How Should We Pray? (I John 5:14-15)

Let the words that I speak and the thoughts of everybody present here, be acceptable in your sight, our strength and comforter.

Introduction:

There was a boy whose name was Rahul. He was lying on a hill on a warm spring day. He saw puffy white clouds rolled by and he pondered their shape. Soon, he began to think about God. He started thinking what to ask if God talks to him. Then he said out loud. “God? Are you really there?” To his astonishment a voice came from the clouds. “Yes, Rahul? What can I do for you?” Seizing the opportunity, Rahul asked, “God? What is a million years like to you?” Knowing that Rahul could not understand the concept of infinity, God responded in a manner to which Rahul could relate. “A million years to me, Rahul, is like a minute.” Then Rahul said, “Oh!!!... Well, then, what's One Crore like to you?” Then God said “A Crore to me, Rahul, is like a rupee.”… “Wow!” remarked Rahul, getting an idea. “You're so generous... can I have one rupee of yours?” God replied, “Sure thing, Rahul! Just a minute.”

Now, in the story we have just seen what Rahul has asked God. Let’s think about what we ask God when we pray to God. How do we pray? Reflecting upon the read pericope, let us look into what John says about how one should pray. I would like to bring out two points from these verses for today’s meditation

 

Firstly, the Basis of Prayer:

Before we talk about the basis of prayer, let’s ask ourselves what is the basis of a conversation with another person. The basis of a conversation is a simple fact that the other person listens to what we are saying and vice versa. The basis of prayer is also similar. It is a simple fact that God listens to our prayers. The word which John uses for boldness/confidence is interesting to look at. It is parresia. Originally parresia meant freedom of speech, the freedom to speak boldly. Later it came to denote any kind of confidence/boldness. With God, we have freedom of speech. God is always listening, more ready than we are to pray. We never need to force our way into his presence or compel him to pay attention. He is waiting for us to come. We all know how some of us are eager to receive a phone call from a loved one. We also know how some of us are eager to go home and see our loved ones. In all reverence, we can say, God is like that with us. God waits eagerly to listen to our prayers.

Secondly, the Principle of Prayer:

The principle of prayer that John points out is that, what we ask should be in accordance with the will of God. Three times in his writings John lays down what might be called the conditions of prayer. 1. He says obedience is a condition of prayer. I John 3:22 says that we receive whatever we ask because we keep his commandments. 2. He says that remaining in Christ is a condition of prayer. John 15:7 says that if we abide in him and his words abide in us, we will ask what we will, and it will be done for us. The closer we live to Christ, the more we will pray right, and the more we pray right, the greater the answer we receive. 3. He says that, to pray in Jesus' name is a condition of prayer. John 14: 14 says that if we ask anything in his name, he will do it. The ultimate test in praying is… can we say to Jesus, “Give me this for your sake and in your name?

Prayer must be in accordance to the will of God. Jesus teaches us to pray like this “Your will be done…” not your will be changed. Jesus, in the moment of greatest agony and pain in the garden of Gethsemane, prayed, “not as I wish but as you wish… your will be done”. This is the very essence of prayer. C. H. Dodd writes… “Prayer, rightly considered, is not a device for employing the resources of omnipotence to fulfil our desires, but a means by which our desires may be redirected, according to the mind of God, and made into channels for the forces of his will”. A. E Brooks suggests that John thought of prayer as “Including only requests for knowledge of, and submitting in, the will of God.”

According to what I understand from the read text, John says that we have to pray according to the will of God. But how is it possible to discern the will of God and pray according to it? In Luke 11 it is written, ask for the Holy Spirit. And when the Holy Spirit is given to us, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth and this truth is Jesus Christ. So when we have Christ in us, we will also have the mind of him as Paul says in Philippians 2: 5. So, this mind of Christ will enable us to discern the will of God and pray according to it. And when we pray according to the will of God, then all things will be given to us for the glory of God.

Concluding my reflection I would like to tell us this. We are so apt to think that prayer is asking God for what we want, whereas true prayer is asking God for what God wants. Prayer is not only talking to God, even more it is listening to God.

Let’s pause for a moment and reflect upon what we have just heard.

Chinnam Prazwal Jasper

BD II

Disqualified… Yet Champions (Matthew 20:1-16)

The motto of the last London Olympics was Altius, Citius, Fortius (higher, faster, stronger) where it symbolically gives the message to the world that the competent will be credited and the successful one will be crowned. Nobody will care about the loser and one may feel that they don’t deserve any place in the mainstream of the society. We are living in a society where everyone wants to be a winner because the winner gets appreciation and the loser is forced to move out. Even one of the health drink ads says, "If you want to be a winner, drink our brand." and the parents seem restless to get all necessary things to make their child a winner. No one has the time to even think about the mind of a loser. Most of the time they are forced to end their dreams or in some instances their lives.

