christian bhajans set to traditional Carnatic or Hindustani music and celebrate fellowship in new life by sharing the flesh and water of a coconut.

Above the entrance to the chapel of Dharmaram College in Bangalore, Christ is depicted sitting in the Indian cross-legged posture. This mosaic uses both South Asian symbolism and South Asian placement, for in Hindu temples images of the deity worshipped within a temple are placed atop the entrance to the temple. But while this image unabashedly honours Christ, it is not intended to be an object for worship. South Asian Christians should use more such art and symbolism to stress that the core kingdom values of Jesus Christ extend over all.

John Arun Kumar

Continue Reading

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT
AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Christian Bible consists of two major sections, the Old Testament and the New Testament. These two sets of writings are usually bound together in one book. Hence the question of the nature of the relationship between the two testaments is inescapable for every reader of the Bible. Scholars, too, have engaged in sustained studies, seeking to understand this profound yet complex relationship. Each of the NT writings has been examined to observe its specific use of the OT.

There are two important realities we need to bear in mind when dealing with the relationship between the OT and NT. The first is that Jesus, his followers and every author of the NT writings saw the Christian gospel as essentially rooted in the faith of God’s people, as found in the OT. God’s purpose to bless the whole earth began with the call of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). This call then passed on to Abraham’s descendants as God formed them into a holy nation and entered into a covenant with them after their redemption from Egypt (Exod 19:3-6). Israel was intended to be God’s instrument of blessing to the world, but it failed in that task.

However, Israel’s task was ultimately fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Heb 1:1-4). His role was anticipated by the OT prophets who foretold that God would ultimately introduce a renewed covenant in which his law would be written not on stone but on human hearts (Jer 31:31-34).

The first followers of Jesus recognised the fundamental continuity of God’s redemptive purposes, even though there was obvious discontinuity. This was bound to be the case, since the first covenant was between God and Israel whereas the second covenant is between the same God (now fully revealed in Christ) and a reconfigured people of God, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles. Thus there is unity and diversity, continuity and contrast.

Jesus knew, read and interpreted Scripture (Luke 2:46-47; 4:16- 21). In fact, he declared that the Scriptures testify of him (John 5:39) and that his life and mission would fulfil Scripture (Matt 5:17-20).

The disciples understood this more fully after Jesus’ resurrection, as their minds were opened by Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:25-27, 44-49; John 16:13-15). Peter, Stephen and Paul all boldly proclaimed that Jesus had fulfilled God’s deliberate plan as revealed in the Scriptures (Acts 2:14-36; 3:18; 7:2-53; 13:16-48).

Paul, referring to the OT writings, says that “all Scripture is Godbreathed” or inspired and life-giving (2 Tim 3:16). Thus an understanding and appropriation of the OT is absolutely essential to a proper understanding of the NT writings. To give one simple yet significant example, when Jesus said, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener” (John 15:1), he was not just using a common plant and its branches to speak of his connection with his disciples.

Rather, as his Jewish hearers would have readily grasped, he was making a very sober and serious claim. He meant that from now on, God’s people (like the Israel of old) were being newly reconstituted in him – since Israel was seen as God’s vine or vineyard (Ps 80:8-16; Isa 5:1-7). His disciples were going to be the new people of God, with the Holy Spirit writing on their hearts (2 Cor 3; Gal 6:16; Phil 3:3). This Spirit-empowered church, founded on Christ, is now called to continue and fulfil the redemptive purpose of God (Matt 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). As believers in Christ Jesus, this is our calling, today (1 Pet 2:9).

The second foundational reality is that the writers of the NT employed the OT texts in a wide variety of ways. While they all held that the OT (both in the original Hebrew as well as in the Greek translation) was God’s life-giving word, they proceeded to draw upon this foundational revelation in distinctive and multiform ways. Some of them directly quoted OT texts, along with an introductory formula like “it is written” (see Matt 1:22-23; 2 Cor 8:15). One count identifies 224 examples of this type of quotation. Apart from these clear citations, countless NT texts paraphrase, summarise and allude to OT passages in often unique ways. This was bound to happen when we realise that the OT was “the Bible” for the early Christians, since the NT documents had not yet been assembled.

We discern this multiform usage in the NT writers. The four Gospel writers have varying ways to connect the story of Jesus with the biblical story of Israel. For example, Mark shows that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies of salvation (1:2-3; Isa 40:3; Mal 3:1). Mark also alludes to Jewish messianic expectations, as in the voice that came from heaven at Jesus’ baptism and at his transfiguration (1:11; 9:7). These words echo or allude to texts such as Genesis 22:2, Exodus 4:22-23, Deuteronomy 18:15, Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1.

