GUILT AND SHAME

GUILT AND SHAME

Every human being knows what it means to feel guilt and shame because we have all fallen short of some standard, whether deliberately or through force of circumstances. Because we often experience guilt and shame at the same time, these states are sometimes spoken of as if they are the same thing. But they are not.

Guilt has two aspects. The first is the objective state of having disobeyed a law, commandment or accepted code of behaviour. The second is the subjective emotion of disgust at what one has done. Guilt arouses feelings of regret, anxiety and fear of punishment until the offence is dealt with, often by repentance, confession and seeking forgiveness. It is worth noting that moral guilt is not the same as legal guilt. Someone who betrays a friend, for example, is morally guilty but may be legally innocent.

Shame, by contrast, involves an intense sense of personal worthlessness or insufficiency because one has been disgraced or lost one’s reputation, or simply because of the social status (or caste) of one’s family or community. It can be very hard to deal with shame because, unlike guilt, it is seldom associated with one specific wrong act. It is more like a cloud that surrounds one. Shame is also contagious, for its stigma spreads to the shamed individual’s family and community. The self-contempt associated with shame can lead to a loss of identity as well as depression, withdrawal, helplessness and hopelessness. In South Asia, shame is often felt far more intensely than guilt.

Some psychologists regard guilt and shame as purely cultural constructs, but Christians understand them as real moral issues reflecting human experience. In Genesis, Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame only after they ate the forbidden fruit. That was when they realised that they were naked and hid from God (Gen 3:1-10). Since then, all men and women have experienced guilt. All of us have sinned by breaking the divine pattern for human life (Rom 3:23; see also Jas 2:10). Not feeling guilty and ashamed after committing an offence is destructive to oneself, to others and to the environment.

Recognising that we have done wrong is the first step towards repentance and reparation. Forgiveness is available through the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who took our guilt and shame on himself when he died on the cross (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 12:2).

Sometimes shame is unfairly imposed by others. For example, a woman who is raped may be shamed even though she did nothing wrong. In parts of South Asia, honour killings reflect the belief that an individual should be punished if their actions can in any way be considered to bring shame on the community. This attitude is summed up in the statement that the three fundamentals of some cultures are shame, honour and revenge.

Christians should follow Jesus’ example in not condemning those who have been shamed (John 8:2-11). Instead, such people should be encouraged to recognise their worth in God’s eyes. Christ transformed the cross, a symbol of shame, into a symbol of glory. In the same way, those who endure undeserved shame today should be encouraged to transform their experience by liberating themselves and others from shame. Witnessing for Christ in a group, acknowledging the guilt and shame and how Jesus has transformed them, is one way in which this can be done. Those who do this are following in Christ’s footsteps by not being afraid to challenge harmful social customs (Matt 4:1–11).

The church in South Asia needs to preach that Jesus not only bore our sins; he also bore our shame as he “endured the cross, scorning its shame” (Heb 12:2). Christ was not only “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities”; he also “took up our pain and bore our suffering” (Isa 53:4-5). We need to demonstrate that the power of the word of God and the cross can erase the shame that penetrates a community and restore its reputation. We should also be involved practically in reaching out to the shamed by offering encouragement, fellowship and counselling.

Asangla Lemtur

Continue Reading

GOD AMONG OTHER GODS

GOD AMONG OTHER GODS

“I am the LORD [Yahweh] your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:2-3). “For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’), yet for us there is but one God … and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” (1 Cor 8:5-6).

These two affirmations sum up the faith of the covenant people of God. The OT tells the story of the Creator of the world, whose character and purposes are revealed through the calling of ancient Israel. This God, known by his covenant name Yahweh (or “I am”) (Exod 3:14), is no tribal deity but the unrivalled lord of all nations and is active in the histories of all peoples (see, for example, Amos 9:7).

Israel was to bear witness to Yahweh’s unique character and purposes by worshipping him alone. This worship involved seeking justice for the weak, the vulnerable and the defenceless and rejecting the oppressive political and economic structures of Israel’s neighbours.

However, Israel constantly betrayed its calling by imitating the practices of its neighbours. Ahab established Baal worship as a national religion (1 Kgs 16:29-32). Ahaz and Manasseh practised human sacrifice in imitation of the worshippers of Molek (2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:34-35). Idolatry was widespread in Jeremiah’s time (Jer 2:28) and the people of Judah burnt incense to the “queen of heaven” in the belief that it would secure prosperity and protect them from foreign invasion (Jer 44:15-19).

While the gods of their neighbours and the great empires of the day (Egypt, Assyria and Babylon) were identified with powerful men like kings, warriors and priests, the God of Israel identified himself with the widow, the orphan and the foreigner (Deut 10:18). Thus, when the people of Israel turned their backs on Yahweh, or worshipped Yahweh as if he were a fertility god like the Canaanite Baal, they also turned their backs on the poor. Idolatry and social injustice are two sides of the same coin.

Idol worship involves a contractual approach to the deity: In return for the appropriate sacrifices, the deity is expected to give health, prosperity, military victory and protection from evil forces.

Such worship is thus about finding the right technique to obtain the end desired. True Christian worship, on the other hand, is our response of gratitude and praise to God’s covenant faithfulness.

We all come to resemble what we worship. The problem with idol worship is that it offers the work of human hands or an aspect of creation the worship that is meant to be given to the creator alone.

When what is meant to be a servant is treated as a master, it quickly becomes a tyrant. The worship of that which is inferior to us ultimately dehumanises us, leading us to see ourselves and others as objects rather than persons.

