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

INTER-RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE

In this era of individualism and sexual liberation, many constraints on the choice of marriage partners are being rejected. Sometimes this is a good thing. Christians should not continue to cling to prejudices against intercaste marriages. To do so is to forget the NT teaching that all are equal in God’s sight (Gal 3:28). But what about the constraints on inter-religious marriage?

Many in South Asia regard inter-religious marriage as not only permissible but even desirable; others, however, regard such marriages as a threat to their religion and their community. Christians have both embraced inter-religious marriage as a welcome sign that we are no longer shunned by the wider community and condemned it as unbiblical and sinful.

Those who advocate inter-religious marriage regard it as a way to counter religious fundamentalism. They speak of how couples in inter-religious marriages have found their lives enriched by the spiritual insights each brings and by the religious diversity they enjoy in the family. Such marriages, they suggest, teach us tolerance of those who are different from us. What is important to the success of a marriage is not religion but “love” or financial stability. They assume that religion will take a backseat if pushed into the realm of personal choice – neither partner has to convert to the other person’s religion, but both can follow their own convictions. For some, such marriages are to be encouraged as a necessary step to introduce an era of religious harmony.

But several questions remain. What do we do about the fact that our convictions are integral to our personalities? What we believe about ourselves and about other people shapes us and our relationships. To assume that religious convictions are unimportant is preposterous, especially in South Asia where religion is not merely a reality but the lens through which every other reality is interpreted.

And what about the children of such a marriage? It is often suggested that they can be taught both parents’ religions and left free to choose their own religion. While this seems liberating, for a Christian who desires a godly family with children growing in the fear and knowledge of God (Luke 2:52), it is far from an ideal environment to bring up children.

The advocates of inter-religious marriage also ignore the fact that beliefs of all kinds do not merely unite, they also divide. Sociologists have found that divorce rates are higher among couples from very different backgrounds. But the division is especially marked in the case of Christianity, where exclusive devotion to Jesus is at the heart of the Christian faith.

Despite the changes brought by Westernisation, marriage in South Asia continues to be a family affair. The bride often goes to live in the groom’s house with his family. Even if they live independently, family ties are strong. It will seem like an act of defiance if one partner is unwilling to participate in family rituals or opposes the family’s beliefs.

No wonder Paul asked Corinthians not be “unequally yoked” with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14). In such a relationship, there is great pressure to compromise one’s faith. This is the point God made when he told the Israelites not to intermarry with those whose land they were blessed to possess (Deut 7:3-4). He warned, “They will turn your children away from following me, to serve other gods”. Centuries later, Ezra led the Israelites to repent of the “abominations” that had infiltrated the people of God as a result of mixed marriages with their neighbours (Ezra 9:1-2, 10-15). Samson and Solomon are examples of the type of compromise that arises from inter-religious relationships.

Some may object, pointing to examples like Zipporah, Esther and Ruth to suggest that God can use a believer to transform an unbeliever through marriage. However, the Bible offers very little information about the Midianite Zipporah’s faith post-marriage. Moses’ marriage is not held up as an ideal for others. Esther was chosen to marry the king for a particular purpose in an entirely different context from ours. Can God use someone like Esther? Yes, but those are exceptions rather than the norm. Ruth, on the other hand, made a choice to follow God (Ruth 1:17). One may marry hoping that the unbelieving spouse will change after marriage, but the odds are long and the stakes are high.

Some not only condemn inter-religious marriage but also encourage strong action to prevent it. The relationships between communities in South Asia are more complex than the myth of everyone living together in tolerance. An environment of mistrust often clouds relationships between communities. There is competition to see which group can dominate by having the greatest number of followers. Inter-religious marriage has been used to gain adherents for a religion and to reduce the numbers adhering to a different religion.

Thus inter-religious marriage is often regarded as a threat to the community and is met with family boycotts, social boycotts, heavy monetary penalties and even honour killing.

Christians should not imitate those who resort to social or physical violence to prevent inter-religious marriages. In fact, we should condemn such behaviour.