Matthew’s gospel uses the OT even more extensively yet differently. The author wants to show that Jesus fulfils not only the prophetic Scriptures but the legal requirements as well (Matt 3:15).

So he records Jesus discussing five scriptural topics in 5:21-48. Apparently, this gospel seeks to present Jesus as the new Moses, as when the resurrected Jesus stands before his disciples on the mountain and commissions them (28:16-20).

The letters of Paul also provide evidence of the rich and complex ways in which OT texts, analogies and metaphors are employed. Paul feels enabled by the Spirit to express God’s continuing and ultimate revelation in Christ and the gospel using OT categories. He quotes the OT more than a hundred times; yet there is no uniformity in his style.

Sometimes the citation is closer to the Hebrew text (as in Rom 1:17, citing Hab 2:4) and at other times it is closer to the Greek translation (as in Rom 2:24, citing Isa 52:5).

Further, there are countless allusions to OT texts in Paul. One scholar identified more than a hundred citations and allusions in Romans 9–11 alone. Again, this shows that the fundamental thinking of NT Christians was based on and was in continuity with the revelation of God in the OT. Paul’s letter to the Philippians is full of allusions to the OT, although it does not include a single explicit reference to the OT. For example, when Paul writes that “every knee should bow … and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2:9-11) he is alluding to Isaiah 45:15-25 (especially verse 23), where YHWH, Israel’s Lord and Saviour, declares his exalted status over all gods and nations. His use of Scripture reveals Paul’s exalted conception of Christ.

Paul also provides several pointers as to how we ought to see the revelation in Jesus Christ as meeting the ultimate aspirations of the law, or the first covenant. In Galatians 3:24, he used the analogy of the law as a “guardian” or “caretaker” who served an important but interim purpose “until Christ came”.

The book of Hebrews cites OT texts more extensively than any other NT document. Inspired by the Spirit, the writer creatively uses the OT for pointed Christian exhortations. For example, he builds a high-priestly Christology in Hebrews 5–7. Even the book of Revelation, which does not explicitly mention the OT Scriptures, is saturated with OT imagery and ideas. The images of the new heaven, the new earth and the new Jerusalem blend ideas and images from Isaiah (65:17; 66:22) and Ezekiel (40–48).

The whole of the OT still remains the word of God for us, even if it is not still the word of God to us. This means that most of the dietary, legal and ritual laws in the OT, which were addressed to Israel living in Canaan, do not apply in the same way to modern believers living all over the world. These laws, however, reveal God’s concern for Israel’s welfare; present-day believers will also benefit by reflecting on the reason and intention of these directives.

The rich and varied reality that confronts us when we read the OT and NT serves to highlight this central truth: The God who revealed himself in the OT as the Creator of all things and as the God of patriarchs and the prophets is the same God who has revealed himself ultimately in Christ, in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col 2:9). The writers of the NT express in their own unique ways the common conviction that the core and characteristics of the Christian gospel are foreshadowed in the multi-layered narratives, laws, poetry and prophetic writings of the OT. The careful reader of the Bible is ushered into this wonderful interplay between the testaments.

Jacob Cherian

Continue Reading

REFUGEES

South Asia is home to some five million people who have fled natural disasters, dictatorial regimes, ethnic or religious persecution and civil war. How should we as Christians respond to these people?

First, we must recognise that their situation is not a new one. The Bible abounds with stories of sojourners, wanderers, immigrants, aliens and refugees, beginning with Adam and Eve who were banished from the garden of Eden (Gen 3:22-24). It ends with John writing the book of Revelation as an exile on the island of Patmos.

The biblical story which began with displacement and migration ends in persecution and exile.

Tsunamis and floods create refugees whose position is not completely different from that of Noah and his whole family who were forced to flee to escape the great flood. Those fleeing volcanic eruptions have something in common with Lot and his family who fled from Sodom (Gen 19). When crop failures and famine force people from the countryside into the cities, they are acting like Jacob, who moved his family to Egypt to escape a great famine (Gen 46:1- 7). God had compassion on these people; why is it that we refuse to treat those displaced by natural disasters as refugees and deny them ways to resettle elsewhere?

War is another common theme in the OT, and it too creates refugees and internally displaced persons. In Sri Lanka alone, a thirtyyear war has left 400,000 people internally displaced and more than a million living as refugees outside the country.