The God of the Bible is to a large extent against this predominant attitude and continually searches for the weak instead of the stronger. The incarnation of divine logos into flesh reveals God's association with the loser. In the light of this truth we are going to analyze a well known parable of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. The parable of 'laborers at the vineyard' is a unique collection in the Matthean narrative. Traditionally this parable has been understood and interpreted from the perspective of the landlord, who symbolizes God, and the symbolic representation of Judgment and God’s kingdom. But when we rethink and re-read the same story from the perspective of the laborers we probably get lots of inspiration that possibly can give clear answers to the society which is moving faster from the root values of ancient ideologies. The re-reading would enhance the process of transformation within itself in order to inject new blood into the faith of a Christian.

The parable poses an important question as to whether we are going to take side with the last ones or if we are going to be a part of the oppressive forces? I would like to draw your attention towards this parable and urge you to re-read it in our context.

1. Attitude of pseudo-compassion: utilizing the vulnerability for oppression

If we look into the characters of this parable as abstract theological realities, we may not derive any meaning out of this. We need to look into the life realities and social scenario which are given in this parable in order to understand the truth. In verse 4 the parable gives the picture of laborers who were standing idle at the market place. They are jobless and they were waiting for some landowners to hire them. Schottroff says, “These laborers themselves are most likely the uprooted ones whose hunger drives them into the countryside at harvest time but who at other seasons look for occasion work in the cities – and who often do begging as well.” This parable runs between two distinctive layers of society, one is the landlord and on the other side the jobless laborers. On the one side the landlords enjoyed all benefits and subsidies from the Government, who associated themselves with the Roman Empire. Their loyalty prized them in huge form and benefited them in Roman citizenship, Tax exemption, etc. The landlord mentioned in this parable had immeasurable wealth because he was unable to measure the needed work force due to the heavy harvest and that's why he probably went on hiring cheap laborers.

 Here two types of labor is possible, firstly harvesting the ripe fruits and secondly planting and expanding the vineyard which usually happens through encroachment by utilizing the vulnerability of poor people who are unable to get the profitable yield from their lands.

According to the Old Testament point of view, the people of Israel had been provided with sufficient cultivating lands for survival. During the course of time the land laws were gradually changed by the ruling powers. Ordinary men and women lost their assets through forceful encroachments and became landless and jobless. This is the same situation which is portrayed in the parable. Jesus communicates the kingdom message “the first will be last and the last will be first” through this parable. Traditionally the act of the owner was understood as a call of Evangelism, but when we look into the social situation, we come to know that it was an act of maximum utilization of the vulnerability. We can see a number of people who were eagerly waiting for survival and the landlord yielding the opportunity. This is exactly what happens in our present day society, too, where the traditional jobs and opportunities are shrunk by the oppressive forces and that makes the ordinary people to be bonded to the neo-oppressive powers and keep the suppression moving. It is the win–win situation for the oppressive forces, because they are ready to take any form to hypnotize the weak and keep them as slaves through drama of providing job opportunities. People are often exploited in the name of economic growth and infrastructural developments because both the activities grow only through sucking out ordinary people like farmers, fisher folk, tribal people, etc…  Global industrial giants swallow up every sphere of local culture and there is no more place for those cultures or values. Paul Hiebert says, “The borders between the nations are melting down and the glocal economy coming in.” With the arrival of globalization the self-sufficient people have been modified into daily laborers in the big manufacturing units and forms by showing attractive offers. In the name of development, people have become slaves and helpless watchers in the game between the commercial giants. When we look normally, the act of the owner may seem highly compassionate but in reality it is but utilizing the opportunity to the maximum. Earlier I pointed out that big commercial giants are indulging in it, but we can see that more or less individuals are also doing the same to their neighbor. How many times we would have done the same? This parable calls us to retrospect on our own act of utilizing the vulnerability of others?

2. Empowering the vulnerable as the champions

The owner of the vineyard fixes the salary as one Dinarious (v2). We may appreciate the generosity of the landlord. Scott says, “The wage is not generous… A denarius a day would be sufficient to support a worker and his family at a subsistence level that is, at the level of a peasant." The fixation of salary reveals to us two things. This is all about maintenance of the system and to keep it alive among the so-called poor working class. Maintaining a particular oppressive system alive is crucial for any oppressive mind.

Even though the laborers accept the fixed wage, at the end of the parable a rivalry of working class may have emerged against the land owner. The availability of laborers in the morning, the third hour, the fifth hour, the ninth hour and the eleventh hour reveals the amount of unemployment. The traditional understanding of the church says the laborers who were called at the eleventh hour were fortunate ones. Due to this understanding people have hope that at any hour they can enter into God’s glory. Here the eleventh hour employees give the clear-cut message, in verse 6 as they replied to the land owner that no one hired them because they were least skilled, and no one needs the least skilled labor in the capitalistic society.

These laborers are pinned down because their own co-workers opposed them. The owner hired them not because of charity or generosity. Somehow he wanted to complete the task he had, here the hierarchy within the oppressive system forces the laborers to quarrel against the discriminative pay scale.

In this parable the pseudo generosity of the owner and the workers struggle for discriminate salary is overcome by the vulnerability of the eleventh hour laborer, who never had any voice against the system (v6) and against the owner (v7) and against the co-workers who asked for the hike (v.12).