The Bible views marriage as a covenant that requires love and commitment. Paul acknowledges its sacredness, even when one spouse is an unbeliever. Writing about the situation when someone who is already married comes to faith in Christ, he advises the believer to stay in the relationship with the unbelieving spouse unless the other partner wants to move out (1 Cor 7:13-16). But both love and commitment become difficult when there are differences in fundamental convictions. “Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to do so?” (Amos 3:3).

Charles Christian

HIV AND AIDS

When someone becomes infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the virus multiplies within the body and gradually destroys the systems that defend the body against illness. The person initially looks healthy, but eventually the virus overwhelms the body’s defences and causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), which often leads to early death. HIV infection cannot be cured; all that doctors can do is slow the progress of the disease.

HIV is transmitted through contact with the body fluids of an infected person. Thus it can be transmitted by having unprotected sex (that is, sex without using a condom) with an infected person, by reusing needles used to inject an infected person, and even through the breast milk of an infected mother. Despite the perception that HIV is associated with sexual activity between members of the same sex, the truth is that in Asia the main means of infection are sex between men and women and injections with infected needles.

South Asian societies and South Asian Christians have been quick to judge all those infected with HIV as immoral. Their families have often been stigmatised too. This attitude has resulted in our not doing enough to improve social conditions like poverty and illiteracy that increase people’s vulnerability to HIV infection. We have also failed to recognise that the low status of women across South Asia makes it difficult for them to protect themselves against HIV infection. Even though a husband is being unfaithful, a wife cannot insist that he use a condom when he beds with her. Thus even faithful wives are being infected. Moreover, many poor and illiterate women are forced into sex work as a means of survival and are at high risk of infection.

The emergence of HIV and AIDS has challenged the church to think through its beliefs about gender, sexuality and the salvation Christ offers. Our response must be based on biblical teaching rather than on society’s expectations and prejudices.

We know that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, whether heterosexual (Matt 5:28, 1 Cor 7:2, Heb 13:4) or homosexual (Gen 19, Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:9-11). We can teach this and discourage people from accessing material that devalues sex and responsible sexual behaviour. This has been identified as a significan factor leading to increased sexual interaction among unmarried youth in South Asia.

But while upholding the Bible’s teaching about sex, we must also demonstrate Christ’s grace to those who have disobeyed this teaching.

We must lovingly minister to all who are infected with HIV even if sinful behaviour contributed to their infection. Since salvation is not only about people’s souls but also about their lives, we must also work to change the social conditions that force people into sinful lifestyles. This will include teaching women that they have the same status as men before God (even if we have traditionally assigned women roles that have given them lower status). A woman need not blindly obey her husband if obedience will result in her being infected with a fatal disease.

Sundar Daniel

HEALING AND DELIVERANCE

In South Asia, many people think that disease is a punishment for evil actions in this life or in a previous life or is caused by the evil eye or witchcraft. Thus responses to disease that focus solely on medical treatment are perceived as inadequate. True healing involves addressing the spiritual factors that made someone vulnerable to the disease.

The OT agrees that disease is sometimes a punishment for sin (2 Sam 12:13-15, Job 5:17-18; Pss 32:3, 5; 38). It also agrees that the power of evil spirits may sometimes be present when disease strikes (Job 1–2). However, it stresses that the source of healing is not finding the right magic charm or resorting to witchcraft oneself, but is God himself, for he is the one who heals (Deut 32:39). The fact that God is the healer is echoed throughout the OT by the psalmists (Pss 6:2; 41:1-4; 103:3) and prophets (Isa 19:22; Jer 17:14; Hos 7:1).

In the NT, Jesus acknowledged that illness was sometimes a punishment for sin (John 5:14), although he insisted that this is not always the case (John 9:1-3). He also agreed that sickness was sometimes caused by demonic powers (Mark 9:17-27). However, in one striking difference from the OT, in the NT Jesus is the one who heals.

