One of the magnificent places I have visited in Bangalore is the St. Mary’s Basilica in Shivaji Nagar. I always had a fascination to visit new churches and see the architecture and the art work in the churches. My interest has led me to study about the history of the churches and it is wonderful how the churches have come into existence and how the architectural developments took place. Early churches were hidden in catacombs or in caves, but from the 4th century onwards they were specially built structures often modeled on the basilican halls of late Roman public buildings. The modern churches do not have this style. But there are some beautiful architectural masterpieces even today, for instance the CSI church at Medak. The builder of the Church in Medak written on a stone tablet saying ‘the vision to build this church was not seen by his eyes but thorough his heart”.

Though I understand the church as a faithful body of believers, I would like to concentrate on the physical structure and the building as such in my sermon today. As much happy I feel by looking at the wonderful architectural marvel of the churches, I feel sad that much when people would not keep the church properties for the glory of God. Out of my deep concern for the ongoing issues in various churches around the world, I would like to draw our attention to the passage in Luke 19 and would bring challenges for us in today’s world.


The Cleansing of the Temple
The pericope Luke 19: 45-48 is generally categorized under the subheading “The Cleansing of the Temple.” Such a subtitle implies a prior profanation or contamination of the Temple, and the profanation has been readily found in the conducting of trade in or around the temple. So many scholars suggest that Jesus was intending to purify the temple so that it should better perform its purpose. In any case, Luke in verses 45-46, keeping with the pattern of ancient entrance procession, presents Jesus as directly going to the temple. There, he does not offer a sacrifice as his means of appropriating the city but protests the corruption of the Temple by driving out the merchants (thereby fulfilling Zech. 14:21) and by quoting two phrases from the scriptures: “My house shall be a house of prayer (Isa. 56:7); but you have made it a den of robbers (Jer. 7:11). In each case, moreover, the context of the quoted phrase suggests important hints of Jesus action in the Temple. Why was Jesus so upset? Doesn’t he know that buying and selling were necessary for continuation of the temple sacrifices?

The Jerusalem temple, as Jeremias points out, was fundamentally an economic institution, and indeed dominated the city’s commercial life. The daily operation of the cult was a matter of employment for curtain makers, barbers, incense manufacturers, goldsmiths, trench diggers, and many others. Jesus’ anger could hardly be attributed to a discovery of the existence of temple trading as such. However, it is the ruling-class interests in control of the commercial enterprises in the temple that Jesus is attacking. Historians like Josephus also validate this fact as he records that the commercial interests of the temple belonged to the high-priestly family. And even the Chief Priest Ananias was called as the “great procurer of money.”

There is another possibility of seeing Jesus’ intention of purification that is he wanted the trade moved entirely outside the temple precincts. It is because, if any trade was conducted inside the temple premises, it was conducted in the court of the Gentiles. So, he wanted the place that was allotted for the Gentiles to be available for them. This possibility of interpretation shows Jesus’ concern for the Gentiles.

Luke’s abridgment of Jesus action in the Temple thereby turns it into a pronouncement story focusing attention on his words in the Temple and the fulfillment of scripture. Was Jesus able to stop the trade in the temple? It was not mentioned in the Gospels. But as Martin Hengel points out that any effort to stop the trade necessary to the temple service would have required an army, and there is no evidence of substantial martial conflict. It is reasonable to think that Jesus overturned some tables as a demonstrative action. It would appear that the action was not substantial enough even to interfere with the daily routine of the temple, for if it had been he would surely have been arrested on the spot. So, Jesus’ action was a symbolic one representing either the temple sacrifice or the destruction of the temple. This text has much relevance to our present context because of the presence of the contamination or profanation in our churches today.

The skit which has been enacted is only the tip of the ice-burg which has been depicted. In fact, most of the churches are being sold around the world. For example, in the United Kingdom and the US, most of the churches are becoming empty due to the lack of worshipers and consequently they are sold out to other religious organization or any Secular Organization. In the US, in Manhattan, New York, 47 churches were for sale. The Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles has said his archdiocese will sell its main office to raise money to settle lawsuits for sexual abuse. Cardinal Roger Mahoney also said some 50 other buildings could be sold to settle hundreds of lawsuits brought by people who had been abused by priests. Even in India, for different reasons, the church properties are being sold out.

During my experience in the churches, I am very sad to see the churches suffering in three aspects. 1) Selling of the church properties and other church related institutions. 2) Immoral life style of the pastors, and 3) Mishandling of the Church Collection by the pastors

Personally I have known pastors who are morally corrupted and who are involved in mishandling the church collections, but I would not tell you about all the immoral activities they are involved in. I would delve into the first problem, i.e. the selling of the church properties and other related institutions. This problem demands our serious consideration and action. In the name of development, the dioceses are going into an agreement with the Developers in the ratio of 60%: 40%, sixty percent to the Developer and Builder and forty percent to the Dioceses. The builder is constructing the commercial complexes, Shopping Malls, etc. and selling off on “Outright Basis”. Some times even the forty percent of money is not going to the dioceses but it has been misappropriated by the Bishops and senior pastors of the Respected Churches.
In this context, the relationships of the Pastors, Bishops with the Congregation of their churches in the dioceses are strained. There seems no possible way so that both may come and work together for the glory of Christ. In some churches, the laity takes up the worship and do not respect the pastors as they feel that they are much pious and holier than the pastor. The laypeople lament and are asking if this is the Christian way of life? Are pastors living as role models in the society? Many complaints have been lodge in the police stations and criminal cases have been filed in the criminal courts against the pastors and the lay people. In such a situation what is the challenge for us in the Churches? How are we going to retain the image of a “Good Shepherd” in our churches? Here Jesus becomes a role model for us. I have two points to make here.
(1) Jesus doesn’t undermine the importance of the temple:
There was profanation and uncleanness in the temple, and Jesus was also aware that it would not be a possible task to root out the whole system of trade from the temple, but that has not become an excuse to leave the temple. Instead, having made his protest about the trade in the temple, Jesus establishes himself as a regular daily teacher in the temple. So, the Lukan Jesus doesn’t undermine the importance of the temple but is strongly affirmative of the place and importance of the temple in Jewish (and Jewish-Christian) piety.
What do we learn? The corruption could be too much in the church, by seeing this people are leaving the churches. But leaving the church and going out of the church is not the solution for this problem. Like Jesus, we need to take up the challenge and protest against the evil structures and continue to serve the church to the best of our abilities.