The promise of Jesus comes for these vulnerable workers of the eleventh hour where in verse 16 the last will be first, and the first will be last.” The kingdom of God accepts the poor and last one whom the world considers to be useless stuff. The message of Christ comes against the worldly system which divides the poor working class into hierarchal levels and successfully continues the oppression. No one wants to be in the lower level of the hierarchal system. It is so because we are living in a world which runs after success, power and authority. The poor, weak, dull and losers don’t seem to deserve a place in this world which runs after the winner. Even a successful person is kept under tremendous pressure to continually achieve. Through this parable Jesus pronounces a unique kingdom message that the weak, the vulnerable and the loser finds place in God’s kingdom.

The parable urges the faith community not to blindly follow the worldly hierarchical system, but rather to follow the kingdom values which accept the weak. What is our attitude in our own church context? Are we running after the powerful and authoritative? What is our approach towards the weak? Are we still elevating the winner according to the majority stand of the world? Are we rejecting someone who is not capable according to the worldly standards?

Friends, here comes the question as to what we must do. We are called to follow the kingdom values such as love, compassion and justice, which is not the worldly standard like faster, stronger, higher, brighter etc. It is because we have a savior who has shown the model for us through his own life and ministry to the people who are vulnerable, marginalized and the weak. Let us follow the savior who accepts the last and even makes them strong ones to counter the world of discrimination. Amen.

 

Calvin Sushith Ambler

BD IV 

Shepherding the sheep ‘marked for slaughter’ (Zech 11:4-6)

While commenting on Zech. 11, in the year 1906, S. R. Driver said “this prophecy is the most enigmatic in the Old Testament.” In some sense Driver’s evaluation is correct. It is not just the date and the historical context of this second part of Zechariah that is in question but the content, language, symbols and images used here are also perplexing. Verses 4 to 17 of Chapter 11 are the prime example of such enigma.

Zech 11:4-17, as a unit, is a commissioning narrative. Yahweh commands the prophet to assume the role of the shepherd in v 4’.

It is also called an autobiographical narrative, the prophet is charged with the task of being a shepherd over a doomed flock. According to verses 7-8, the prophet being a shepherd tried to execute his role diligently, but because the flock rejected the appointed shepherd, the prophet could not continue his job.

It is a woe oracle. The tone of this chapter is unquestionably negative Chapter 11 itself goes against the overall message of the book of Zechariah. Zechariah being the late sixth-century prophet prophesied about restoration of the people of Israel in the land of Yehud (Judah) and pictured God as the one who has compassion for his people. God also promises to appoint good leaders over Israel in the first 8 chapters of this book. But chapter 11 shows the same wickedness of people and their leaders that they have shown before they were exiled in Babylon. Prophet Jeremiah criticized the disobedience and evils of the people and the religious and political leaders of Judah. Here, Zechariah is addressing a different generation than the prophet Jeremiah. But interestingly, the attitude of the people and their leaders, the evils they do, and the punishment God declares are the same.

There are various interpretations given for this passage. Some considered it as a pre-exilic prophecy may be by Jeremiah, but placed it here in the second part of Zechariah. Others consider prophet Zechariah envisioning the same punishment that Israel received during their exile in Babylon but now the agency is different, now the Greek from Macedonia are coming to overpower Judah. Most Christian interpretations and, interestingly, Messianic Jewish interpretation take this text in a futuristic sense, prophesying about the Romans overpowering the land and destruction of the Jewish rule and the temple in AD 70. This messianic interpretation prefigures the shepherd in the text as Jesus – the Good Shepherd, who was rejected by Jewish people and authority and sold out for thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:12-13).

Instead of going into the debate of right interpretation, I would like to concentrate on the read text. Mark Boda in his commentary on Zachariah considers Chapter 11 as a Prophetic Sign-act. Such Sign-acts are common in prophetic writings. Each Sign-act has three sections: exhortation (God commands an action), execution (the prophet describes his obedience), explanation (God interprets the significance of the Sign-act). Although the exhortation is always the first element, the order and presence of the other two can vary. The read text has two sections of the Sign-act: first, an exhortation in vv. 4-5 – God commands the prophet to be a shepherd, then in verse 6 – an explanation by God or significance of the Sign-act. The prophet’s execution of the Sign-act and the result are given in verse 7–14.

I am concentrating only on the first two sections of the Sing-act. Here in verse 4, the prophet is claiming an intimate relationship with Yahweh, “Yahweh my God.” Through this close relationship, like Moses and any of his predecessors, the prophet is claiming legitimacy of his prophecy, which is important as we have to notice that this prophecy is against the overall tone of the book.

The prophet has given a task of being a ‘Shepherd’ to the flock. It is interesting to note that prophets are seldom called ‘shepherd.’ In the Ancient Near East texts, especially in the Hebrew Bible, as well as in the New Testament the task of shepherding is given to the religious and political leaders. We, the Christian leaders, are also called to be the shepherds of God’s church. 1 Peter 5:1-4 echoes the language of Zechariah 11 and asks us to be ‘overseers’ and to be ‘examples’ to the flock.

Here, in verse 4-6, the shepherding task of the prophet is a challenging one. Those masters under whom he is appointed are cruel and their sole focus is their economic gain. The prophet uses the language of business transactions, ‘buyers’ and ‘seller’ and becoming ‘rich’. This shows the flaw of the leaders of Judah. There is an economic oppression and injustice happening in that society. Instead of giving ‘care’ and ‘protection’ the shepherds are using the flock for their own economic gains.