The gospel writers make it clear that Jesus’ main motive for healing was his compassion for the sick (Matt 9:1-8; 14:14; 15:29-32; 20:34; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 4:18-27). But that was not his sole motive. His miracles of healing, like all the miracles recorded in the Gospels, were also intended to demonstrate that in him the kingdom of God has come. His acts of healing and exorcism prove that he is indeed the Messiah (Matt 9:1-8; Mark 10:46-52).

There was a great contrast between Jesus’ healings and exorcisms and the approach of others who tried to do similar things in his day (and sometimes in ours). He had no need to use magical equipment or elaborate rituals and techniques. Nor did his healings involve struggle and violence. He could simply speak and a healing occurred.

The place where there was struggle was in the response of the religious leaders to his healings (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6). Jesus also endured violence from his opponents, leading to his death on the cross. Through his death and resurrection he decisively defeated the evil one and the demons who work with him (Mark 5:1- 43).

Jesus expected his disciples to continue his ministry of healing, deliverance and preaching (Luke 9:1-2; John 20:1). But he also warned that some people would perform counterfeit miracles (Matt 7:21-23; 24:5), so that miracles alone should not be a test of whether someone’s teaching is correct. It is also striking that he refused to work miracles on demand and warned against an inappropriate dependence on the spectacular (Matt 12:38-42; John 4:48; 20:29).

Healings continued in the early church after the resurrection (Acts 3:6-10; 5:12-16; 9:34; 14:8-10), but seem to have become less common than they were in Jesus’ ministry. Writers like Paul recognised that sickness was less a consequence of an individual’s sin and more because sin had infected the whole of creation (Rom 8:18- 21). However, in cases where God was using sickness to punish someone, repentance would bring healing (1 Cor 11:27-32).

It was also recognised that some individuals are given a special gift of healing that is to be used in the context of the Christian community (1 Cor 12:9). Those who are ill should ask the church to pray for their healing (Heb 12:13; Jas 5:14-16). We should pray recognising that God alone has the power to heal, and that he has the right to give or withhold healing as seems best to him. When healing is granted, the praise should go to God. A ministry of healing should not be used to build up the power of an individual but to contribute to the growth of God’s church.

Miraculous healings and exorcisms continue today – as many in South Asia can testify. Such miracles may be most prevalent in areas where the kingdom of God is advancing for the first time. We also need to remember that healings and exorcisms are to take place within the context of the church community, under the guidance of a pastor or priest.

Ranjit De Silva and Finny Philip

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

CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

Marriage in a South Asian context is a family affair – it is the coming together of two individuals and their families. Thus the family plays a major role when it comes to choosing a life partner. In the past, the family often made the choice, and the bride and the bridegroom might not even see each other before their marriage. Abraham’s choice of a bride for Isaac (Gen 24) was thus in keeping with the Asian way of choosing one’s life partner. Asian couples accepted this, and whereas in the West most people marry for love, in South Asia the majority of couples choose to love the ones they marry.

Parents in Asia consider the role of choosing a partner for their child as a God-given privilege and responsibility. But many parents have abused and commercialised this privilege, leading urban young people to rebel against the system. They want to choose their own partners, although they will still seek their parents’ consent to their marriage. Both parents and children need guidance from the church as they adapt to this new reality.

The payment of dowry is a glaring example of the commercialisation of marriage. Originally, this practice was intended to ensure that the girl obtained a fair share of the ancestral property, but over time it has become a cover for greed. Girls with an inadequate dowry may be unable to marry, or if they do, they may be murdered by their new family. Unfortunately, even Christian families sometimes demand a dowry, whereas they ought to take a stand against greed (1 Tim 6:8-10). A woman should be valued for who she is, not for the goods she brings with her. A wedding, too, should be a celebration of a union, not an occasion for extravagant spending and displays of wealth that leave families in debt for years.

Then there is the issue of in-laws and parental interference. Parents often find it difficult to release their children after marriage.

Many men are expected to stay with their parents after marriage to take care of them and to ensure inheritance of parental property. In such homes, the parents may act as dictators and cause discord between the man and his wife. Meanwhile the woman loses all her rights as a member of her own family and becomes part of her husband’s family. It is not surprising that the most common conflict in South Asian homes is between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law.