The OT also knows the kind of political and ethnic persecution that has left thousands of Bhutanese political refugees living in Nepal.

Moses led the Israelites from Egypt to escape political oppression. Religious persecution, too, was experienced by early Christians. They fled (Acts 9:1-2; 11:19) just as thousands of Christians have fled the Indian state of Odisha and hundreds of Pakistanis have fled to Sri Lanka.

Jesus and his parents were refugees when they fled to Egypt (Matt 2:13-15). In his life, he identified with the stateless, the displaced, the marginalised, the migrant and the refugee. In his death, he died “outside the gates”, rejected by the city and the nation (Heb 13:12).

Jesus instructs us to care for strangers, offer hospitality to sojourners, feed the refugee and the displaced, and provide water to migrants crossing the desert (Matt 25:35-40). He teaches us to open our homes and churches as we clothe and provide medical care for the displaced and to visit detained asylum seekers or immigrants in prison. It was in obedience to this command that churches in Sri Lanka provided emergency relief to 400,000 internally displaced persons who were held in detention camps for ten months.

The church should not only deal with the immediate needs of the displaced but also with the issues that caused them to become refugees. We need to stand up for human rights and insist that all are created in the image of God and that all have worth and deserve dignity. The church must exercise a prophetic role, calling on national and international leaders to find a just and lasting solution to problems.

The God who cared for the refugees of the exodus is still the living God who cares for each refugee in faraway Palestine or neighbouring Pakistan. May we as the church show his character and fulfil our calling to care for the despised and forgottens.

Godfrey Yogarajah

Continue Reading

PROSPERITY THEOLOGY (from the lens of South Asian Context)

PROSPERITY THEOLOGY

(from the lens of South Asian Context)

Prabo Mihindukulasuriya

Prosperity theology is the popular yet deviant teaching that God will bestow material prosperity and physical well-being on all believer who claim them by faith. It is characterised by preaching that downplays the challenge of the cross and instead claims that every Christian is entitled to enjoy health and wealth. It presents Jesus himself as a wealthy man, while ignoring his words that he had “no place to lay his head” (Matt 8:20).

Prosperity teaching originated in North America after the Second World War when Christians sought spiritual grounds for participating in their culture’s unprecedented prosperity. It is also widespread in South Asia because it resonates with popular South Asian religiosity in which Hindus pray to gods and goddesses such as Ganesh, Lakshmi and Saraswati for blessings in business and education.

Similarly Buddhists in Sri Lanka display pictures of Arahat Sivali in the belief that this will ensure prosperity and sufficient food for their family. Godmen and women such as Sai Baba, Amma Rajarajeshwari and Osho Rajneesh are also believed to be able to dispense success.

The prosperity gospel is harmful because it misinterprets the Bible, as a closer look at some of the frequently quoted proof-texts shows. For instance, its proponents will quote 3 John 2: “Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well.” They interpret this as implying that material wealth and good health are manifestations of spiritual obedience. But the verse is not a statement of a principle but a prayer for the recipient.

Similarly, those who preach a prosperity gospel love to quote passages like Luke 6:38: “For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” They claim that those who give to their ministries are guaranteed a material reward that is proportionate to the amount they give. In this way, the preachers accumulate riches, much of which they spend on themselves and their own families, while ignoring the context of Jesus’ words, which shows that he was actually saying that God will judge us according to how we judge others. Similarly, they present Malachi 3:10-12 as a contract in which God guarantees blessing in exchange for tithing, whereas it is actually a shaming challenge to Israel’s mercenary attitude to the covenant that saw no profit in obeying God (Mal 3:14). True covenant faithfulness pledges devotion to God even in the absence of fruitfulness (Hab 3:17-18).

Prosperity teaching misrepresents God’s purposes for his children. It fails to distinguish between the foretaste of God’s abundant life we enjoy in the present and its complete bestowal at Christ’s return.

Christ explained this foretaste in terms of kinship and economic sharing when he said, “Truly I tell you … no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields – along with persecutions – and in the age to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29-30).

Prosperity teaching also misrepresents the prosperity of faithful teachers. It implies that they will be rich. But Paul told the Corinthian church that he and his fellow apostles were not prosperous but “hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless” (1 Cor 4:8-13). Rather than seeking riches, he explained, “I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learnt the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want” (Phil 4:12). Rather than enjoying superb health, he had to learn to live with “a thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7).