Another challenge was his flock. The flock is ‘marked for slaughter.’ A reason is not clearly given why God has already allotted the people to be slaughtered. We get the glimpse of this flock when the prophet executes his Sign-act from verse 7 onwards. The translation in NIV which is close to the Masoretic Text (MT) shows that this people had two groups, one is mentioned as ‘the oppressed/afflicted of the flock’ in verses 7 and 11. Particularly this group the prophet pastured during his execution of the Sign-act. Among this flock those who are of higher status and oppressing the others ‘detested’ the prophet and his activities. This prophetic text gives a picture that oppression, injustice, and disobedience are also prevalent among the flock.

In verse 6 God gives an explanation of such Sign-act. Both their leaders and the flock are under God’s punishment. The inhabitants and the land will suffer because of this punishment. God is pictured as the one who is against unjust economic gain, the one who counters injustice and oppression. He is hostile to any marginalizing activities either by the leader or even among the people. Though God has passed judgment to all those who are doing such activities, he has not totally abandoned them. God appointing the prophet to tend the sheep which are disobedient and divided shows God’s ongoing work of grace. The shepherds or the leaders who are already appointed are not doing their religious or political duties faithfully. The prophet is called to be an exemplary shepherd in such a situation.

As I mentioned earlier, we Christian leaders are also called to be shepherds, our task is also the same as the prophet is asked to perform in this Sign-act. In verse 8, the prophet, who is called by Yahweh to pasture the sheep in this Prophetic Sign-act, “goes weary” and became ‘impatient,’ because of the people’s rejection and he decided not to serve as their shepherd. We have to remember that this text is a prophetic Sign-act. The function of the Prophetic Sign-act is to pass a message in a specific historical context to a specific group. But the task of shepherding given to us is to be ‘overseers’ and ‘example’ to the flock. Though the people we serve are also divided on the basis of color, caste, class, religious or traditional backgrounds. Many moral and societal evils are prevailing in the church. We as shepherds are called to tend such sheep without being impatient or going weary. We have to remember that we are accountable to ‘the chief Shepherd’ (1 Peter 5:4).

The prophet in Zech 11 was called to do his job of shepherding under the unjust and cruel masters. They were acting like merchants doing business for their personal gain. Our context is not much different. The church I belong to, and in that case most of the churches in India, many of the church leaders are only after their personal economic gain. They sell the church properties; they close down the schools and hospitals or convert it to money making businesses for them and their generations to come; they unjustly use the money given for the growth of the church. They create or use the existing divisions of the church for their personal power-gain mission.

We as shepherds have two options: we can join the existing leadership and focus on our personal economic and power gain and for our generations to come. Or we can be a shepherd of those who are oppressed and afflicted among the flock. The first option is easy, we can escape the struggles from the unjust leadership and we can also control the people under us. Thus we can maintain the status quo. The second option is a challenging one; we have to have the inner transformation and conviction to be on the side of the marginalized. Though they are doomed for punishment because of their disobedience, this is the group that receives the message of liberation readily. Jesus our Good Shepherd was on the side of such people. His life and teaching had liberative aspects, both spiritual liberation from the bondage of sin and liberation from structural oppressions framed by religious, social or political institutions. Lord Jesus is the good example for us to follow.

Our task of shepherding does not end here (because the world does not end with the Church). We are not just called for the flock those who are in the church. We have to remind ourselves that our mission is to reach to the ends of the earth, it includes the people of every nation, tribe, gender and language. Jesus said “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also…” (Jn 10:16). Our solidarity with the ‘Others’ in the society matters in the task of shepherding: those who are marginalized socially and economically in India and outside, those who experience brutality on the basis of gender, race and religion in our society as well as society at large. We the shepherds are called to be the voice of the victims of sexual abuse; the voice of the victims of the power struggle between Israel and Palestine; the voice of the minority who are unjustly suffering under the so-called majority.

The question remains to us, as shepherds: Are we going to maintain the status quo within the church and outside in the society, focusing only on personal gain and power, giving a deaf ear to the injustice and suffering of those who are in the margins. Or: Are we, the shepherds, boldly standing on the side of those who are considered ‘destined for slaughter’ and ready to work from the margin for the transformation of the church and the society?

May God help us to discern our role as shepherd in the church and society at large, and make us a channel of transformation, justice and peace in this world.

Ankit Harry

MTh II

Discerning the Manyness of God: A Call to Participate in the Exoduses of our Times (Amos 9: 7-10).

It was on 26th August 2012, during my intensive field education in CSI Kanyakumari Diocese, that I happened to hear about the murder of Mr. Edwinraja, a young, 29 year old man. Later I was surprised to know that it was the fruit of violence, propounded by the ideology of cultural nationalism of the Hindutva Parivar. On the one hand, it is hard to listen to stories of how churches are undergoing suffering because of communal ideologies and on the other hand, it is also hard to understand and accept the fact as to how churches are becoming more exclusive and are shutting our doors for others with our mono- theologies. We are living in the midst of several ideologies and God-talk which are in one or the other way trying to influence our life and attitude. Can we close our ears without listening to the voices of our brothers and sisters who are crying out in pain and suffering and who are standing and struggling against the powerful mono-ideologies?