In Christian homes, such a situation reflects a failure to take seriously what the Bible says about marriage being a covenant in which “a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24; see also Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7; Eph 5:31). God intends the bond between a married couple to take priority over their bond to their parents, so that the two become one functional unit. Jesus emphasised that it is God who puts a man and woman together and any attempt to divide the partners in this holy union is an act against God himself (Matt 19:5-6). Parents who constantly interfere with their children and disrupt a couple’s family life are guilty of working against what God has joined together. They should learn to release their children so that the couple have space to grow in order to achieve God’s purpose for their family life. This is not to say that children should not honour their parents after marriage, but there needs to be a balanced shift in allegiance from parents to spouse. The man, who has been appointed as the head of the family, needs to take the lead in setting this balance.

The fact that the man is to become “one flesh” with his wife also indicates that she is neither a piece of property nor a spare part that can be replaced at will. It also implies that a husband who abuses his wife harms himself, and parents who abuse their daughter-in-law harm their son.

In the past, spousal abuse has been tolerated and women have been told to endure it rather than risk divorce. But just as the OT prophets spoke out against abuse of the poor, so the church should speak out against the abuse of wives. Husbands should be made to realise that it is a sin to abuse anyone (Matt 5:22), and especially the one whom they are particularly commanded to love, protect and cherish (Eph 5:25; Col 3:19). The church has a responsibility to hold such abusive husbands to account and counsel them, while helping their wives to find healing for themselves and their families.

The changing economic environment in South Asia is also having an effect on marriages. Many men and women are working directly or indirectly for multinational companies. Women thus have some independent income, which has empowered them and disrupted traditional roles. Men are often no longer the sole breadwinners, and the increased assertiveness of women has sometimes led to even minor disagreements becoming reasons for couples to separate.

Family routines and parent–child relationships may also be disrupted when the parents work in places like call centres, with odd hours. The fact that men and women now work together provides more opportunities for extramarital relationships.

In such circumstances, the church needs to help couples to safeguard their marriage and family from damaging influences. The best defence is a solid foundation in Christ. Psalm 127:1 says, “Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labour in vain.”

Money, education and the like can never provide security, but a home that has Christ as its foundation will weather the storms of life.

Good communication also acts like a wall protecting a marriage. Thus churches must encourage communication between husbands and wives, and couples must ensure that they share quality time together if they are to understand each other well.

Christ is the foundation of a healthy marriage, communication is the wall surrounding it, and committed love between the spouses is the roof over it. True love drives out fear and covers a multitude of wrongdoings. It can even be said that a marriage is a coming together of two forgivers, who do not hold grudges against each other. If a couple finds loving each other difficult, they need to turn to the cross of Christ. The springs of love that flow from the cross can keep filling and replenishing their hearts. This love will then overflow into their relationships with their children and those around them.

ASTROLOGY

The word “astrology” comes from two Greek words meaning “star” and “study”, and thus refers to the study of the heavens. This subject has fascinated human beings for millennia. By 4000 years ago people in Mesopotamia had used their knowledge of the heavens to develop a calendar that could be used to predict changing seasons and the correct time to perform certain religious rituals. Over time, people analyzed the movements of the sun, moon and planets in terms of their relative positions, their placement in “houses” (spatial divisions of the sky), and their movement through the signs of the zodiac (spatial divisions of the path of the sun). Similar developments took place all over the world, including in South Asia, where the Vedas include information about the movement of the heavenly bodies. This type of scientific knowledge of the heavens is still pursued in the science known as astronomy.

However, in all ancient civilizations the study of the heavens included a religious element that led to celestial cycles being seen as a type of divine communication. Moreover, the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies themselves were thought to have a direct influence upon people and world events. This belief reflects the central principle of astrology, which is the integration of mortals with the universe. Cycles of change that are observed in the heavens are said to reflect similar cycles of change observed on earth and within individuals. This relationship is expressed in the principle “as above, so below; as below, so above”.

These beliefs have led to the astrology that is widely practiced in South Asia today. Many South Asians believe that the arrangement of the stars, planets and constellations at the time of one’s birth determines the pattern of one’s life. Parents will have a horoscope drawn for a newborn child, and horoscopes are consulted when determining marriage alliances.