(2) Jesus protested even at the cost of his life:
In verses 47 and 48 we see that after Jesus cleansed the Temple, the priests, the scribes and the elders looked for an opportune time to kill Jesus. Jesus’ life was in danger because of what he had done. Yet, for the sake of restoring the temple for the pure worship of God, Jesus was willing to put his life in danger. This is a challenge for us also. Like Jesus, the day we start attacking the injustices that are going on in the church, by our affirmative actions, we could be sure that we are going into a troubled zone. But are we ready for that?
If we see the history many great theologians that we have read about like Martin Luther King, Dietrich Bonhofer, have practiced their theology in their practical way of life even at the cost of their life, and such was their commitment, and with such commitment they have changed their societies. Is our commitment as strong as that of the stalwarts of our faith? Are we ready to bring back the true spirit of worship in our churches?

In Conclusion:
Cleansing of the temple or purifying it as a demonstrative action would be one of the essential elements in our ministry today and that would be called as a meaningful worship for the glory of God. As the out-going students from this College and many of our BD IV friends will be joining the churches in their respective dioceses, it becomes extremely important for us to think of the forthcoming challenges in our ministry and prepare well enough to face them.
What are our expectations? How do we envision the church to be? What would be our relationship with the congregation? How to fill up the gap between congregation and ourselves in the church? These are the primary questions that come to an out going Theological student. But we need to remember one thing, the church is a Community of Believers and there would be shortcomings, but we need to aim to make it a better place by our affirmative actions and our sincere efforts. If we are not against this kind of corruption then we are part of it. May God help us in this challenging ministry. Amen.

Affirming humane values as witness to the reign of God

{What does the response of Jesus to the leper indicate in the reign of God?
In the reign of God, what did Jesus mean by touching the leper?
What does Jesus’ anger convey to us?}

Mark was addressing a community where the people became divisive and had oppressive boundaries, boundaries on the basis of economic, cultic, political, legal, and ethnic grounds. Mark introduces Jesus in a radical way with the objective of shattering those boundaries, because salvation was for all. Mark starts the gospel by saying ‘The beginning’ in the beginning of the gospel and also talks of God’s reign. The reign of God is visualized as a present reality and a future hope. It values persons over systems, rejects systems that de-humanize people; values like solidarity with victims are given prime importance. The healing of the leper is one of the embodiments of the values in the reign of God.

Let us look into the text more clearly.
What does the response of Jesus to the leper indicate in the reign of God?
Vs. 40 describes the approach of the leper towards Jesus; the law made restrictions to prevent such an approach. The person who became unclean had to live apart and must stay outside the settlement. In approaching Jesus therefore the leper was doing nothing less than defying the existing traditions and rules of conduct. We can see a rebellious attitude in the leper when he comes near Jesus. On the other hand, as we know that according to Jewish law someone who came into contact with a person having leprosy was also called unclean. By touching the leper and healing him, Jesus was breaking barriers because he did not subscribe to the notion embodied in the law. In the words of S Kappen ‘in the act of Jesus, the rebel in the leper met the rebel in Jesus’. We can also see Jesus’ attitude towards the leper. It is not a mere willingness to heal the leper, it is more than that. The pitiful situation of the leper which was caused largely by the society elicited a movement in Jesus. Compassion and love are the backbone of this redeeming act. It is not a mere physical act but something that originated in the inward being of Jesus. Compassion is the nature of Jesus.

In the reign of God, what did Jesus mean by touching the leper?
The suffering experienced by Jewish lepers was primarily social and religious rather than physical. In other words, we can say, in addition to the Physical ravages of the disease, his/her cultic impurity was geographically described in the Leviticus. The leper was socially ostracized from every day of life.

Pollution is the basic reason for the exclusion of a leper from the Jewish society. Through touching and curing the leper, Jesus is underlining an important principle in the reign of God i.,e. the principle of anti-exclusion and anti-pollution. We see this principle being radiated in the first few chapters of the Markan gospel. In Ch 5 Jesus touched the corpse of Jairus’ daughter and he was touched by the hemorrhaging women. The climax of this principle is depicted in Ch 7:15, that is ‘what comes out a person’s heart defiles’. According to the law, Jesus was made unclean in all the above situations in order to restore those excluded from the cult and to raise the dead. This act is filled with affirming humane values. By touching and healing the leper, Jesus is restoring the leper into the community and affirming the life of the leper by negating his own life. Here, Jesus is sharing his humanity and welcoming him into a new humanity. Jesus is giving new dimension to this aspect by emphasizing the purity of the heart, not outward purity. K Berger invites us to see this act of compassion in a different perspective, that is, in his own words “Jesus’ purity was contagious”.
The pain of exclusion from the family, friends and the society, and the fact of being lonely most of the time lead to question of life itself. My friend, Atsung and I are assigned to an organization called ‘ACCEPT’ for the societal concurrent field work. ‘ACCEPT’ accepts the HIV positive patients for treatment and care. One of the deepest wounds we came across in the minds of the HIV positive patients is ostracization (excluding attitude) from their families. In the case of the leper the basic reason for his exclusion is the so-called ‘pollution’ but in the case of HIV stigma or fear plays the major role. How will we respond to a brother or sister who is affected by HIV in our own family? This virus can enter our body in many ways, who knows? We are not very far away from it!