These are the voices which challenged and inspired me to search for the manyness of God as witnessed in the pages of the Scripture and to understand the meaning of Christian public witness in our context celebrating our diversities. In this faith journey, the book of Amos helped me to widen my understanding of God and God's plan for God's creation, and I would like to share this gospel with my community this morning.

Amos, the ‘Prophet of Doom', understood the relationship between God and God's people much more deeply than others of his time. Clearly Amos knew about the election of Israel and in the giving of the land, about Yahweh's special intervention against the strong Amorites. However this notion was reversed in the later part of his prophetic oracles and that appears in Chapter 9:7. Here in this passage, the prophet questions the people's belief in election. I would like to share two insights from this text for our consideration even as we search for alternative models of bearing witness in the public sphere, discerning the signs of the times.

1.  Manyness of God: A Counter Paradigm for Mono-Theologies
Israel proudly and doxologically affirmed that Yahweh was the one and only God and Israel was the only chosen people of Yahweh. What we see in this faith affirmation is an ideological temptation to absolutize Israel as the only chosen race of Yahweh, the absolute God. This is how the Exodus event was understood by the Israelite community and most of the Christians. It is not that the Israelites did not believe in Yahweh but that they believed too much so that they made an ideological claim on their understanding of Yahweh. The Israelites interpreted the concept of election to develop their own exclusivist ideology and theology. Because of this ideological linkage Israel became self-satisfied with its ethics and worship. In the midst of such absolutist and exclusivist God-talk, Amos re-interprets the exodus history to re-discover the manynesss of God and God's faithfulness to the pluriform community that God created.

Amos compares Israel with other nations to confront these exclusivist claims of Israel, informed by the manyness of God's manifestation and intervention in the life of different communities journeying with them in their Exodus experiences. The rhetorical question, "Are you not like Ethiopians to me?" contains the answer ‘Yes', in itself implying that both the people of Israel and the Ethiopians are the same to God in all respects. That is the bold challenge to Israel's conviction that they stood in a privileged relationship with God. Such an understanding glorifies the "sameness" of God and reduces Yahweh as the private deity of a particular tribe or race. Amos helps the community to come out of this distorted God-talk. The people of Israel and the Ethiopians are ethnically, physically, culturally and religiously different from each other but each of them is considered to be equal before God. Through this, Amos claims that Yahweh is not a mere national deity of Israel.

He also re-interprets the exodus history of Israel, from Egypt to Canaan, which was remembered among the Israelites as a great redemptive event. The Israelites believed and interpreted the exodus history as Yahweh's marvellous action that happened only in the history of Israel. But Amos asserts that the exodus history has its parallels in the histories of other nations too which underscores the manyness of God's manifestation in history. He quotes the histories of two neighbouring nations - the exodus of the Philistines and the exodus of the Assyrians. Amos affirms that Yahweh is more than the God of just Israel. Yahweh is the God of all nations, which also includes people who are considered to be Israel's long standing enemies. According to this, there is no single ‘salvation history', no fixed line of ‘God's mighty deeds', for such deeds happen in many places and many of them are beyond the purview of Israel's orthodoxy.

At this juncture, Amos presents a critique to the mono-ideology that was prominent in his own time. We hardly see prophets who confront this issue in their prophetic oracles. But Amos takes this as a challenge to re-interpret the history of exodus, and places a counter paradigm for the existing mono-ideology of sameness.

In a context like India, we see a number of mono-ideologies around us. Hindutva has been a classic example of this. Hindutva promotes violence against the ‘others', who according to them do not belong to this nation and thus deserve to be alienated from the nation. It promotes the idea of one people, one nation and one religion.  In a wider context, in our contemporary times, we can see how the political mono-ideology of Jewish Zionism misinterprets the theology of election and promotes the ‘chosen land' and ‘chosen people' and legitimizes violence. The Christian church also has become an instrument of this political ideology and legitimizes violence on Palestinian communities. We have a number of examples of violence that have been propagated by these mono-ideologies in our contemporary lives. The lives of Palestinian people are threatened and put into trouble by these mono-ideologies. They have to face abuse, harassment, suffering, and death everyday because of the violence unleashed by people who profess the sameness of God and the claim of being the chosen race occupying the Promised Land. In a way it breaks our hearts when we hear that scripture has played a major role in influencing this ideology. But the truth is not that. It exposes the violence of the dominant scriptural interpretations which makes it imperative on us to engage in alternate hermeneutical explorations.

Our call here is to understand the manyness of God and the need to affirm plurality in our lives. Mono-ideologies make us stagnant and hinder our growth in our relationship with God. We cannot limit the will and purpose of God to one nation alone, or to one particular people or even to a particular religion. The need of this hour is to re-visit our call and commitment in this pluralistic world more realistically and relatively. If we also subscribe to such a distorted understanding of God and God's purpose, we are in no way different from others who try to segregate people through such ideologies.