Christians, however, should have nothing to do with astrology.

One reason for this is that divination is strictly forbidden to those who worship the Lord (Deut. 18:14) because it is associated with worship of the sun, moon and stars (Deut. 4:19; 2 Kgs 21:5-6). Astrology sees them as independent powers, whereas in reality they are created things, and like all else in the universe are under God’s control. He created them to mark the seasons, not to control human affairs (Gen 1:14-18).

Moreover, the approach to life advocated by those who believe in astrology is fatalistic. The events of our lives are determined by our horoscopes. Such a belief contradicts what the Bible teaches about a God who can intervene powerfully in human affairs and sweep aside the predictions of astrologers (Isa 47:13-15). It is idolatry to ascribe to the stars powers that belong to Almighty God who created them.

Christians can understand the desire to know the future that drives people to consult astrologers. But we are not to follow others or fear what the stars foretell (Jer 10:2). God has already given us all the knowledge we need for the future through his inspired word, and through the Holy Spirit who lives in us (John 16:13; see also Dan 2:27-28). God calls us to place our lives in his hands and live in faith, hope and love (1 Cor 13:13).

ABORTION AND INFANTICIDE

The term “abortion” rouses powerful emotions. Pro-abortionists appeal to compassion, emphasize the rights of the mother and argue that abortion is little more than retroactive contraception. Antiabortionists have compassion for the unborn child and its rights, and regard abortion as little less then pre-natal infanticide. Clearly there are major ethical issues involved, and Christians need to learn to think about them biblically.

Before looking at what the Bible teaches, it may be helpful to define our terms. “Abortion” can be used by doctors to refer to the natural expulsion of the foetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently, in other words, a miscarriage. However, it is more commonly used to refer to foeticide, that is, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy by poisoning or injuring the foetus while it is still in the womb. This type of abortion has become more common since ultrasound technology has made it possible to identify the sex and health of the unborn child. Many girls are aborted because of the South Asian prejudice in favour of sons, despite attempts by governments to ban sex-selective abortion. Mothers may be forced to have an abortion against their will.

Babies may be victims of infanticide. The practice of killing unwanted children soon after birth is rooted in poverty, with families feeling that they cannot provide for another child, particularly another girl child. This practice early attracted the attention of missionaries, who urged the passing of laws to eradicate it.

It is striking that the Bible itself says nothing explicitly about abortion, for abortion was known in biblical times. It seems that all that was necessary to prohibit it was the command, “You shall not murder” (Exod 20:13). If the deliberate taking of human life is forbidden, so are abortion and infanticide. Any deliberate destruction of a human being at any point after conception is, in God’s eyes, a wrongful killing. (The biblical exceptions allowing justified killings are strictly limited.)

The reason that murder is prohibited is that all humans beings are made in the image of God and are therefore precious (Gen 1:26) Personhood is not measured by age, stage of development, mental, physical or social skills. God endows it at the moment of creation, which is the moment of conception.

But is an unborn child really a person in the full sense of the word? To answer that question, we can turn to Exodus 21:22-25, which deals with an injury affecting an unborn child. Although there is dispute about whether the injury is an accidental miscarriage or a premature birth, what cannot be disputed is that the same penalties are given when a child is injured as when an adult is injured. This suggests that pre-natal human life is as precious to God as any adult life. Moreover, if causing an accidental miscarriage results in punishment, how much more serious would be the penalty for intentionally killing an unborn child?

A strong case can be made that the cumulative weight of biblical teaching as a whole prohibits abortion and infanticide. The Bible sees human life as a sacred continuous process from conception, through pregnancy, birth, growth to adulthood, and on to natural (or accidental) death. This position is supported by verses that seem to teach that God knows and plans each person’s life before they are born (Ps 103:14, Jer 29:11). Moreover, God not only gives life (Ps 104), he also sustains it: “In him all things hold together” (Col 1:17) and if he chose to “let go”, creation would fall apart.