The biblical prophets unmasked the idols of their time for what they were – false gods. The impotence of the false gods was proclaimed by the prophets through a rich language of mockery and satire (Isa 41:5-7; 44:6-20; 46:1-7; Jer 10:14-15; 51:17-18). The prophets also taunted the arrogance of nations and cities that imagined themselves to be immortal “gods” (Ezek 28; Zeph 2:11-15; Rev 18).

It is worth noting that the patriarchs, including Abraham, worshipped El, the high god of Mesopotamia and the land of Canaan.

It is from El that they received promises and commands directly, without the intervention of prophets. The patriarchs responded to El by building altars and offering sacrifices, as well as in obedience and trust. The writer of Genesis retains the name El in the dialogue sections of the book, but in the narrative sections he uses the name Yahweh. He recognises that it was Yahweh who had addressed the patriarchs as El and entered into relationship with them (Exod 6:3).

The fact that God is referred to as El in Genesis does not mean that the biblical writers accepted the mythology that went with El, who was part of a pantheon of gods. God’s calling of Abraham into a personal relationship was an act of grace, a divine initiative. God accommodated his self-disclosure to fit the religious framework of the patriarchs, including the religious rituals, customs and divine titles of their culture. His goal was to better prepare them for an experience of his liberating acts and a deeper and fuller revelation of his character and purposes. This experience would in the course of time take the patriarchs of Israel beyond their ancestral religious framework. In the Sinai wilderness, on the threshold of the Israelites’ entry into the land of Canaan, Joshua challenged the people to get rid of all other gods and serve Yahweh alone in accordance with the covenant (Josh 24:14- 17). These “other gods” Joshua cited included “the gods your ancestors worshipped beyond the River Euphrates” (that is, in Mesopotamia).

It is the use of various names for God that enables us to affirm that the pre-incarnate Word of God has been addressing men and women of cultures other than Israel’s. He has been working with them under forms and names that Christians may find strange and even unattractive (John 1:1-3, 9; Heb 1:1). That, surely, is the selfhumbling accommodation of God to our sinful humanity. But this fact, far from removing the need to proclaim the good news of the crucified and risen Christ to all cultures, actually compels it. For if Christ has been speaking to human beings in their sin, his goal is to lead them out of what Paul calls (speaking to the learned citizens of Athens) their “past … ignorance” (Acts 17:30) so that they may understand and experience the freedom that Christ won for them through the cross.

Also instructive for Christians today is the biblical story of Jonah, which is best read as a prophetic satire on Israel’s complacency and self-idolatry. Jonah is the least attractive of the characters in the story.

“I am a Hebrew”, he declares to the pagan sailors, “and I worship the LORD, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land” (Jonah 1:9). Yet he is blind to the contradiction between this grand profession of faith and his godless behaviour. The pagan sailors and the people of Nineveh show greater fear of Yahweh than Yahweh’s prophet does! They are the exemplary worshippers in the book, not Jonah. Yet it is to the latter that Yahweh has entrusted his message to the nations.

Thus, idolatry is not found exclusively in what we call “non- Christian religions”. There are similarities between the Hindu pantheon and the gods of Mesopotamia and Canaan. But the same idolatrous tendency is also pervasive in the “health and wealth” cults in many churches. Jesus repeatedly warned his disciples against the allure of wealth, which he personified as a rival god, Mammon. The most powerful idols are not physical objects but mental concepts, including concepts of God. When church worship is evaluated by “how it makes me feel”, rather than how we are transformed to offer Christ-like service to the world, it becomes idolatrous.

Christian witness should unmask the false gods of our nations. Nationality, religion and ethnicity are human concepts. When we forget this, we give them a power over us that they do not otherwise possess and we may find ourselves engaging in actions (such as discrimination, mass killings) we would not normally do. The pursuit of nuclear weapons and high-tech status symbols reflects the idolatry of both technology and nationalism.

Idolatry is also reflected in the elevation of business tycoons, film stars and cricketers to the status of demigods. Very little of the huge sums of money lavished on Bollywood movies or cricket filters down to develop infrastructure or improve the lives of the poor majority. As market forces increasingly encroach on every aspect of human life, human beings are reduced to “consumers”, human behaviour to “selfinterest”, and the worth of every human endeavour to “costeffectiveness”.

In challenging such idolatrous tendencies in our modern world the biblical language of demonology becomes relevant. Demons may be invisible, sentient beings or the spiritual ethos of twisted social and political structures. These malignant powers can “possess” both individuals and entire societies. When human beings give to any aspect of God’s creation (for example, sexuality or family) or to the works of their hands (science, the nation-state, market forces) the worship that is due to the Creator alone, they call up invisible forces that eventually dominate them. Having surrendered our hearts, individually and collectively, to idols, we become enslaved by demons. Such demons always demand human sacrifices. Thus, idolatry leads to the sacrifice of the weak and apparently “useless” members of society (foetuses, the landless, the unemployable, the infirm or the mentally challenged). It also leads to the destruction of the earth’s ecosystems, and the abdication of all responsibility for nonhuman creation.

We can never get away from the creation of idols and ideologies, for the human spirit hungers for meaning to life and does not find fulfilment in the merely material. Those who worship false gods in order to secure power (religious or secular) live in a constant climate of suspicion, insecurity and fear. The only effective antidote to fear is a vision of the One, who having all power at his command, humbled himself, embracing the role of a lowly servant to unmask and dethrone the powers that ravaged his world.

Vinoth Ramachandra

Continue Reading

GLOBALISATION

GLOBALISATION

Globalisation arouses strong emotions. The word refers to the ongoing process of economic, social, cultural and political integration across the globe. Diverse regions, countries, societies and cultures are being drawn together in an unprecedented way, giving rise to a new form of culture that knows no boundaries and is spreading globally through multi-directional interconnectedness.