The OT presents sufficiency as the ideal state. Extremes of either wealth or poverty are to be rejected. That is why the author of Proverbs prays: “Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonour the name of my God” (Prov 30:8-9; see also 1 Tim 6:5-6).

In the NT, Paul states, “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little’” (2 Cor 8:13-15, quoting Exod 16:18).

Continue Reading

PRAGMATISM

The fatalism that tinges much South Asian thinking acts as a cushion in times of disaster, of which there is no lack in this region. It produces an unquestioning acceptance of suffering and deprivation.

People are resigned to their pre-ordained and unchangeable fate. Fatalism also produces another by-product – pragmatism, that is, the attitude that only what produces practical results in the here and now matters.

Pragmatism sees the right solution to an ethical dilemma as whatever produces the desired result. It argues that the end justifies the means. Thus a farmer who needs water for his crop may simply break a water-supply pipe in order to flood his field. But this is not a long-term solution to his water problem, and it harms the community as a whole. Similarly, the queue jumping and bribery for which South Asians are famous are pragmatic responses to the competition for scarce resources in the region. But these short-term solutions perpetuate corruption, indiscipline and a lack of consideration for the community. The short-term focus of pragmatism may lead to long-term harm.

The Bible contains many examples of people making pragmatic decisions that lead to long-term harm. The kings of Israel made pragmatic decisions to ally themselves with other nations rather than relying on God’s protection. David, however, refused to go the pragmatic route when he refused to kill Saul in order to take his crown (1 Sam 24:1-15).

Pragmatism has no concept of doing something simply because it is objectively right or because God has commanded us to do it. From a pragmatist’s perspective, the most important element in religious beliefs is that they produce peace and prosperity for me and my family. Unfortunately, some Christians pander to this attitude by preaching a gospel of prosperity while ignoring what the Bible has to say about suffering and our responsibility to God and to others.

But pragmatism is not always bad. God expects us to be concerned about the consequences of our actions. He gives us wisdom and understanding and expects us to use them. Paul twice took pragmatic action to escape assassins (Acts 9:24-25; 23:12-33). Rahab took pragmatic action when she hid Joshua’s spies in her house and was rewarded with her life and by being included in the genealogy of Jesus (Josh 2:1-21; Matt 1:5).

What determines whether a pragmatic act is right or wrong is whether it can be done while living in obedience to God and to his command to love others. Christians need to hold in tandem the need to be pragmatic and the need to walk in faith and obedience. The call to a life of faith may involve decisions that lead to suffering and denial. That is the path Jesus himself trod, and we are to follow him.

The type of pragmatism Christians should display is one that considers long-term results, harmoniously blends faith with personal responsibility, and is rooted in God, who is himself the ultimate reality and objective truth.

Ellen Alexander

Continue Reading

POVERTY AND WEALTH

South Asia is home to millionaires as well as to the largest concentration of the world’s poor. Some 74 per cent of our neighbour (more than a billion people) live on less than two dollars a day.

Recent economic growth has, however, given rise to an urban middle class who may be able to use their education and socio-economic independence to fight corruption, demand more responsible government and create businesses that draw more people out of poverty. But this is not the only possible outcome. Frustration with corruption, inequality and the political system may result in educated young South Asians emigrating or investing their money abroad. If they choose to focus solely on improving the circumstances of their own families, the gap between rich and poor will widen. It is thus important that Christian communities across South Asia take time to reflect on the Bible’s teaching on poverty and wealth and apply it in the political and economic spheres as well as in their daily lives.

In Genesis, the story of creation reveals that God provided abundantly for all human and animal life and created the natural resources that would support human industry and trade (Gen 1:29-30; 2:11-13). But since the fall, we have tended to idolise wealth (Prov 18:10-11; Eccl 5:10; Matt 6:24; Col 3:5). Resources have become concentrated in the hands of the elite, while the majority remain impoverished (Isa 5:8; Mic 2:2; Jas 5:1-6). We have succumbed to the sins of greed, jealousy and indifference to the needs of others.

God wanted his people to model broad-based economic equality and thus he instituted laws that provided for the poor as well as for restoring capital assets and preventing exploitative acquisition (Num 26:53-56; Deut 15:1-14; 24:10-21). His blessing on a nation was interpreted as meaning that everyone would sit “under their own vine and under their own fig tree” (1 Kgs 4:25; Mic 4:4). This surprisingly modest economic goal focuses on security, independence and sufficiency.