What does Jesus’ anger convey to us?
Jesus is getting angry two times in this passage, once in vs. 43 where Jesus is giving stern warning to the leper. And next in vs. 41 while it reads ‘pity’ in the NRSV, some manuscripts read ‘anger’. Was Jesus angry at the structures which excluded the leper from the society?
Every society has goals which hold legitimate objectives for all. But sometimes the goals are integrated in a kind of hierarchical view of life involving varying degrees of sentiment and significance. When these structures start to regulate and control the modes of reaching out for these goals, there the system falls into institutionalized norms. When the institutionalized norms start to shape the prevailing practices, we find that it many a time dehumanizes people. The act of rejection and acceptance plays a vital role. Look at this passage, the priest decides and declares about leprosy. So the interpretation of the norms was vested on them. The state of leprosy was close to death in the ancient Mediterranean World of face to face culture where one took one’s identity from the eyes of others. We see in Jesus the moral anger which led him to cross barriers. By responding to the need of the leper, Jesus heals this illness of the society. In the words of J D Crossan “Jesus healed the illness by refusing to accept the official quarantine, by refusing to stay separate from the sick person, by touching him and thereby confronting others with a challenge and a choice”. Jesus challenges the attitude of the community towards lepers.

Reflection
When we study the attitude of the leper, we may wonder from where he got the courage to meet Jesus. We can see the same phenomenon in other occasions also where a group of lepers came to him and were healed by him. They understood Jesus not as one of the rabbis or scribes but as a friend and fellow companion with a difference. In Jesus the divine is revealed in a human way. Through sharing his humanity, Jesus has put forward a model to follow, a model of sharing our lives with others. J Moltmann rightly points out that ‘Human life is only authentically human when it occurs in dialogue’. One of the touching questions asked by ACCEPT’s HIV + children is so disturbing and makes us think “Are we also to become like our parents and suffer all our lives? There was pinpoint silence from the counselor before he diverted their attention to the importance of continuous treatment. This basic question works more and more in their minds as they grow older. As a church, what will be our response? It poses a challenge and a choice before us. I believe, when we stretch out our hands with faith to the needs of the people and identify with those whose identity is nullified by the community, there lays the miracle. S Kappen points out that ‘liberation comes only to those who stretch their hands to grasp the divine that reveals in the creative word and deed of their fellow beings’.

When was the last time we got angry? Was it for our personal matters? Or was it as an expression of hate towards a person? Do we become violent when things don’t happen in the way we want them to? When we study the lives of social reformers moral anger was so prominent in their lives against injustice structures. By healing the leper, Jesus questions the dehumanizing attitude and the closed mind set of the community. This act points us to another principle in the reign of God i.e. justice. Perversion of justice is also the imposition of suffering on someone who is unable to defend him/her self against it…Eliezer Berkovits comments “the toleration of injustice is the toleration of human suffering”. “Justice is done not that justice prevail but that life to prevail”. The reign of God invites us to become channels of this transformation, transformation of lives of people will lead to the transformation of human relations, thus to transform the injustice structures in our society. Amen.

Servanthood: A Call for the Renewal of Church

Introduction

The darkness creeps in and the clouds were moving leisurely in the sky. A lightning suddenly flashed, and a huge thunder terrified everyone. In a little time, heavy rain started and the village road became wet and muddy. A bullock cart with a huge load on it was coming on the way. But, it stumbled and got stuck as the road was muddy and wet. In such a critical situation, the rider had two possibilities to overcome it. Either he could hit the oxen heavily and twists its tail to pull the cart, as an act of authority or he could get down from the cart to assist the oxen by rolling the wheels, as an act of service. Jesus’ model of ministry is also similar to the second option, as the act of selfless service, characterized by love and compassion. The second option that we see in the story is much needed for the mission and the ministry of the church.

Before going directly into the pericope, viewing the immediate context of the text would enhance our understanding. In the Markan account, Jesus’ passion prediction is the immediate context of the text, where Jesus explains his suffering, death and resurrection to his disciples. In all Jesus’ passion prediction passages, it is reported that the disciples could not comprehend what Jesus really intent on each occasion. The ignorance on the part of the disciples is prominent in the Markan portrayal of the disciples.

Jesus in his final prediction of passion informs his disciples that they are going to Jerusalem. Thus, it is clear that this passage might have occurred on the way to Jerusalem. In this text, the request of James and John is considered as the act of failure in the discipleship. On the failure of disciples and the indignation among other disciples on James and John, Jesus teaches his disciples about the servanthood, by critiquing the traditional understanding of power and authority and also by showing himself as the model to follow in their life. In this passage, we could see Jesus’ emphatic message on servanthood to his disciples. Let us reflect on servanthood in two axioms.
1. Servanthood: Not for Position, But for Action

James and John were the sons of Zebedee, whom Jesus called to be his disciples while going along the Sea of Galilee. On hearing Jesus’ call, immediately they followed Jesus leaving their boat and father. James and John also had the privilege of having an intimate relationship with Jesus. In this passage, James and John expressed their desire for the allotment of the place of honor on either side of Jesus. The announcement of Jerusalem as the goal of the journey by Jesus might have made James and John to think that Jesus would definitely establish his kingdom as he proclaimed the Kingdom of God all through his ministry, or he would restore the fallen Davidic throne. With this understanding only James and John might have requested Jesus. However, Jesus’ immediate response, “You do not know what you are asking” (38a), and a subsequent question have an implied condemnation on James and John for their desire on position and authority.

Though James and John had the close affinity with Jesus, Jesus denied their wish for position and privilege, but asks all the disciples to uphold servanthood in their life. The act of Servanthood is not seeking the position, but it is an action of utmost commitment to our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, we, the followers of Christ, as the servant of God, Pastors, and the future leaders of the church, we should not seek for the positions and privileges for our own benefit, but we should commit ourselves to serve the humanity.