Some people associate globalisation with global connectivity. News of a terrorist attack, an earthquake or a calamity in one corner of the world is immediately broadcast all over the world. Music, fashion and sensational news items reach us whether we are in Bangalore, New York or London.

For others, globalisation is associated more with the emergence of a new global economic order based on free trade. Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan goods are now available in the USA, and India is able to spread its IT influence worldwide. However, this economic globalisation has brought drastic changes in production and distribution processes all over the world and has disrupted the lives of many workers.

The rise of international commerce has also gone hand in hand with increasing consumerism, which has led to increasing exploitation of the world’s resources and increasing pollution and environmental devastation. All these forces have, in turn, contributed to the climate change that threatens human, plant and animal life around the world.

Whether we like it or not, globalisation is here to stay. The rise of advanced information and communications and social networks has shrunk the world into a large neighbourhood. We are all interconnected and our lives affect each other.

How should Christians respond to globalisation? A good starting point for our response is to recognise that globalisation has been in the heart of God ever since the beginning of creation! We believe in a God, who according to the Apostles’ Creed is “Creator of heaven and earth”. Paul writes “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth ... all things have been created through him and for him ... in him all things hold together.” And through him God planned “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Col 1:16-20). So even God’s redemptive plans through Jesus Christ have global dimensions.

The church too must have a global vision. The Bible says, “The eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good” (Prov 15:3). When Jesus commanded his disciples to “go and make disciples of all nations” he was reminding them of this vision. Our concern should not merely be for our immediate location; we should be working to bring in God’s kingdom around the world.

Globalisation is good to the extent that it makes us aware of the rest of the world. The communication tools that contribute to the spread of globalisation can also be used to spread the gospel.

However, not everything about globalisation is good. Although globalisation has benefitted developing countries by lifting their economies through interaction with richer nations, these benefits are not well distributed. The rich (both individuals and nations) are becoming more and more powerful, while the livelihoods of the poorest communities are at risk.

There is also deep concern about the effects of globalisation on culture. The media are playing a major role in spreading superficial forms of mainly Western culture in a process that is sometimes referred to as the “McDonaldisation” of culture. When local or indigenous cultural values come into conflict with the powerful global forces, the results can be damaging. Thus the rise of the “global village” also fuels increasing tension between the emerging global system and the traditional forces of culture and community.

The culture and traditions of a community have always been passed on through its education system, whether formal or informal.

But education too is changing as knowledge spreads more widely. The increased ease of access to information has enabled Western institutions to extend their influence all over the world. On-line learning means that students in India can take courses from Oxford and students in China can take courses from Harvard. One can understand the eagerness with which students embrace what is taught by these iconic Western institutions. But what the students may not note is that much of what is taught in such courses is slanted to meeting the economic demands of the West. There is little sensitivity to local contexts.

The shortcomings of globalised education have been pointed out by anti-capitalistic and anti-globalisation groups. Education, they say, is being commercialised, privatised and capitalised. The traditional foundations rooted in social, cultural and religious studies, fine arts and other humane activities are now being ignored, and all that is offered in their place are the demands of the market. Education is the foundation for development, and if commercial value replaces lifebuilding values humanity faces a major crisis.

Yet despite this criticism, globalisation is proving to be a mutually enriching process overall, opening the world to experiences that are bringing humanity together as never before. The interaction of cultures, lifestyles, beliefs and values is making people far more open to international integration and is reducing fragmentation. Moreover, when ideas get to their new destination, they are often not imbibed whole but are adapted to fit the local situation. Thus rather than eliminating cultural differences, globalisation can accommodate localisation.

As countries begin to enjoy independence with their economic growth, globalisation reminds us of our interdependence. This is in a way a parallel to the biblical teaching of the church as the body of Christ worldwide. We depend on each other spiritually, socially, economically and in many other ways. Globalisation has brought us close to each other as the community of God’s people living in God’s created world.

Provided we put in adequate controls to moderate the adverse impacts of globalisation, the process could be beneficial to the church in God’s world.

Ken Gnanakan

Continue Reading

GENERATION NEXT

GENERATION NEXT

South Asia is a young region. In many areas, close to 50 per cent of the population is under the age of twenty-five. Yet in many respects our churches are oriented to the older generation. Moreover, when ministering to the young, the main concern of the churches seems to be to keep the flock within the fold. This traditional outlook of the church tends to prevent young people from being themselves and making an impact on the generation to which they belong. There is an urgent need for positive action to steer an entire generation in the right direction.

Before action can be taken, we need to understand the patterns of thinking that affect the members of Generation Next (Gen Next) in South Asia today. One is that they seek ideals that will lead them to freedom. This longing has led to large-scale conversions to Christianity in Nepal. It has also affected politics and national affairs, where this generation pushes hard for social transformation and development. The effects can be seen in the anti-corruption wave in India, Muslim unrest in Bangladesh, and the increased fear and anxiety in authoritarian political climates.

The restlessness of Gen Next finds outlet in large-scale migration as they seek greener pastures for education and employment. They use technology, the Internet and social networking applications to connect with people in new and distinctive ways. The “connected generation” makes links across the classes and castes that divided the older generation. Gen Next is more comfortable with globalisation and new ways of doing work as seen in the IT and call centre boom, where they are willing to work late and work smart.

In urban contexts, many in Gen Next seek acceptance with the crowd by changing their appearance, whether by colouring their hair or having a tattoo or a body piercing. Thanks to the media, these practices are also spreading to small towns and villages.