But what about deformed children? Is God the author of such lives? Deformities can arise for many reasons, including pollution, health problems and malnutrition. Many parents are tempted to abort or kill such children because they lack the resources to care for them.

Some fear the social stigma of having such a child as this may be considered a result of their actions in a previous life. Once again, we need to think through this situation biblically. The reason children are born less than perfect is sin – not the sin of the parents, but the fall of the entire human race, which has disrupted the perfect world God created. But imperfections do not reduce the value of a human life. If we believe that God is the creator of every human being, we must accept the idea that he allows deformities for some purpose, even if we have trouble understanding it. To abort or kill babies in an attempt to avoid suffering is to try to avoid God’s purpose. There is no such thing as a life not worthy of being lived.

Thus we can insist that it is unacceptable to discard spare embryos; terminate a pregnancy by dismembering, poisoning or prematurely inducing delivery of a foetus; starve a deformed newborn; or give a lethal dose to an elderly person or someone suffering from an incurable disease. All such acts are forbidden by the sixth commandment.

 PASTORAL CARE AND COUNSELING (Comparative Terminology). 

In contemporary American usage, "Pastoral Care" usually refers, in a broad and inclusive way, to all pastoral work concerned with the support and nurturance of persons and interpersonal relationships, including everyday expressions of care and concern that may occur in the midst of various pastoring activities and relationships. "Pastoral counseling" refers to caring ministries that are more structured and focused on specifically articulated need or concern. Counseling always involves some degree of "contract" in which a request for help is articulated and specific arrangements are agreed upon concerning time and place of meeting; in extended counseling a fee may also be agreed upon, depending on the institutional setting and other considerations. 

"Counseling" generally implies extended conversation focused on the needs and concerns of the one seeking help. "Care" in many of its expressions is also conversational, though briefer and less therapeutically complex than counseling, as in supportive or sustaining ministries like visiting the sick. The term is also applied to nonconversational ministries in which a significant caring dimension may be present, as in administering communion, conducting a funeral, or pastoral teaching. In earlier, postwar pastoral literature, "care" and "counseling" were often used synonymously; their gradual distinction no doubt reflects the emergence of pastoral counseling as a specialized ministry. Today there is a question as to what extent, and in what respects, the general ministry of care should be guided by the methods and principles of specialized counseling, which have heavily influenced its modern development.

A Code of Conduct for Pastoral Care and Counselling

The fact that most professions these days have codes of ethics is indicative of the importance that is attached to maintaining professional standards, the integrity of behaviour and a proper duty of care towards others. We must do whatever we can to safeguard ourselves and others from breaches of trust, moral lapses and exploitative practices. Codes of ethics on their own will not do this of course, but they do articulate a basic set of expectations and requirements by which people may be held to account.

Pastoral care involves the formation of special relationships characterised by openness and trust. These relationships are developed in a variety of settings and a variety of ways, from informal pastoral care to structured counselling situations.

This Code indicates acceptable ethical behaviour for those offering pastoral care. While its focus is pastoral care, it is also applicable wherever there is a ministry relation between people. By the grace of God we are called to serve, and through the power of the Holy Spirit we are sustained and encouraged to keep within this code.

Code of Ethics as an agreed for  practicing the ministry of pastoral care:

Responsibilities to Those to Whom We Offer Pastoral Care

1) Ministers will deal truthfully with people, encouraging free and open discussion, upholding their best interests, rights and well-being.

2) Ministers will respect the right of people to privacy and confidentiality of information except when there is a clear and imminent danger to those people or others, at which time they will be informed of those limits.

3) Ministers will recognise the dignity and worth of every person and will offer pastoral care without unfair discrimination.

4) Ministers will not abuse their position by taking advantage of people for personal, financial or institutional gain.

5) Ministers will recognise that sexual intimacy in the pastoral situation is unacceptable and will not subject people to sexual exploitation, sexual harassment or sexual abuse.

6) Ministers will recognise that there are limits to their competence and will refer people to others when this proves necessary or desirable. They will not attempt counselling without training.