Servanthood is the active expression of Christian witness in response to the needs and the challenges of the community in which we, the Christians and the Church live. Many a time, we express our concern towards the society and church in our articulations. But, in reality do we really take any action to practice what we preach. The social reality around us needs our serving hands in various streams to meet out the various needs. In short, this axiom, Servanthood is Not for Position, But for Action calls us to do the action oriented Ministry in transforming the lives of the people who are living around us and it should not be just for seeking power.
2. Servanthood: Not to be Served, But to Serve

Jesus spells out his philosophy of servanthood in the context of James and John’s pursuit of elitist positions for themselves, and the indignation of the other disciples. At this situation, Jesus by calling all his disciples made a radical statement in his teaching that, “the one thinking to rule the nations have power over them and the great of them exercise authority upon them. But, it is not so among you”. Ched Myers comments concerning this statement that it is an attack against the political powers of then time. Through this statement, Jesus clearly expounded the different standards of greatness in the Kingdom of God and in the Kingdom of World. In this manner, Jesus proposes a counter model of servanthood over against the rulers’ philosophy of leadership as domination. Jesus’ model of servanthood can be understood from vv 43, 44, that ”whoever wishes to be great among you, let him/her be your servant; and whoever wishes among you to be first, let him/her be the slave of all”. In the above mentioned verses, both the words dia,konoj (servant) and dou/loj\ (slave) points a character, who attends others call to fulfill the need of the needy. In general, the term ‘servant’ means the one who serves at the table according to others wish. From this usage of the word ‘servant’, we can understand that the activities of one who serves are not directed towards their own interests but to those of others. This model of servanthood transforms the question of rank and greatness into the task of service. In contrast to the normal understanding of leadership in the world as being authority over others, Jesus has speculated among his disciples that the true greatness is in service.

The service of the Son of Man and His suffering until the death is the basis for the servanthood. Mark sets up a model for the disciples to follow by shading Jesus as the one who “came not to be served, but to serve” and through this he explicates the purpose of his coming as “to give his life a ransom for many”. The word ‘ransom’ is used to denote the price of release, which is paid for the liberation of a life that has fallen into debt. Thus, the prevailing notion behind the metaphor, ransom, is to describe an act of redemption. As the faithful followers of Jesus, we are called to uphold servanthood in our ministry as Jesus practiced it in his ministry. The phrase “not to be served, but to serve” describes the whole meaning of servanthood. It calls the church to renew itself and rededicate itself for the service of all. As the Christians, Pastors and the budding leaders of the church, Jesus’ servanthood calls us to follow the servanthood of Jesus Christ in all our endeavors.

Conclusion
Is servanthood possible in today’s context? This may be the question lingering in our minds at this point of time. To conclude, I would like to share an illustration, which happens to be a real story. I hope this will help us to understand our position in this sermon. There was a Personality Development workshop arranged in a resort at Goa for corporate executives. A personality development expert had come from USA to train all the leaders. As the workshop proceeded, the trainer called the participants one by one and interviewed them, in order to understand their strengths and weaknesses. He called one such officer to the stage,who was the CEO of a leading MNC in Bangalore, and he rushed to the stage. The trainer asked: “What is your main problem, you are facing now as an Executive?” Immediately the executive replied, “My body. My body is the main problem, as I am overweight; I would like to be slim so that I can be more active”. Then the trainer asked “Do you know what has to be done in order to become slim?” The CEO replied, “Yes of course, why not? We have to exercise regularly, control our diet and lead a stress- free life …” The executive continued saying all that he knew about slimming one’s body. Somewhere in between, the trainer interrupted him and made a strong statement, saying: “you know everything but you don’t do anything; this is your problem; go and do what you already know.”

Dear friends I believe that this illustration should be an eye-opener for all of us; we know everything; what is service? How do we minister to God and people? What is God’s plan about our service? What kind of service our God expects, and so on…… However, we don’t do anything significantly. This morning, I urge all of you to do what we know through our God and scripture; as we have just heard we need to keep in mind that Servanthood is not for position and, that servanthood is to serve. May the triune God empower us and help us to do what we heard in this time of worship. Amen.

Child: A paradigm for Ecumenism.

I came to UTC with a prejudiced mind that my church (that is The Chaldean Syrian Church of the East) is ‘The Church’. As I was confined mainly to my own church tradition, my understanding about other denominations was minimal. When I was exposed to other Denominations and traditions right from my first year, I realized the fact that there is a need for me to be moulded in terms of ecumenical understanding. Since we have students from diverse church backgrounds, UTC has enabled me to be open and receptive in terms of ecclesiastical organization.
In June 2006, I was ordained as a Kasisa which means (Fully Ordained Priest). This encouraged me to develop my ecumenical concern for creating unity among the churches in my place. When I look back to my own church, we have joined the WCC, NCCI, and KCC (Kerala Council of Churches) for the name sake, but so far in the implementation part there is no considerable progress as such. When I was searching for the roots of the problem, I realized that our Church dogmas are the stumbling blocks in our ecumenical endeavors. My church already had continued Dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church. Where as in the case of the protestant churches, owing to the church dogmas and traditions related with their apostolic nature, it never happened even in Kerala. And one more hurdle that I found out is the superiority complex of the churches by holding their Traditional and Apostolic antiquity.

The chosen Matthean pericope points towards Jesus teaching regarding humility, which leads to true greatness.
When Jesus was in Capernaum the disciples came to Him and asked this question “Who is the greatest among us?” The context reveals that, this question was asked by all the Disciples of Jesus. The query was very simple and highly relevant for them at that time, because they raised this question after Jesus’ transfiguration and His promise to give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Since the transfiguration was a very important event in His life, Jesus took an inner circle of Peter, James and John to accompany Him.
The other disciples might have misunderstood this act as Jesus granting special authoritative positions to these disciples, and this might have led to an internal clash among the disciples. Mark and Luke also refer to this.