When it comes to religion, Gen Nexters are in a dilemma. Many claim they have no religious affiliation and prefer to consider themselves atheist or agnostic. Yet, at the same time, they express a strong desire for some kind of spiritual high or experience, although not necessarily one that involves closeness to God. For many of them the ultimate goal is success, which is interpreted as finding the quick road to fame, fortune, fast cars and materialistic pleasure. Many will say that getting rich is either the most important or second most important goal in their lives.

Sadly, it can be said that the poor example of some who call themselves Christians has contributed to this confusion about religion. Some of us value respectability and power over humility and righteousness and have bought into a consumerist culture that loves things more than people. So we have stressed money and professionalism instead of human affection and have valued talent and skills over God’s anointing and simplicity. We have suggested that transformation involves therapy rather than true repentance. All of this means that when Gen Nexters look at the church, they see people who want to make God in their image, rather than be conformed to his image. No wonder they seek a mere “spiritual high” rather than God.

How should the church respond to the challenges posed by Gen Next?

First, we need to recognise the problem! Secondly, we need to set about finding creative ways to deal with the challenges and to balance our local culture with the global one that the Gen Nexters are used to.

Thirdly, we need to create new communication strategies – just as the church has had to do in every generation – in order to communicate the gospel and make disciples for the Lord Jesus Christ. Fourthly, we need to recognise that this will involve interaction with the world in which Gen Nexters live. We must dialogue with young people, interact with their culture, raise questions and help them to find answers to the issues they face, not least in relation to sexual immorality, stress, crime, violence and delinquency.

In conclusion, a word of encouragement: This task is not impossible. This dialogue can be conducted by ordinary church members, families who will open their homes and caring pastors who will seek to nurture and feed the flock. But there is also a need to train these people specifically for this special ministry.

Jacob G. Isaac

Continue Reading

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

What should we as Christians do and say when we encounter a couple who are seeking to end their marriage, whether for heartbreaking or frivolous reasons? How should we counsel them?

Before we can even begin to answer this question, we need to understand God’s intention for marriage. It was that marriage should be monogamous and lifelong. This is clear from Jesus’ response to the Pharisee who asked him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife (Mark 10:2-12). In his response, he reminded them of the original plan and purpose of God’s creation. First, he quoted Genesis 1:27 to the effect that God created people as “male and female” and brought them together. The Jews interpreted this verse as proof that in the beginning, when God had made everything perfect, marriage was monogamous. Although the verse does not explicitly mention marriage, it is followed in the next verse by the command to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen 1:28), which implies a sexual relationship. Jewish rabbis linked Genesis 1:27 with God’s saving one male and one female of each species in the ark (Gen 7:9) as further evidence for monogamous marriage.

Jesus then quoted Genesis 2:24 to make the further point that marriage should be lifelong. A man and woman who become one flesh are joined, and thus Jesus says, “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Mark 10:9). The word “separate” is a standard term meaning “to divorce”. The mention of separation implies that such a thing is possible, but Jesus is clear that couples should keep their marriage vows and not break up the marriage in which God has joined them. To separate is to oppose God’s action in joining them.

Thus our first step when we meet a couple who are encountering marriage problems is to provide counselling and work for reconciliation. Acceding to divorce should never be our first option.

In the parallel passage in Matthew 19:3-11, Jesus’ hearers reject his command by asking, “Why then … did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (Matt 19:7, citing Deut 24:1). Jesus responded by saying that Moses’ giving permission for divorce was a concession to the hardness and sinfulness of human hearts. Sometimes we are in a situation where all the options open to us are evil, and in that case our goal should be to limit harm. But that does not mean that God approves of divorce.

Although it may be necessary, it is still sinful.

Some would argue that Jesus’ reference to “immorality” in Matthew 19:9 implies that adultery automatically justifies divorce.

But this is not what Jesus is saying. A marriage can continue despite adultery, but divorce may be allowable if there is a stubborn refusal to repent of the adultery and turn from it.

Another reason that is sometimes given as grounds for divorce is infertility. But Jesus’ words about eunuchs in Matthew 19:12 clearly indicate that we are not obliged to marry and have offspring. A lack of offspring does not constitute grounds for breaking the covenant of marriage.

What then about remarriage after divorce (Matt 19:9)? Is this always adulterous? In answering this question, we need to remember the type of divorce referred to by those who were debating with Jesus.

They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Matt 19:3). These reasons could be frivolous, and a divorce for frivolous reasons is clearly not covered by Moses’ exemption. Such a divorce is invalid, and so remarriage after such a divorce is adulterous.

But must someone who has had to endure a divorce remain alone for the rest of their life? Here, again, we have to look at what Jesus said. While he made it clear that God intended marriage to be monogamous and lifelong, he also stated that God was aware of human sinfulness, and in his mercy and grace he permitted divorce as a concession. But his mercy and grace do not end at that point.

Remarriage is not God’s ideal, for he did not want there to be any divorce in the first place. But in allowing divorce, he also allows remarriage. Remarriage is a second chance that God gives out of his mercy and grace. We deserve to be punished for breaking his commands, but he shows mercy; we do not deserve a second chance, but God gives us one. However, just because mercy and grace abound, we should not take divorce and remarriage lightly. Divorce should not be pursued for frivolous reasons but should be seen as the last option after every effort has been made to save the marriage.

Remarriage also should not be entered upon rashly, but with reverence and discretion and in the love which is the gift of God himself. What is the role of the church in all this? The church does not have the right to grant a divorce; that is a matter for the courts. However, when a divorced person asks for a Christian marriage, how should we respond?