2. Exodus in the Plural: A Call to be Faithful in a Pluralistic World
The oracle of Amos appeared in the context of the powerful mono-ideology of the Deuteronomists and their strict belief in the theology of election. However, the prophecy of Amos, in the wider context of Israel's mono-ideology, serves as evidence that pluralism is voiced as a critique of the seductive mono-ideology. Amos resituates Israel, Yahweh and the nations by asserting that what is true concerning Yahweh cannot be contained or domesticated into Israel's favourite slogans, categories or claims.

A question arises here as to how Amos was aware of the history of other nations, especially the nations which were far away from Israel and considered to be long standing enemies of his nation? When the entire nation of Israel is so rigid with its mono-ideology and the theology of election, how is it possible for Amos to discern the activity of Yahweh among the others? The answer is simple - we need to understand the vigorous capacity of the prophet to imagine the pluralistic propensity of Yahweh that permits him to know and imagine facets of the lived reality from which Israel is blocked by its mono-ideology. And it is his powerful imagination in relation to his pluralistic context that re-situates Israel, Yahweh and the nations in his oracles. This is known as pluriform Yahwism and can be seen as a healthy re-situation of Israel's life in the world that affirms that there are facets of Yahweh's life not subject to Israel's mono-ideological umbrella. There is a deep sense of otherness to Yahweh in human history, which stands as an invitation and principle of criticism when Israel's faith becomes self-serving ideology. Amos clearly has no fear of a pluriform Yahwism but sees it as a stance from which Israel may re-vision itself more faithfully and more realistically.

As we have already seen, it is due to the misinterpretation of scripture and a narrow understanding that God has been viewed as a God of particularity. But Amos is different. His message is clear evidence to say that he was unlike other prophets of the time, who were also knowingly or unknowingly subscribing to these mono-ideologies and legitimizing the rigid belief of the Israelites. Amos had the awareness that made him to become sensitive even to the other nations and other people. In a way we all subscribe to some mono-ideologies in our lives. The exclusiveness of Christian churches has contributed towards the ideology of Zionism. At present the churches have started to propagate tourism and pilgrimage to the so called ‘holy land'. We can see this as a subtle form of Zionism that may be termed Christian Zionism. In this, Christianity also makes exclusive claims on its one and only true God to dismiss the legitimacy of other Gods and hinder the theological initiatives for dialogue. Jonathan Swift's satirical poem truly reflects our Zionist faith, "We are God's chosen few. All others will be damned. There is no place in heaven for you. We can't have heaven crammed." Amos' oracle is negation of this God talk. By affirming the manyness of God's salvific presence in our midst, Amos invites us to search for new epiphany experiences at the most unexpected places in our history where God initiates new exoduses in the lives of our neighbours.

Let us examine ourselves. We are aware of the exodus of Israel, but are we really aware that we are also a part of an exodus at present? This exodus is not like Israel's, with one people and one God. Ours is an Exodus and a journey of life in the midst of plurality, different people, and various cultures and with people of many faith(s). For such a time or in an event like this exodus, our call is to be faithful. What does it mean to be faithful?  It is to be sensitive to the realities and the faith of other communities. Therefore in this exodus, we are also called to be faithful. We are called to be open enough to affirm and accept the manyness of God and God's activity in the lives of people, who are of different ethnicity, culture and religion. May God be with us in this our endeavor. AMEN.

Andrews Christopher J.
BD IV

Violence against Women and Children - A Mission Response (Zech 8:20-23)

Zechariah chapter 8 is divided into 10 short oracles. The given text for this morning reflection, chapter 8:20-23, consists of the 9th and 10th of these oracles. They are concerned with the gentiles accompanying the Jews on their journey to Jerusalem.

These verses contain two important promises aimed at encouraging the Jews who were busy reconstructing the Temple. These oracles reveal that restoration is not limited to rebuilding the temple, but also includes as a major component the reinstitution of the covenant between God and his people. As we reflect on this passage we come across two important models for mission which are relevant to the present context of religious intolerance and violence against women.

First, we see an "Interdependence model" for mission. The passage forecasts a multinational pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship Yahweh. This is often explained as part of Zechariah's inclusivist position, reflecting a supposed universalistic tendency towards conversion to Judaism in the postexilic period.

However, there is no mention of conversion from one religion to another, but what is evident in the text is that, one group eagerly seeking to share the religious privileges of the other without trespassing the other's rights. Even as the temple was being reconstructed, the prophet envisages the sacred space of the Jews being shared by the people of other faiths and traditions.

The phrases, "inhabitants of one city going to another," (vs. 21) and "the nations firmly holding the garments of the Jews" (vs. 23) imply a desire to share the privileges and to be united in fellowship with one another. The prophet's vision has an invisible, deep and absolute interdependence between the Jews and the Gentiles in striving to create God's new community.

Today, there is an unhealthy tension among different religious groups in India and the world. The world is slowly becoming a tinderbox of religious intolerance. Religion is being used as an instrument for destabilizing the unity, peace and progress of the nations. We witness such conflicts in Uttar Pradesh, Palestine, Iraq, Philippines, and other parts of the world. Most of these conflicts are traced to an origin where a dominant group refuses to share space with those of other faiths and traditions.

