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

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