First, we should ask to examine the divorce papers to be certain that the marriage has indeed broken down and that divorce has legally taken place. Some people have sought marriage without yet being legally divorced from their spouse. If we are satisfied that the divorce is indeed final and that the grounds for divorce were adequate, we may proceed to marry a divorced person. However, some suggest that such a couple should be required to take part in a service of repentance for the broken promises made in the past. The service could take place some days before the second wedding. David Instone-Brewer suggests that the following prayer would be appropriate for such a service:

Heavenly Father, you have cared for me from my birth, and you have promised to love me unconditionally; I come to you in repentance. I confess that I have made promises to you and to others which I have not kept. I have promised to love and care for others, and I have not fulfilled this as I should. Please forgive me for my sin, and give comfort to those whom I have let down and hurt. I ask you for strength for the future, to be able to keep the promises which I will make. Amen.

Paul Swarup

Continue Reading

DISCIPLESHIP AND NURTURE

DISCIPLESHIP AND NURTURE

South Asians are familiar with the concept of a guru (teacher) training a shishya (disciple). Students are brought to the teacher by their parents and live with him (or her, in some cases) for many years. They follow their teacher wherever he goes and they learn by respectfully watching his life and listening to him teach. When they ask questions, he may answer them or challenge them with a counter-question. He may expect them to do research or meditate to find the answers.

Eventually, the guru will decide that the time has come for a student to “graduate”.

The guru–shishya relationship is similar to the relationship between Samuel and Eli in the Bible. It is also similar to Jesus’ relationship with his disciples. He was the ultimate guru, who created an environment in which he could teach deep truths about God and this world. Both the hearts and minds of his followers were transformed.

Transformation is also the goal of Christian nurture. This is a lifelong process in which God gives those who follow Christ knowledge and wisdom as he shapes us into people who will reflect his character and be a good influence in our communities. Our Great Guru is Jesus Christ, who perfectly reflects the image of God. He trains us through formal and informal experiences and the various ministries of the church. The discipline of following him requires us to walk with him day by day, guided by his word, so that our lives become increasingly Christ-like.

Just as shishyas submit to their gurus, so Christians must submit to the teachings of our Lord. But this is not a forced obedience. Rather, it is a loving response to his love for us and his giving himself for us on the cross. He shed his precious blood to redeem us and to free us from bondage to sin.

Discipleship can be costly. It may involve suffering and persecution, for God has called us to make disciples of all nations. We do this by proclaiming the gospel, sometimes in innovative ways, and by living with a wise and loving integrity that attracts others to Christ.

Our love, compassion, forgiveness and sacrificial service should draw them to him. So should the power of the resurrected Lord working in us, as evidenced by the gifts the Holy Spirit gives to the church. Many have come to Christ because they have experienced healing in their lives and have received a peace they have long been searching for.

New believers need to be individually nurtured by teachers and mentors within the church who help them mature according to God’s plan. Then they will become disciples who make other disciples, which is the only way that we can fulfil Jesus’ commission to make disciples of all nations.

Flourishing Tree of Discipleship - Strong Roots and Growth in Faith

Because individuals are at different stages of the maturing process, the church needs to use various strategies to nurture them.

We also need to pay particular attention to nurturing our children and young people, since they are the future of the church. We should appreciate their intellectual, psychological and social needs as they grow towards adulthood. In our homes and in the church, we must demonstrate that local and global concerns can be integrated in our understanding and living out of Christian values.

Our ministries of preaching, teaching and healing should equip disciples so that they

• grow in knowledge of and love for God (Phil 1:9-11).

• acknowledge God as the one who gives life and growth and obey him without expecting any earthly rewards (1 Cor 3:7).

• can distinguish good from evil, and take a stand for goodness and honesty, which will bring peace in the community (Heb 5:14).

• live lives that impact other lives for good (2 Tim 2:2).

Our goal must be to see the body of Christ, the church, grow to maturity and build itself up in love (Eph 4:14-16; Col 1:28).

Continue Reading

DEATH AND LIFE AFTER DEATH

DEATH AND LIFE AFTER DEATH

Our neighbours of other faiths often arrange costly funeral rituals and give alms to increase the merit of someone who has died. In comparison, Christian funeral rites may look austere and give the impression that Christians dishonour their dead.

This is not true. The funerals described in the Bible include elaborate rituals much like those in South Asian culture. The body was washed and anointed with perfume (John 19:39-40; Acts 9:37); there was mourning and weeping (Gen 23:2; 50:1; 2 Sam 18:33-19:4; John 11:33-35); laments were composed (2 Chr 35:25); and the dead person’s virtues were recited (Acts 9:39). Family burial plots were considered significant (Gen 23:29; 25:9; 49:31; 50:13, 25).

The differences that exist between Christian funerals and other funerals are rooted in the Christian view of death, which for believers is seen as opening the door to a blessed life. The sting of death has been taken away through the death and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:51-58).

Like all religions, Christianity addresses the issue of facing the consequences of one’s actions after death (Gal 6:7). The Bible and the Qur’an explain this in terms of judgement following a single earthly life for each individual (Heb 9:27). Both speak of two possible destinies: heaven and hell. In the Bible, while one’s works are a criterion for judgement (Eccl 12:14; Matt 25:31-46), the main determining factor is one’s response to the work of Christ (John 3:36).

The Qur’an puts the emphasis on both God’s mercy and one’s works (Sura 23:104-5).