7) Ministers will recognise that there is a cultural context for pastoral care and will act with awareness and sensitivity.

Responsibilities to the Church

1) Ministers will uphold high standards of practice in ministry and work for the advancement of those standards.

2) Ministers will exercise stewardship in the time given to ministry, guarding against both over commitment and avoidance of responsibility.

Responsibilities to Colleagues and Other Pastoral Workers

1) Ministers will promote co-operation with colleagues, pastoral workers and members of other helping professions, treating them with consideration and respecting professional confidences.

2) Ministers will seek mediation through the courts of the church when conflicts with colleagues or others within the church community arise.

3) Ministers will take action through the proper channels concerning unethical conduct by colleagues or other pastoral workers.

Responsibilities to the Wider Community

1) Ministers will act to prevent and eliminate unfair discrimination in the wider community.

2) Ministers will encourage as part of their pastoral task, participation in the shaping of social policies, advocating the promotion of social justices, improved social conditions and a fair sharing of the community’s resources.

Personal Responsibilities

1) Ministers will use regular approved supervision to maintain accountability and a high standard of pastoral care.

2) Ministers will use regular opportunities for spiritual growth, personal recreation and refreshment.

3) Ministers will seek to extend and enhance their knowledge.

The above Code of Ethics is described as an agreed minimum standard of practice for those who share in the ministry of pastoral care. What sorts of things would you add to raise it above the minimum standard?

Discipline

Finally beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and it there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.[1]

In John Calvin’s day in Geneva, a group of elders called a Consistory (in effect a session) met weekly and ruled on matters of personal morality, business practice and public ethics. This proved to be the most controversial aspect of Calvin's reforms, but it did lead John Knox to observe that Geneva was the “most godly city ever established on earth.” Discipline “rightly administered” came to be regarded as a mark of the Scottish Church, alongside preaching and celebration of the Lord’s Supper. While the notion of discipline has negative connotations nowadays, it should be remembered that discipline, in a church context, is concerned with the formation of disciples, of people whose lives are ordered by the gospel. Nurture, encouragement and even correction, sensitively and prayerfully exercised in the context of pastoral care, and determined always by love, might be deemed an appropriate means of strengthening faith and forming disciples within the Christian community.

People might find it more helpful these days to talk about accountability rather than discipline. In the absence of any form of accountability there is a very real danger of “spiritual narcissism”, whereby people simply do whatever is right in their own eyes. Forms of accountability might include spiritual supervision, prayer partners and personal mentoring in ministry. Many people have experienced great value in committing themselves to time-honoured personal spiritual disciplines, adapted to fit today’s context and consisting of daily habits of faith, including regulated prayer and Bible study.

What are the means in your church by which people hold each other to account for the faith they profess?

 

---

[1] Philippians 4:8-9  

 Care

Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood

Teach us to care and not to care

Teach us to sit still

Even among these rocks,

Our peace in His will

And even among these rocks

Sister, mother

And spirit of the river, spirit of the sea,

Suffer me not to be separated

And let my cry come unto Thee.[1]

Christians do not have a monopoly on acts of care and compassion. But such acts do lie at the heart of our calling to follow the One who “went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness” and “when he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.” (Matthew 9:35-36) It goes without saying that Christians care and that the communities of faith to which they belong will be communities of care. This is part and parcel of living out the Jesus-commandment to love our neighbours as ourselves. This is what we sign up for when we respond to Christ’s call upon our lives, knowing that such care will at times demand deep and costly commitments.

That said, we might ask: Of what does the Christian duty of care consist? In the section on prayer above we noted that prayer is a learnt activity. Could the same be said of care? This was a question posed by T.S. Eliot who, in his famous “Ash Wednesday” poem, written shortly after his conversion to the Christian faith in 1927, penned this remarkable prayer-line: “Teach us to care and not to care.”

What might this prayer be important for us today?