For Zechariah, the building of the temple was of supreme importance, but it was not an end in itself. The temple would fail to serve its purpose if it doesn't provide space for people of different communities and faiths to share their religious experiences.

God's new community is not to ‘an exclusive group' alone. It's a community in which human divisions and hatreds have been overcome, in which relations have been restored, in which people can understand one another and dwell together in peace. There is no place for any spiritual arrogance or religious triumphalism. In the words of Sugirtharajah, "the lesson is to be less arrogant of one's faith and learn, listen, and draw new lessons from one another's spiritual troves."

The signs of such a universal revival of religion are hardly visible anywhere. We can only hasten it by attending to the prerequisites - i.e. promoting peace, social justice, and human rights.

This leads us to the second model, i.e. the "Life influencing others model". The theological view of the nations coming to Jerusalem to worship the Lord refers back to the Abrahamic covenant which assured God's people that they will become the channel of blessing to others. The coming of the gentiles to Jerusalem is not on the basis of vague oral proclamation, but on the basis of clear evidence that "God is with them" (vs. 23).

As the Prophet had even earlier listed (7:8-11; 8:16-17), the people of God can only be a blessing to the world if they practice speaking truth, rendering true justice, showing kindness and mercy to the orphans, widows, and being in solidarity with the oppressed. Until and unless they succeed to practice these fundamentals, the world will fail to see that God is with them.

This passage is most significant for the churches in India as answer to our question: How does one communicate the good news in a context where the church itself is often seen as an oppressive institution, where Christianity is viewed globally as siding with the oppressors, where the church is diplomatically silent or satisfied with mere tokenism of support to issues such as violence against women and sexual abuse of children.

In such a context as this, it is imperative that we practice authentic justice, exhibit mutuality and compassion, and defend the socially vulnerable if we are to ever make an ethical and moral impact in this world. In the context of sexual violence against women and children, we need to articulate a theology of empowerment and action rather than a theology of passive endurance and tolerance. The church cannot stay silent when the major population of this world is in trouble.

It's time we stand in solidarity with the victims of sexual and gender-based violence - not only with those that gather media attention, but also with those on the margins. We must be equally disturbed when we come to know that homeless little children are snatched from the city's pavements day after day, raped and sexually abused in the dead of night.

In such a time as this, is our mission an empowering one? What is the good news that we have to share with this world? Let us move with a commitment to initiate and sustain communities in the margins and to make news to promote life. May the Triune God move us for this task of action.

J. Stanly Jones
DTh

Mothers of ‘Other’ Faiths: Encountering their Faith in a Pluralistic Context

Introduction

I had an opportunity to visit a NGO called ‘Society for Peoples’ Education and Economical Change’ (SPEECH) at Tamil Nadu, Virudhu Nagar district, in my first year BD during intensive field education. It works for the empowerment of Dalit women and the development of the community. I visited the ‘Arunthathiar’ people who are the so called ‘Dalits among Dalits’. The women of this community have really challenged me by their faith even in their vulnerable status in caste, gender and oppression by the dominant structures of the society. Their faith in God made me to locate the same in a pluralistic context. Women in those villages are basically struggling against caste, patriarchal domination and economic exploitation. These experiences include aspects of the divine, of oneself, of the relationship to society and to the world, in an interacting tension. Many times we fail to connect colonialism, women’s life and faith pluralism. This is my attempt to see the connectivity of these aspects which is essential to understand our context and to act on it.

            Kamala Bhasin says, the “Other half of God’s creation”, in which the wholeness of humankind has to be celebrated, is totally ignored, neglected and made vulnerable – that is, women. And they are labeled as the ‘other’ not only based on gender but also caste, ethnic, religion and so on. In my opinion the theologies from the vulnerable communities have more richness and a deep cutting edge since they involve experience. Vulnerable women’s experience can be used as a model for divine-human relationships when it reaches for a new style of relationship neither a ranked model that weakens the potential of the ‘other’ nor an ‘equality’ defined by dominant groups but rather a mutuality that allows us to affirm different ways of being. From the read texts, let us grapple with how the mothers of the ‘other’ faiths are articulating their faith in God and in Christ.

1. The Wilderness Theology of Hagar (Gen 16:10-14)

Hagar was an Egyptian slave girl or maid of Sarah. The maids are given as part of their dowry in ancient days, are treated as the property of the owners and were exploited in all possible manners. Sarah would have brought Hagar from Egypt as her maid or slave girl. Hagar is a Semitic name and in Arabic ‘hegira’ means ‘flight’ or ‘driving out’, which shows the narrator’s intention to expose her action rather than giving her a name. The text is narrated from the vantage point of the dominant, patriarchal societal pattern. But our task is to liberate the Word of God and to view it from the vulnerable ‘other’ vantage point. Anthony G. Reddie says, “Societal and global ills such as racism, exclusivism, sexism, classism, world poverty and economic exploitation must be addressed through a liberation reading of the Bible”. Liberation reading is discerning the explicit patriarchal bias and the andro-centrism in the worldview of the biblical author.