As a convincing answer to the disciples, Jesus presented a child in front of them and asked them to be like a child. The word used for child in this pericope is Padion, which indicates a child up to the age of 7 and not Teknon, which is usually used to refer children up to 14. Thus it is obvious that the child that Jesus referred is an infant. One of the prominent psychological natures of an infant is that he /she will be free from the human temptations of sin. Also they will always have an inseparable relationship with the parents and trust them totally. More over children are always humble and open enough towards new situations.

The conversation here is about the Spiritual childhood. Spiritual childhood means an openness to learn and willingness to grow together. Jesus proposes this as the fundamental elements for greatness. Let us see some of the qualities of children that are essential for greatness.
Children always need constant correction from the elders and they will obey what ever the parents instruct. There is a common tendency among the children to accept any gift that is given. This shows the openness of children and willingness to cross the barriers in order to be part of the community. This can be proved right if we closely observe children in our community, especially when they come together. They are the best examples in crossing the barriers. For them there is no regionalism, they don’t have a biased conscious of their social status. They don’t see whether their friend is the son/daughter of a faculty member or of a student.

When Jesus set the example of the child to the disciples and the gathering, he was moulding the mindset of His hearers in par with Kingdom expectations. Church being the visible channel of the reign of God, it is the divine expectation that its ecclesiastical organization should be based on this very teaching of Jesus Christ. Scholars like Kilpatrick and Martinez agree that this Matthean passage address to the ecclesial leaders.

Here let us remember verse 3 which proclaims - “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” The process of identifying, and adopting the nature of a child should be revised in the life and work of the church, and here the context clearly shows that Christian community can be built only if there is an ongoing conversation and willingness to change from the part of all.

Here comes the questions – “How much humble are we?” Especially in our relationship with sister churches, how far are we open and receptive? Has the humility of child shown by Jesus Christ formed the basis for our ecumenical relationships?

This selected text provides answers to some of our questions. It is my belief that an interpretation of the two inherent qualities of a child will definitely empower us to build up an inclusive Christian community which provides adequate space for ecumenical relationships. Let me explain the two qualities which I have adapted from this pericope.

1) Humbleness for a qualitative church:
In the original text the word which is used for humbleness is Tapeinon which literally means to humble, to make low, and to bow down. This would also mean to respect others without having an egoistic element. It is one of the peculiarities of a child to be humble and free from any sort of egoistic temper. Here we should be very careful that the above mentioned terms should not be misinterpreted as a means of suppressing the historically marginalized sections of the society. ‘To humble’, ‘to make low’ and ‘to bow down’ should be primarily applied to ones own egoistic temper and his/ her notion of superiority, even with in the ecclesiastical traditions. That is to humble and make low one’s attitudinal authoritarianism. Ecumenism is possible only through accepting each other without having any element of egocentric nature. One should be aware about his or her status in order to accept others. In the ecumenical circles, many a times the churches are not ready to go beyond their own dogmas or appreciate doctrines of others. Every denomination has its own individual nature. Ignorance and negligence towards other denominations is strongly opposite to the nature of Humbleness. Jesus’ life was a good example for being humble. In the Christian circle, the present tendency is to project the mission and ministry of one church in order to get the attention of others. Such a purposeful act could not be considered as humbleness. Kingdom values will only be possible through the unity of the churches and making it as Universal which Matthew asserts through out his gospel.

2) Radical openness for an Inclusive church:
Another prominent character that a child holds is radical openness. It is by the gradual acquiring of knowledge that a child develops intellectually and emotionally. Child is naturally open for this process through which he/ she attains intellectual maturity and emotional stability. It could also be observed that a child always like changes. M.F Lacan observes that, Jesus while stating the example of the child, was calling for openness.
We have to be open enough to accept the stand points of others. A recepective mind will help us to rethink upon and to make timely changes in the traditional patterns. Openness towards others will definitely help us to know more about them and will provide space to accommodate them as part of ecumenical relationships. But today, most of us claim that we are from this Tradition, or from Apostolic Church and thus we boast ourselves to others. By doing so, we become hurdles for ourselves to be instruments in ecumenical relationships. Radical openness would surly empower the churches not only to accommodate others, but also to revitalize themselves in the ecumenical relationships.

Quite often, ecumenism remains in the theoretical level. But most of us are confused when it comes to practice. Even though Ecumenical relation has been made possible in the leadership level, in the local congregational level, the sheep are still in different folds. Even though the Catholic church attempts to recognize some of the churches outside Catholicism, their hidden aim is to acquire them and make them as part of their rite, by making Pope as the head even to that church.
It is quite disappointing to hear from Pope Benedict XVI that the Roman Catholic Church is the primal and the only church, which has the real inheritance of Christ’s church on earth. For him, Orthodox churches have only a half way access to salvation, where as the Protestants are merely an ecclesial community and they does not have the means of salvation. By this comments, Pope has shattered the hopes of an ecumenical community. A breach has been formed on the way to ecumenism.
In the contemporary ecclesial situation, where ecumenism is badly threatened, Jesus’ teachings calls forth for humbleness and radical openness in order to reframe effective ecumenical relations and interactions.
May the Holy Spirit lead us and guide us to become instruments in this endeavor in realizing the kingdom values. AMEN.