Other South Asian religions – like Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism – see the consequences of one’s actions being worked out through karma and reincarnation (or rebirth in orthodox Buddhism), whereby one’s spirit (or the net effect of one’s karma in orthodox Buddhism) takes on a new body in a new life. The quality of this new life is determined by one’s behaviour in previous lives. The only hope that such religions hold out is that after a seemingly endless cycle of reincarnations/rebirths one may finally achieve a state in which all desire that causes suffering and frustration is extinguished. Liberated from the cycle of rebirth and attachment to the material world, the spirit will then be absorbed into the divine (Brahman). Buddhists differ on whether this is a state of extinction (Theravada Buddhism) or somewhat heaven-like (Mahayana Buddhism).

Many prefer the idea of an endless cycle of reincarnation/ rebirth to the Christian concept of salvation through grace. They want to be responsible for their own destiny – the same desire that lay behind the basic sin that brought death to humans (Gen 3). But the Bible teaches that we cannot save ourselves and have no grounds for boasting (Eph 2:8-9).

Christians are promised eternal life, which is essentially a personal relationship with God (John 17:3) that begins on earth and is consummated after death (John 5:24; 17:3; Phil 1:21-23; 1 Thess 4:17). This afterlife will be one of rich blessings (Rom 8:24) in a new heaven and a new earth that have many of the same features as the present earth but are untainted by sin. This final state will arrive after the second coming of Christ (Rev 21–22). We will retain our identity after death, recognise others and know that we are experiencing the consequences of our life on earth (Luke 16:22-25). This seems fairer than having to suffer repeatedly for behaviour in past lives that one cannot even remember.

The Bible is not totally clear about the details of the new heaven and the new earth or the sequence of events before they arrive. Thus there are differences of opinion on matters such as the intermediate state between death and the resurrection and the final judgement. But the Bible is clear on the matter of people’s eternal destinies. Those who reject God have to face his wrath (Rom 2:8; Eph 5:6; 1 Thess 2:16). They will be consigned to hell (Matt 5:29-30; Rev. 20:15; 21:8), which is a place of torment (Luke 16:23, 28; Rev 14:9-11). The Bible speaks of degrees of punishment in the afterlife (Matt 11:20-24; Luke 12:47-48; Heb 10:26-29), but gives no details about this. However, Jesus asserts that there is no moving out of hell once one is there (Luke 16:26).

The prospect of future judgement is presented in the Bible as an incentive to discipleship (Mark 8:31-38), to holiness (Mark 9:43-48) and to involvement in mission (Matt 10:28).

Continue Reading

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was a providential accident. It happened in 1947 when three Bedouin shepherds were grazing their goats near Qumran on the north-west shore of the Dead Sea. While searching for a goat, one of them noticed two openings on the face of the cliff. He threw a rock into one of them and heard the sound of breaking pottery. He was excited at having found what he thought were some treasure jars.

Two days later, his younger cousin woke up early and entered the cave. He found pieces of broken pottery and a lot of jars along the wall, some with their lids on. Inside the jars was something wrapped in cloth and two bundles of leather. He was deeply disappointed at the lack of treasure. Little did he know that he had found a great treasure– the oldest complete copy of the book of Isaiah, an ancient commentary on the book of Habakkuk, and an account of the rules governing the religious community from which these scrolls came.

The shepherds crammed these and other rolls of leather from the cave into their bags and hung them on a tent pole until they could find some antique dealer who might be interested in old scrolls.

When archaeologists eventually learnt of the existence of what came to be known as the Dead Sea scrolls, they set out to explore the caves. Between 1947 and 1956 eleven caves were found to have manuscript material. In all, fragments or large sections of over 850 manuscripts dating from between 250 BC and AD 70 were discovered. Most of the books of the Hebrew Bible are represented, except for the book of Esther. Biblical scholars were very excited because before the discovery of these scrolls, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts for the OT dated from around AD 1000. The scrolls were more than a thousand years older than that! They showed that the OT manuscripts had been well preserved and accurately transmitted over the centuries.

A few of the scrolls were published as early as 1950-1951, but until 1991 many others were accessible only to the original team of archeologists and those who worked closely with them. This led some to develop conspiracy theories and claim that scholars were hiding something that would shake the core of our faith. However, today the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series put out by Oxford University Press has published more than forty volumes of scholarly editions of these texts. There is no evidence of any conspiracy to hide their contents.

Most of the scrolls were written in Hebrew, although a few are in Aramaic and Greek. They fall into four broad categories:

• Biblical books: All the Old Testament books are represented (except Esther). Some like Psalms, Deuteronomy and Isaiah exist in multiple copies. There are also some fragments from books like Tobit and Ben Sira that belong to the Apocrypha.

• Jewish religious texts that are not part of the Hebrew Bible. These include books like 1 Enoch and the book of Jubilees.

• Documents setting out the ideology and practices of the Jewish community that preserved the scrolls, whom many scholars identify as the Essenes. The documents include manuscripts like the Rule of the Community, Thanksgiving Hymns and the War Scroll.

• A group of miscellaneous texts. To this category belong scrolls like the Copper Scroll which is a list of hidden treasures, or the Prayer of Nabonidus, the Targum to Job and the Genesis apocryphon.

The study of the Dead Sea Scrolls is exceedingly important because they help us to understand Jewish thinking in the intertestamental period – that is, the years between the end of the OT (the Hebrew Bible) and the start of the NT. This knowledge helps us to interpret the Bible better and gives us a better understanding of the Jewish context in which Jesus ministered. Many themes that have been found in the NT can be traced back to the Dead Sea Scrolls and to the OT.

There are also some theological similarities between the Qumran community and aspects of the Jesus movement.