Extremes of either wealth or poverty are rejected in the OT (Prov 30:8-9). In the NT, Paul takes a similar stance (2 Cor 8:13-15, quoting Exod 16:18). He does not define equality as meaning that everyone has exactly the same standard of living, but as meaning that everyone enjoys a standard of living that is compatible with human dignity.

The book of Proverbs presents values that should be taught at home regarding the right attitude to wealth and poverty (Prov 3:9-10; 11:24-26; 12:9), how we should relate to rich and poor (Prov 3:27; 14:21) and the management of family wealth (Prov 13:11; 24:27; 27:18, 23-27). Hard work and enterprise are encouraged (Prov 10:4-5; 21:5; 28:19-20).

These biblical teachings resonate with some South Asian values. But whereas in South Asia, these are applied within the extended family, the NT pattern of economic sharing looks beyond the family and kinship group to the needy of the local and global community.

Christ’s sympathy for the poor should be our model. His incarnation is described as enriching the poor: “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9). In the church, the traditional Israelite kinship structure was enlarged to embrace economic sharing with fellow believers (Acts 2:44; Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13; Gal 6:10; 1 Tim 6:18). A new concept of hospitality arose, rooted in the understanding that our “household” was now the inclusive community of Christ (Rom 12:13; Eph 2:19; Heb 3:6; 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9).

Believers today need to think deeply about the ethical challenges posed by wealth and poverty. How should we respond to the problem of debt to money-lenders and credit card companies? Is it good stewardship of the resources God has given us to borrow money in order to maintain our social status by indulging in lavish celebrations?

Are we striving for larger incomes so that we can fulfil our family duties, or are we defining our “respectability” by what we earn? Do we recognise the pressures of the never-ending consumerism that defines our worth by what and how much we buy? These are questions we need to ponder. The answers are not always easy. We would be wise to heed Paul’s wise counsel in 1 Timothy 6:5-18 as we traverse this ethical maze.

Prabo Mihindukulasuriya

Continue Reading

PLURALISM

There is a difference between plurality and pluralism. Plurality is the reality that all of us in South Asia experience as we live in a contextm of tremendous cultural and religious diversity. It presents us with the challenge of how to live out our faith in such a context (see the article “Living with People of Other Faiths”).

Pluralism, in contrast, denies the reality of religious diversity. It says that no religion can claim to be superior to any other, for all religions are historical and cultural responses to the one divine reality.

Diversity of religious experience and expression must thus be celebrated as something good and healthy, and salvation (or enlightenment or liberation) acknowledged as present in every religion.

Pluralism raises crucial questions for Christians, for the Christian gospel maintains that all humans are sinners in need of redemption by God’s grace and that God desires to save people of every race, culture and religion. It also asserts that God’s salvation comes to us through a particular person, Jesus Christ, who is the decisive self-disclosure of God and who took upon himself the sins of the world. Christians insist that it is only by faith in Jesus Christ that human beings can be restored to right relationship with God.

Pluralism totally rejects the central Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the ultimate self-disclosure of the eternal God. This claim is regarded as arrogant and as an obstacle to the inter-religious harmony so essential to world peace. Pluralists say that while Christians can hold that Jesus is unique and normative for Christian believers, they cannot claim that he is unique or normative in a universal sense. He may be the Saviour for Christians, but he is not the only Saviour of humankind. Pluralists want Christians to abandon any great claims for Jesus and see him simply as one of many great human religious leaders.

It follows that pluralists also reject the historic Christian claim that the Bible contains special divine revelation. It demands that the scriptures of other faiths be accepted as possessing the same authority as the Bible, since they also contain divine revelation. Christianity, on the other hand, maintains that while the biblical doctrine of general revelation (Acts 14:15-17; Rom 1:18-20; 2:12-16) provides a basis for acknowledging the presence of truth in other religions, these religions cannot offer salvation.

Pluralism, however, views different religions as merely different paths leading to the same ultimate goal. The different religious traditions are seen as describing different contexts within which men and women experience essentially the same salvation or liberation.

However, in reality the salvation from sin that Christ offers is quite different from the concept of salvation or liberation in other religions. So it cannot be said that all religions are aiming for the same goal.

Pluralism is a relatively new trend and hence has little historical support. The most serious weakness of the pluralist position is the fact that it is logically inconsistent. It denies religions the right to make strong claims, but is happy to make dogmatic claims for itself.

Meaningful engagement with the issue of pluralism is of critical importance and will directly impact the future of Christianity and mission in South Asia.

Ivan Satyavrata

Continue Reading