Jesus, ‘The Sacrificial Scapegoat’ and the Suffering Women

Introduction:
Mark 14:32-42 is loaded with theological insights but I would like to deal closely with the suffering and death of Jesus according to the Markan Narrative. Thereafter, in the light of the atrocities committed against women in our society, I would like to reconstruct the meaning of suffering and death of Jesus and analyze its relevance to the present context.
On that difficult night, Mark narrates that Jesus along with Peter, James and John went to Gethsemane to pray. Now that the time of his arrest is at hand, Jesus is portrayed like almost any other human being, who knowing that his life is growing short, began to be distressed and agitated.
When we look into the socio-political world of the text, this story resembles strongly with Mark’s audience. Mark’s audience too suffered persecution, arrest and were threatened with execution. In the midst of pain and agony Jesus, the suffering Child, prays to ‘Abba’ (Mark 14:36) and pleads to remove the cup. Brown argues that the meaning of the cup here could not be anything but suffering and death since this "cup" language was used earlier in Mark, in the dialogue between Jesus and James and John. Jesus did not want to face the cross, because that was not his mission and that is the reason why Jesus prays “remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.” Then, why did Jesus accept suffering and death? Was it imposed on him or preordained by God?
Reconstruction of Jesus’ Suffering and Death
Most of the New Testament scholarship proclaims that the suffering and death of Jesus was in accordance with God’s redemptive purpose and therefore it is preordained by God. But according to Mark Jesus’ fundamental mission was not to die but to initiate the Kingdom of God (reign of God). (Mk 1:14-15)
Earlier in the gospel, Mark depicts Jesus as a person, who is confident and is in command of affairs around him. He isn't troubled by challenges from his enemies and he demonstrates detailed knowledge about coming events – including his death. He knows that 'the hour is come; now the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners' (Mark 14: 41) seems to prove that Jesus’ death was preordained by a divine decree and Jesus accepted it and went to Jerusalem to fulfill what God has imposed. If so, was Jesus a Sacrificial Scapegoat?
In the Old Testament (Leviticus 16: 8-26) there is a description of a ritual in which all sins were laid upon a goat, and then the goat was sent into wilderness carrying away all the sins of the Israelites on its back. At later times, there was a modification in this ritual, because sometimes the goat used to return, which was considered as such an evil omen. Thus, the goat was killed, either by pushing it over the cliff or in some other manner.
The prophesies in the Old Testament about the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53) have been conveniently linked with Jesus. But we should recognize that it was the early Christians, who after their experience of the death and resurrection of Jesus that they looked back to the prophets and searched the Old Testament scriptures to make sense of their own cognitive dissonance relative to the awful enigma of a suffering and dying Messiah.
Historically and theologically it would be an error to view suffering and death of Jesus as divinely foreordained event. Because, Jesus’ fundamental mission was to initiate the kingdom of God (reign of God) – A kingdom which is not only spiritual but also political. As Yoder states in ‘The Politics of Jesus” that Jesus had Maccabean roots and shared the Maccabean expectation – that is the political liberation of Jews from Roman rule. Jesus had Zealotic expectations in the Kingdom of God and therefore it was not God who demanded Jesus’ death but it was Jesus, who was willing to take up the cross.
In the story of the vineyard owner (Mk 12: 1- 12) as we have seen in the skit the Father after sending his servants, finally sends his own son, thinking that they would respect him and not kill him. Instead, the tenants kill him and throw him out of the vineyard. The mission of the son was to collect the produce. In the same note, the mission of Jesus in Jerusalem was to proclaim the message of the kingdom of God, pronounce judgment on the temple and its religious and political establishment and call for repentance. That’s the fruit that God was expecting from the vineyard keepers in Jerusalem. But the religious hierarchy was in no mood to lend an ear to a fanatical prophet from Galilee, who was a threat to the status quo. The parable concludes that when the religious leaders heard the parable they wanted to arrest Jesus but were afraid of the people. Therefore, the reality of the situation in Jerusalem was such that Jesus expected his fate to be not much different from that of the son in the parable. Jesus would have probably expected a violent death not because it was preordained by God but because of the conflicts that he encountered in Jerusalem.
Jesus’ manifesto was to preach good news to the oppressed and to set the captives free. He stood against the oppression and exploitation of people like women, widows, lepers and other people. Crossan rightly reconstructs Jesus’ arrest and execution and concludes that it was the incident at the temple that led to his arrest and execution in Jerusalem at Passover. Jesus was willing to meet the demands of his expectation, even towards the end of his life.
The gospels and the Acts clearly tell us that human beings brought about the death of Jesus. It is not my intention to blame any particular group, but I would like to highlight the fact that it is the work of human beings. Jesus’ commitment to the kingdom of God was to remain faithful to his mission of proclaiming and living out the kingdom of God, even till the point of his death. This is not a passive acceptance of violence or a preordained task he was sent to accomplish, but he was committed to his mission and sacrificed himself willingly. Jesus did not die as a disappointed messiah. He died with the conviction that not even his own death was going to put a stop to the kingdom of God, that the kingdom of God is even greater than his own life. In fact, he came to the place where he believed that if the kingdom of God meant his own death, he would accept the bitter cup and drink it.
Relevance of Jesus’ Suffering and Death for Suffering Women
What is the relevance of Jesus’ suffering and death for the oppressed in our society? Women in our society are sometimes forced to suffer and die a violent death. We cannot glorify suffering in the context of the suffering women. We cannot view it as a virtue.
In countries like India, suffering women are advised to become ‘an ideal woman’ by being submissive and obedient to their husbands in distorted relationships and abusive marriages. “The more you beat them, the better they would be” is the notion prevalent about woman. It is offensive to the oppressed to concentrate on liberation without going into the depths of oppression. Domestic violence is a reality in the Church and we don’t need another story to prove the fact. Unequal power relations in the world have the root cause for proliferation of domestic violence. Sometimes even the Church seems to sanction these oppressive structures by emphasizing that no matter what the husband does, the wife has to be submissive. All these overt and covert forms of violence are very much evident in our society.
Some propose Christ as an example for women to endure their sufferings as Christ endured his cross. But Jesus’ suffering was necessary part of his solidarity with the oppressed through which he proclaimed a new reign of God. Jesus initiated a kingdom of God movement in word and deed, therefore, it cannot be used to validate or encourage women to remain in abusive marriages or to sacrifice their selfhood. Jesus’ fundamental understanding of the reign of God is not to take us into another world and escape the reality but has always challenged the staus quo and questioned the attitude against women of his time.
What is the Challenge for today?
Can the cross be sacralized in a way that will empower women and men for survival? For many centuries, the Cross has been a symbol of empowering the oppressed communities and it is a witness to the fact that God is on their side. It is also a reminder to the fact that God, in Jesus, knows and suffered violence and oppression, and yet was able to walk beyond the cross. Moreover, our belief in resurrection makes the cross as a powerful symbol giving us the hope that the cross is not the end, but through resurrection there is still hope for the oppressed in the midst of pain and suffering. Yet sacralizing cross could be dangerous if it is a symbol of violence.
In conclusion, the message conveyed at Gethsemane is that Jesus was willing to accept the ultimate consequence (death) by standing strong against oppression to bring the reign of God. This is not a passive acceptance of violence or a preordained task he was sent to accomplish, but rather a commitment to not to turn back from his mission. Abba did not send Jesus to be killed, but to initiate the reign of God. Abba then transformed this violent consequence of Jesus' mission into defeat over death itself. This is the good news for all of us, but more so for women in situations of domestic violence. Jesus' example is not to passively suffer and submit to violence, but rather to stand strong against oppression and hope in God's ability to transform even the worst situations. Amen.