Continue Reading

DALITS

DALITS

Dalits have long endured the injustice and indignity imposed on them by the caste system, which operates in various forms through South Asia, especially in India. They have suffered discrimination, dispossession and subjugation, and the theory of karma has been used to make them accept their plight as their punishment for sins committed in a previous life. The name they have chosen for themselves, Dalit, is apt.

It comes from a root word dal, which is also found in the OT. In Hebrew it literally means “crushed”, “hanging down”, “languid”, “weakened”, “low” and “feeble”. Unlike the Dalits in South Asia, the people referred to by this name in the OT were not untouchables, but the “poorest” of the poor (2 Kgs 24:14; Jer 52:15). The word used to describe them emphasises their broken condition rather than just their poverty.

The origins of the South Asian caste system may lie in the subjugation of the original inhabitants of the region by the invading Aryans in the Vedic Age (1750-500 BC). In the centuries that have elapsed since then, the system has not gone unchallenged. Both Mahavira (540-468 BC) and the Buddha (563-483 BC) rejected it, but Buddhism did not find widespread acceptance in India. Dalits also experienced some emancipation under Muslim rule after AD 800, in that they were allowed to serve in the army. The Sufi sect of Islam also advocated social equality. Then in the twelfth century AD the Hindu Bhakti movement undermined the caste system by emphasising belief in one God, the equality of all castes and the unity of religions.

This movement later produced great saints and poets like Namdev and Ravidas, both of whom belonged to the Sudra or lowest/servant caste.

Despite these movements towards equality, the caste system continued. In the British era, Dalit self-assertion contributed to the 1857 Uprising. When Mangal Pandey, an upper-caste Hindu soldier, refused to give water to an untouchable on the ground that his touch would pollute the vessel, the untouchable reacted by taunting him that the cartridges he would have to bite off were coated with pork and beef fat. Pork was anathema to Muslims and beef to Hindus. This shock, in combination with other events, led to the full-blown Sepoy Mutiny, later referred to as the First War of Indian Independence. The British put down the mutiny and assumed direct government of India.

The next phase of the Dalit struggle against oppression was marked by the mass conversions of entire Dalit groups to egalitarian religions, particularly Christianity. These conversions shook the foundations of the Indian social order. So did the spread of Western education and the Western legal system, new land policies, industrial development and the rise of movements advocating for democracy and civil rights. Dr B. R. Ambedkar, one of the first Dalits to receive higher education, propelled Dalit consciousness to new heights by exposing oppressive caste-driven conditions. He argued that liberation was possible if the untouchables pursued self-organisation, education and protest.

Dr Ambedkar subsequently converted to Buddhism along with nearly 400,000 of his followers. This event in 1956 began what was later to be known as Neo-Buddhism (the modern Buddhist revivalist movement). Interestingly, in designing Neo-Buddhism, Dr Ambedkar closely followed the patterns and structures of Christianity.

The famous Ambedkar-Gandhi 1932 Poona Pact gave shape to the present reservation policy mandating that certain places in schools, government offices and public sector units be reserved for Dalits.

Unfortunately, as a result, Dalits are still defined in terms of their relationship to other castes. Moreover, when Dalits turn from Hinduism and embrace Sikhism, Islam or Christianity, they are often denied access to positions and benefits reserved for Dalits. The result has been that some Christian Dalits have publicly reverted back to Hinduism while remaining Christians at heart.

The Dalit Christian movement gained visibility in an all-India demonstration in New Delhi on 17 August 1990. This demonstration was organised to protest the continuing marginalisation of Dalits within the church and the withholding from Christian Dalits of facilities extended to Hindu Dalits under the 1950 Presidential Order.

Although the church in South Asia has publicly declared its support for Dalits and its opposition to caste discrimination, the caste system is still very much part of the church and the lives of Christians in this region. To some extent, this may be traced back to the missionary period, when foreign missionaries found it difficult to understand and deal with casteism and its ramifications. Some of them opposed it totally, while others tried to adapt it and use it rather than reject it altogether.

Today, in some parts of the country, there is widespread casteism within the church, with opposition to inter-caste marriages and even to embracing Dalits as full members of the church, with the same rights and privileges as all other members. On the other hand, in North India, for example, a significant majority of church members are from Dalit and Adivasi (tribal) backgrounds, and Christianity is thus perceived as a religion of the untouchables. This, in turn, creates problems in reaching out to other groups.

Churches must be sensitive to the discrimination experienced by Dalits and should set up specialised structures or strategies to equip and empower them with knowledge and information about their rights and duties, to mobilise them into organised bodies and to enhance advocacy for their education in state, private and church-run educational institutions.

Continue Reading

CREATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

CREATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The Bible starts with the powerful proclamation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). We proclaim this truth every time we recite the opening words of the Apostles’ Creed:

“I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth.”

This must be our starting point for any discussion of creation and the environment. Creation reveals God as “the heavens proclaim his righteousness and all peoples see his glory” (Ps 97:6; see also Rom 1:20).

As Creator, God is both distant from his creation and in an ongoing relationship with it. Understanding this helps us to avoid two errors. The first is pantheism, which sees God everywhere and in everything. Pantheism confuses the Creator with creation. The other is dualism, which sees God as having no continuing relationship with created life. But the Bible teaches that although God is transcendent, and thus apart from the world, he is still immanent, that is, intimately involved in the real world he has created. Psalm 104.5 affirms that he is the one who has “set the earth on its foundations”. Paul states that “all things” are created by God in Christ, who continues to hold “all things … together” (Col 1:16-17).