Firstly, teach us to care. Perhaps the first thing to note here is the distinction between kindness and care. If you have watched the Ellen DeGeneres television talk show you might have noticed that she always signs off her show with the exhortation to “be kind to one another.” But being kind to one another does not carry the same weight as caring for one another. Caring implies a relationship and an ongoing commitment in which lives become inextricably linked. Whereas pity and beneficence tend to be the primary motivators for acts of kindness and charity, it is compassion that sparks our motivation to care. We can be kind to one another yet still live autonomous lives, largely isolated from, and even indifferent towards the suffering that is evident all around us.

When we pray, “Lord, teach us to care,” we are not only voicing our determination to allow compassion to break down the walls of indifference that exist between us; we are also resisting the professionalization of care that has become a feature of our age. Have you noticed that in the case of a public tragedy, for example, one of the first things usually to be reported is that counselling has been offered to the victims and their families? It seems that we can no longer rely on local communities and family networks to provide the requisite networks of care and support. Care has become something that we expect the health sector, not-for-profit organisations (including Christian social service agencies) and specialists to deliver on our behalf. On the one hand, this makes perfectly good sense, as most churches lack the resources and expertise to provide the level of care that is required in many situations; on the other hand, though, it absolves us of the need to become personally involved in the provision of care for our fellow human beings. We show we care by referring people to the right agency or organisation or by sending them on their way with a food parcel or supermarket voucher. Persons made in the image of God are reduced to clients, healthcare consumers, welfare beneficiaries and recipients of charity.

“Lord, teach us to care,” constitutes a plea for this distorted thinking to be corrected and to take responsibility for those aspects of care that are best located within those grassroots communities of care and worship that we call the church.

And so now to the second half of the prayer: “Teach us not to care.” At first glance this appears to be a contradiction, but perhaps at a deeper level it constitutes something of a reality check for us. Such is the scale of need in our world that it can be likened to a huge sponge soaking up every ounce of care we throw at it. Not only is it never satisfied; the more it is fed with care the more it appears to grow, as evidenced by the ever-expanding health care system and the ever-growing list of charities, not-for-profit organisations and community initiatives. Society’s provision of care, well intentioned and practical, can inadvertently encourage self-pity and a sense of entitlement. American author Eugene Peterson puts it this way:

There is a great irony here – that so much of our caring nurtures sin. The only group in our society who show any sign of acknowledging this is parents of young children. Parents know that there is nothing less innocent than childhood. After a few weeks, months at most, of responding unquestioningly to every sign of need, mothers and fathers start getting smart, start filtering the requests, cross-examining the wails. If they don’t, they realise in a few years, and with a sense of dismay, that it might be too late to do anything about it, because as they have been bandaging knees, wiping away tears, buying designer jeans, running interference for break-away emotions, they have at the same time been feeding pride, nourishing greed, fuelling lust and cultivating envy. But outside the circumstances of child-rearing, there does not seem to be much awareness of this deviousness. The moment any one of us says, “Help me!” and discovers how quickly others are in attendance on us, making us the centre and confirming our importance, a vast field for the exercise of sin – that is, getting our own godless and neighbourless way – opens up. It is really quite incredible the amount of illness, unhappiness, trouble, and pain that is actually chosen, because it is such an effective way of being in control, of being important, of exercising God-like prerogatives, of being recognised as significant, without entering the strenuous apprenticeship of becoming truly human, which always requires learning the love of God, practising the love of neighbour.[2]

The prayer, “Lord, teach us not to care,” counters this tendency to indulge those manipulative impulses that sometimes accompany expressions of need. Part of caring is to exercise discernment and to develop models of care that go beyond do-goodism and activism. Perhaps this is what T.S. Eliot had in mind when he followed his plea to be taught to care and not to care with another plea: Teach us to sit still and to find our peace in the Lord’s will. In the midst of all our caring deeds, never let us neglect the task of encouraging one another to be still, to contemplate the deep mysteries of faith and to find our peace in God.

What might be entailed in your church learning to care more fully in the manner of Christ?

Do you see any differences between the duty of care that is laid upon the church and the duty of care that is exercised in society?

---

[1] T.S. Eliot, from “Ash Wednesday” (1930)  

[2] Eugene Peterson , Subversive Spirituality, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997, 158-9.