ROLE OF JUST VIOLENCE IN SHEPHERDING MINISTRY

Golla kalakshepam:{“Golla Suddulu” is a Shepherd’s folk mode of communication which is used to communicate the plight of the poor and the oppressed, and countering the dominant sarcastically. “Hari Katha Kalakshepum” is another mode of communication which is basically used by the dominant, wherein the stories of the ancient epics are communicated. “Golla Kalakshepum” is the fusion of both these modes, to communicate gospel as well as to bring both the oppressor and oppressed together, a present action with a futuristic hope of a single humanity}
VEERA’S GOLLA KALAKSHEPUM18TH JUNE 2007THEME: ROLE OF JUST VIOLENCE IN SHEPHERDING MINISTRY
Devudavu Devudavu Yessiah
Mammu Balaparichee Devudavu Neevayya Porade Devudavu Neevayya Mammu Poshinchee Devudavu Yessiah Swaardam Yele Lokam Lo Nis Swaardam Neevayya Raavaya …….Raavaya………. Raavaya Raavaya Yessiah Mamuu Darichercha Raavayya Messiah.
Meaning: Lord you are the one who strengthen us, you are the one who fights for us and feeds us. in this world where selfishness rules, come Lord, come, let us our goals.
Good morning everybody,
I am Veera (brave) a Shepherd taking care of my sheep all through the week and preaching gospel in my own style during my leisure time to people around me. I was passing this way so I thought I would share my experiences and thoughts to all of you, who are very much sound theologically and also spiritually. I feed my sheep in green pastures and take care of them when ever they are sick; I not only give my life to save them but also will not hesitate take someone’s life to protect them. One of my friends an evangelist in Kashmir is on the top of the militants most wanted hit. So, I asked him why you can’t get a gun with license for his self- protection. Though he wanted to go for it he was very much worried about the ecclesial structures and peoples responses. Then some fundamental questions came to my mind, does the passiveness in our life define the “quality” of our calling? Does a shepherding ministry end with a sacrifice? Do we need to be passive accepters of violence against us or active resisters of it?Then I thought about my big guru “The good Shepherd” and his words in Luke 22:35-38, he said to them “when I send you out with out a purse, bag or sandals, did u lack any thing?” they said, “no, not a thing.” He said to them, “but now, the one who has a purse must take it, and like wise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For, I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me,’ and he was counted among the lawless’; they said “Lord, look here are two swords, “he replied, “It is enough”.So I thought let me ask people what they think about this particular passage and their stand on the role of just violence of pastors in ministry today, I got some interesting statements and real life experiences.Interaction:But before going into that let us look into the text and its context.Basically Luke divided the time of Jesus into three “today tomorrow and day after” today tomorrow refers to the ministry of Jesus and the “day after refers to the continuation of the ministry of Jesus in the church. Brandon opines that in Luke 22:35-38, Jesus was aiming his disciples or checking their protection to make sure that they are sufficiently armed. He is doubtful that the disciples had only two swords with them. The fact that the party deputed to arrest Jesus in the garden came prepared with arms indicate that Judas had warned them that the disciples of Jesus were well armed and the followers of Jesus offered serious armed resistance.To understand the passage in a better manner we need to reflect on the social setting of the ancient Palestine and Roman Empire and Jesus’ relation ship with the on going political struggle in his times. While constructing this we need to over come the hundred years of censorship on the part of the church and the Roman Empire, which found it necessary to syncretize Christianity’s doctrines with the paganism surrounding it so that its survival could be assured. The militant nature of Jesus was carefully but not completely hidden by church censors who redacted the New Testament in the early and afterwards. The actual translation and interpretation of the disciples’ background proves that half of them belong to the Zealot faction group of that times and Jesus had very close relationship with the happenings of that time. There were many attempts made to distinguish Jesus from the Zealots and church leaders found it necessary to make Jesus appear to be pro-roman and to blame Jews for the crucifixion ignoring the fact that Judas and Simon Peter were both zealots and that Jesus told his followers that he had come not to bring peace but the sword.Porade Balam Eevuu Yessiah Maaku Pourusham Eyavayya Yessiah Perikithanam Paradoli Dayryamu Makuevva Raavaya …….Raavaya……….{Give us enough energy to fight back, give us zeal, remove our timidness fill us with your courage}Brandon explains a difficult text; according to him “it is enough” is interpreted as enough of this according to those who hold this view Jesus spoke these words in exasperation to reprimand his disciples for carrying arms. The problem with this interpretation is that it questions the intelligence of the disciples. Surely they must have understood what Jesus meant after all, it is not a riddle that he placed before them. It is also in their nature to ask Jesus if they do not understand something. Why then, were the disciples still carrying swords in the garden? Why did the sword thrust occur? Other explanations do not answer these questions.The most likely solution is that the words meant the opposite of what was said. In certain manner of speaking, the speaker speaks the opposite of what the spoken words carry on opposite sense. On the other hand, it could have been spoken sarcastically. An expression of the spoken words would then be “do you think that two swords are enough?”To proceed further, on the other hand, scholars like Horsley view Jesus as a ‘Social Prophet’. He uses models drawn from social sciences to reconstruct a portrait of political and social circumstances in Palestine at the time of Jesus. To put it simply, the situation was one of colonial struggle. His projection of Jesus as a social prophet is widely accepted. Most historical scholars today view Jesus as one whose ministry must be understood at least on some level as a response to the political situation of his days. He regards the kingdom of god in Jesus preaching as a socio-political phenomenon. Kingdom of God is a political metaphor symbol, which clearly include the social-economic-political substance of human relations as willed by