Human beings are given a special place in God’s creation because we are made in his image. Unfortunately, we Christians have sometimes been only too happy to assert this while forgetting that with privilege comes responsibility. We have sometimes used God’s command to Adam and Eve to “rule” or “have dominion” over the earth (Gen 1:26) to legitimise arrogant exploitation of nature. Critics claim that such emphases have resulted in an anthropocentric (humancentred) attitude. No wonder some Westerners have been leaning towards Hinduism and Buddhism, which they see as more biocentric (nature-centred) and therefore ecologically sensitive.

But we should be neither anthropocentric nor biocentric; we should be theocentric, acknowledging that the one in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) has assigned us the responsibility of caring for his creation. “The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” (Ps 24:1). We are only caretakers. This relation between humanity and God’s earth is something that must be central to our environmental concern. Jeremiah underlines God’s ownership:

“With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please” (Jer 27:5).

The other Christian teaching we must never forget when thinking about the environment is the adverse effects of the fall. We cannot simply celebrate God’s glorious creation and ignore the fact that creation has been affected by human sin. But the fall has not totally obliterated the goodness ascribed to creation by God. And, the fall does not give us any right to dismiss the present world and creation as evil and remain apart from it while we await a future renewal. We need to work to counter the environmental degradation caused by human sinfulness.

We must do our part, but must also recognise that God has planned the final restoration of this fallen creation. In Romans 8:20- 21, the Apostle Paul refers to creation being liberated from its bondage to decay. This is generally understood as a promised reversal of the curse that creation was subjected to as a consequence of human sin (Gen 3:17-19). In the book of Revelation, the Apostle John foresees “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1).

In working to restore the environment, we need to recognise that God has not given us a haphazard assembly of organic and inorganic matter, natural energy and resources. Creation consists of ecosystems that are intricately woven together in interdependent cycles. The survival of all of creation depends on protecting these interdependent relationships.

We are called to be stewards, protecting this intricately planned world God has entrusted to us. Even more, we are called to be “responsible stewards” (Gen 2:15; Matt 25:20-21; 1 Cor 4:2; 1 Pet 4:10). Responsible stewardship demonstrated through God’s love will result in practical actions to promote sustainable living as well as right attitudes towards the environment. As Bible-believing Christians, we are called to care for creation in order to protect, conserve and bring healing to our wounded world.

Continue Reading

CONFLICT AND RECONCILIATION

CONFLICT AND RECONCILIATION

Despite the fact that advances in travel and communications have shrunk the world to a global village and drawn communities and nations into closer interaction, we still experience interpersonal, interracial, inter-religious and international conflicts. How is it that humanity, which yearns so much for intimacy, almost inevitably moves towards conflict?

The answer is that conflict has been part of human existence ever since the fall. Sin brings people into conflict with God, with others and with the natural world. It results in a deep sense of shame, fear and an unhealthy self-consciousness (Gen 3:6-10). It led Adam and Eve to attempt to cover their nakedness and to Adam blaming Eve for his failure (Gen 3:12). The differences between them were no longer something to be celebrated. Instead, they became a source of threat.

Cain reacted against Abel’s righteousness by murdering him (Gen 4:1-8). Thereafter, conflict among brothers becomes a major theme in Genesis. As is often the case today, most of these conflicts arose due to ownership and sharing of land and resources. The subsequent history of Israel is one of continuing conflict – intertribal and international – until first Israel and then Judah went into exile. The trauma of such conflicts created a longing for reconciliation and peace, captured in the psalmist’s exclamation, “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity!” (Ps 133:1).

Prophets like Isaiah hold out a more comprehensive vision of reconciliation that includes all people, not just “God’s people”. They envisage a day when humanity will live in peace with God, with each other and with the natural order (Isa 11:1-9; Amos 9:11-15).

Reconciliation lies at the heart of the gospel. Paul explains that the ultimate purpose of God’s work of salvation is to reconcile the world to himself (2 Cor 5:18-21). Consequently, both the ministry and message of the apostolic church are fundamentally about reconciliation. Paul brings out the social dimensions of this reconciliation when he points out that Christ’s sacrificial death has taken away the hostility between God and humanity and made it possible for hostile communities to experience peace with one another (Eph 2:11-21).

Christians are not immune to conflicts. We even experience them in the church and families because of our deep-rooted insecurities, our acquisitive tendencies and the perceived threat of whatever is different. Those who insist that “wisdom comes with age” clash with those who are young and seeking change. There are clashes between those who speak one language and those who speak another, between castes, and between those who live in the city and those who live in rural areas.

Conflicts, however, are not insurmountable because Jesus, by his trust in God, selflessness and embracing of all humanity, has destroyed the basis of conflict and opened the way for reconciliation.

Through his teachings Jesus not only anticipated conflicts that would emerge in the new community he inaugurated but also provided pointers to help the church aim for reconciliation in such instances. In Matthew 5:23-25 he introduced the radical concept that the efficacy of our worship is directly related to the harmony between us. Thus we should settle our differences before coming to worship him.

In Matthew 18:15-17 he sets out the logical but limited steps a Christian community should take when dealing with someone who is a source of conflict. He advocates that disagreements should be settled gently, in private or with only two or three witnesses (see also Gal 6:1; Jas 5:19-20). This approach resonates with typical shame-cultures as in South Asia. The implication that disputes are better settled by corporate rather than individual effort also parallels the situation in South Asia, where village councils and similar bodies play a role in dispute resolution. On the other hand, there are tendencies in our South Asian context to play down and cover up serious ethical violations. The fact that an unrepentant Christian faces public exposure and even excommunication is the counter-cultural gospel corrective to these tendencies.

Continue Reading