In Genesis 16:10-14, Hagar encounters an angel like many of the Israelite men and women. She is an Egyptian but not out of the reach of God’s revelation. The entire 16^th chapter is one narrative and chapter 21:8-21 also speaks about Hagar and her son Ismael. In 16:10 Hagar is receiving the promise regarding her future generations. In v.11 “The Lord has given heed to your affliction” is as when God intervened in the sufferings of the Israelites to liberate them. In v.13 she is naming God the One who spoke to her; based on her life experience; she is making a faith statement here, “You are El-Roi”. This is a common Semitic name meaning, “El (God) has heard the parents” or “May El (God) hear the boy and help him”. Some other English translations say it as “You the God who sees”.

The naming of God was done according to the understanding of Hagar, but the narrator is explaining from the view point of the Israelites, equating the EL with YAHWEH. The dominant theology, faith in God and exclusive claims are seriously challenged by Hagar’s faith and theology. Liberation reading places Hagar as an example to learn how to live with human dignity, self-esteem, transformative experiences, convictions, individuality and capability even in the midst of constant struggles of life in the wilderness. She aspired for freedom and one day it was achieved by her and owned by her future generations. The individual autonomy and a capacity for free will shows that women should be viewed as “ends” not as mere “means”. She gave life and hope for her son and future generations through her faith articulation in a lonely, dry life, which proves she is a mother of faith. In chapter 21:14-21 we see her life and how she finally got a wife for Ismael from the land of Egypt, which shows her identity as an Egyptian. But she lived her faith in a God of all and practiced her theology in wilderness. Hagar gives a theology born out of her life experience. In Sally McFague’s words, Hagar sees God as lover or companion, friend and liberator, which can be a model for all vulnerable ‘other’ women and communities.

2. The Widening Christology of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mk 7:24-30)

The Gospel of Mark sounds many postcolonial concerns as it was molded under the socio-political milieu of Roman colonialism. Kwok Pui-lan promotes a new way of doing theology by placing the Bible in the larger context of the religious plurality of Asia. The geo-political setting of the text and the marginalized position of the women are the two key factors in the context of the passage. We can place this pericope in the larger section of Mark 7:1-23 where the discussion is about ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ which can easily be connected with our Indian religious thought pattern, the so called low caste and gender ‘impurity’ notions. In a Greco-Roman social context the very appearance of the Syro-Phoenician woman before Jesus is a shameful act. She was a woman and she had a daughter with ‘unclean spirit’ and she was a non-Jew. All these and her geo-political status project her as vulnerable ‘other’ from Jesus. But she crossed the boundary of religion and gender to approach Jesus, a Jewish man, for her daughter’s healing. And also Jesus crossed the geographical boundary from Jewish to non-Jewish territory. In Greek ‘de’ denotes the topographical shift in the narrative.

Her encounter with Jesus is widening her Christological idea, which she had when she heard about Jesus. She crossed her religious boundary and reached Jesus not for herself but for her daughter and future generations. Historical, cultural experience of discrimination and oppression, socio-political, cultural construct of gender identities are challenged by her Christology. She saw Jesus as the Christ, the representative of liberated humanity and the liberating Word of God: kenosis of patriarchy and disregard of hierarchical privileges – the liberator speaks on behalf of the lowly. Domesticating the gospel to one’s exclusive view point and to protect the Christ, who is familiar and safe, from the Christ, who upsets us, is challenged here. Her Christology comes out of painful human interactions and gives life and freedom. The ones who consider themselves as privileged people in social or religious terms are many times struggling to comprehend the Christ who offends them, but the “poor”- the economically poor and socially outcast, the sick, the oppressed, the rejected respond joyfully to the good news of God’s reign.

We can conclude her Christology is Relational Christology, Christ as incarnate Logos: his experience is to be affirmed and the concept of incarnation has to be broadened. Heyward calls this Christic experience in terms of a passionate, liberating, Christian humanism. This woman moved the foundations of Christology to the praxis of relational particularity and co-operation in the process of justice making. She relates her experience with Christ’s experience of vulnerable ‘other’. The widening Christology of this mother of faith can be applicable to the rural, Dalit, Tribal and Adivasi women of our country. She struggled to give hope and life with dignity to her daughter and future generations. She put a check to the triumphalist, exclusive Christology of the colonizers and oppressors which used to subjugate the colonized and the powerless. The vulnerable woman, who stood as mother of faith in this text, spoke and she continues to speak.

Conclusion

            As followers of Jesus Christ, what is our responsible reaction in locating the faith of the vulnerable ‘other’ in a pluralistic society? We need to be open and sensitive to the theologies and Christologies, so that we can provide space for those who are on the underside of history. We can ask them orally, write those faith statements and have informal dialogues to know and learn their aspirations for justice and equality. The challenge before us is from three arenas of our public witness, as David Tracy says, “They are church, society and academia”. In the Indian context, we cannot deny the reality of pluralism by saying this is not our concern. Exclusivism and suppressing the voices of faith of the weak and marginalized is to be challenged. Our desire should be to learn from and live with the vulnerable ‘other’. Let the God of Hagar and the Syro-Phoenician woman help us in this endeavour. Amen 

P. Archana

B.D. IV