God. Taking the above argument into consideration and keeping the social, political struggle (Zealot wars) and psychological, emotional stress and above all, taking the text in a more literal sense we can clearly view Jesus as a ‘Commander’. A commander, who not only instructs his soldiers to equip themselves with cloths and boots, also instructs them to carry their weapon for their self protection and also to guard their people from enemy attack.Sevakulam Memuayya Yessiah Mamu Sainikuluga Marchuu Yessiah Dustulanu Anicheveya Daryamunu Makuevva Raavaya …….Raavaya {We are preachers but transform us as your warriors, give us enough courage to destroy the wicked}That’s it; don’t ask me how I know all these things. Actually in summer there is a shortage of grass, and during that time my sheep menu also used to have theological books and periodicals.Now let us think about us, we call ourselves as Shepherds and the congregations as sheep, we interpret Christ as the good Shepherd. Does the good Shepherd’s responsibility end up with just the feeding of the sheep at the green pastures and laying life for the sheep? As a Shepherd, I have my own political tactics to save my sheep from the wild animal attacks. We usually have two sticks with us; when ever a bear attacks us we will throw one stick at the bear. The bears basically have weak forelegs, so as it will catch the stick with them by standing on their back legs, immediately we will hit on the forelegs and break them and make the bear unmovable. Apart from this political tactic we have a small sword to protect ourselves from the other wild animal.Though my guru is termed as Good Shepherd his revolutionary attitude was never hidden and he had his own definite stand in a more real sense. His expression of Good Shepherd also carries his defensive nature to act on behalf of the sheep in hard times to protect; this can be viewed from his links with the zealot movement through his disciples. The given passage is definitely a time of equipping his followers with the basic necessities and instructing them with about the coming times.In the present context there are many incidents where we notice that maximum of our ministries and ministers are silent with regard to the attacks done on the Christian word bearers and name bearers. It is because of the “Redacted Christ”, who was been made as a sober figure. However, Christ can never be bounded and framed to certain boundaries; he is a dynamic figure who shapes himself according to the context and the people struggles. Christ was never inactive his life death and resurrection had proved how active he was to break the natural, earthly and societal laws. He was violent in accepting violence in the cross he retaliated back through his resurrection.People have different stands to take as we have seen earlier according to the situations, but Jesus was very much possessed with the human vigor, spontaneity and vitality. He had his own role to play in the political scenario of his times. There is no space for passive submission in any of his life situations. He fought against the death the ultimate end of human life through his resurrection, don’t we have the same responsibility to fight till our last breath to breath again.So how do we fulfill our responsibility? We need to reflect on our humanity the inter reflection of persons attitude toward others and divinity the intra reflection of a person to his own self. While proposing his argument on Dalit theology K. Wilson writes, the process of humanization involves three vital operations. They are revelation of one’s self, revolution in one’s life situation and revaluation of values. In the present times we are becoming more divine than being human; every person needs to have a revelation of his/her own self as a human being and realize his/her own responsibility toward his/her own selfhood, a responsibility to live life not to leave life. This is only possible through revolution of one’s life situation by breaking the traditional boundaries of passivism. There should be a revaluation of the values; we are living on the values framed by the people who don’t even have experiences of the challenges that we have. In such a situation we need to frame our own values and have a particular ethos to revolt against the situations situationally. It is not how passively we submit our self to a situation but how best we fight back that situation. Neeve Maa Guruvu Ayya YessiahNee Shishuluuga Mamu Marchu YessiahKatinulanu Dandiopa Dinulanu VidipinchaRaavaya …….Raavaya……….Raavaya Raavaya Yessiah Mamuu Darichercha Raavayya Messiah{You are our teacher transform us as your disciples to punish the corrupt and release the victims}.What about the message of love that Jesus preached?You may be wondering what this painting isLet’s see this, the most powerful element for human survival is “love” but love does have a few characteristics for its existence. Here the cross implies sacrifice; the Shepherd’s staff indicates the guarding and guidance. The most important one is the small sword pointing downwards indicates just violence - a defensive factor, to fight back the situation before we sacrifice ourselves for the things we guard and guide. Jesus teaches the responsibilities to his disciples not to accept death for their love towards their master’s teachings but to fight till their last breath. In this situation he equips his disciples before he faces the worldly trail to break the natural laws.In my interactions I came across an old bible woman who used to carry a sachet of chilly powder in her bible bag because she was once teased by some people when she was on her way to a village. This gave me a boost to my thoughts and struggle on this theme. People have a thought to employ their own minimum resources to protect themselves and accordingly they equip themselves.Everybody has got a blade with you. Though it is a simple thing it has some important lesson to teach us. It has two sides with the same quality, that quality is its “sharpness”. We can use it or misuse it. It can be used to protect ourselves or to destroy ourselves or others. If we are passive acceptors of violence we are destroying ourselves if we are resisting it actively in a just manner we are protecting our self. Jesus equipping his disciples does carry this message by preparing them to actively resist in a just manner.Just Violence is not just an action but it is a change of attitudes to face the challenges. It is repulsion of our self from the passive thought patterns which will make us to negate our self responsibility. Do we have energy to fight back the situations defensively not only through actions but also through our attitude to resist?