Aliens in our midst

One of the most satisfying as also one of the most painful initiatives I have been involved in my long NGO career happened when the Taliban were pretty well entrenched in Afghanistan, 9/11 was a long way away and there were swathes of Afghan refugees in India – mostly educated, middle class and secular minded Afghans reduced to penury by the harsh living conditions imposed by the Taliban. India was not the permanent dwelling place most had in my mind but it was the place of halt for the secular Afghan, escaping from Afghanistan and Taliban friendly Pakistan as they got organized for putting in asylum applications to various Western embassies.

It was a difficult life they lived in the mean while in refugee ghettos, creating a cocooned refugee sub culture of their own. Even as they did the rounds of the UNHCR offices to collect their stipends and the embassy lawns in Chanakya puri with their visa applications, they had carved out a living space of their own which can only imagined. A former army major selling second cameras in the Sunday chor bazaar behind Red Fort, doctors whose qualifications were not recognized in India practicising clandestinely among their own, a woman lawyer rendered unemployed working in an illegal Afghan bakery , their frames and despair filled faces still flash across my mind.

In small, window less rooms they lived and from these rooms their children went to school. Exiled from their homeland and with no clarity as if the children would ever see their watan, the mother land, the parents drew small pictures of hills and deserts on tattered pieces of paper hung up on peeling walls. There seemed to be no money for maps and atlases

Occasionally some one would get a visa but it was not always a cause for celebration. The entire family of course would apply for a visa, but it wasn’t usually the entire family that got the visa. One or the other did- some times the father, occasionally the mother, now and then the oldest child. The joy of it all was crowded out by the thought that the family would separate – two or even three generations that had always lived together – laughed and cried together were about to be separated … possibly for ever. It was not unusual for a family to be separated in another way. Most families had applied for asylum in more than one country. It was not unheard of for spouses to get asylum in different countries as faceless bureaucracies processed papers according to their own legalistic criteria. Aged grand parents would stay back with younger children and babies as other family members scattered around the globe leaving behind emotionally scarred families.

Then 9/11 happened and of course, shortly thereafter allied troops poured into Afghanistan and the Taliban dislodged from power. Hamid Karzai, a liberal and a friend of India was brought to power. The refugees trekked back to liberated Afghanistan and the camps first shrunk and then disappeared.

Our project Umeed, conceived in hopelessness was no longer necessary with hope flourishing all around. Many people as they went back post cards sent greeting cards and even phoned or emailed us thanking Umeed for that it had done for them in some of the darkest hours of their lives. It was a time of great fulfilment, knowing that families would be united again, there would be proper careers for the lawyers and the judges and the teachers, that children could see their own deserts and mountains and not merely see two dimensional pictures on limp walls. It was a euphoric moment of joy. But in the initial days of the project and indeed all through its very existence, we had to be ready to answer many questions – why were we doing this, what was the purpose, what was the reason? Didn’t India, have many problems of its own that needed our time and energy? Of course it had. Specifically then, we had to ask ourself the following questions:

What is the Bible's attitude to foreigners in general?
What is the Bible's attitude to immigrants and refugees in particular?
What do the gospel and the kingdom have to say to our subject?

A superficial reading of the Old Testament could leave the impression that God's purposes are narrowly nationalistic. His covenant with Abraham, and promise to bless his descendants, and his election, deliverance and rule over Israel suggest that the nations are not his concern - except negatively, in the conquest of the promised land when he decrees their annihilation. Indeed, Israel is told not to be like other nations and the prophets are littered with frightening oracles against the nations of divine judgement of the utmost severity. After the exile, Ezra instructed those who returned to divorce their foreign wives. In fact, throughout her history Israel is to maintain a safe distance vis-à-vis the nations in order to protect her own cohesiveness in terms of ethnicity, language, territory, religion and political institutions. So are we left with a negative view of the nations in the Bible? Does the Bible unwittingly encourage xenophobia?

Not at all. The overall theme of the Bible's teaching is summed up in Exodus 22:21, "You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." Reminding the people of biblical Israel that they had been slaves in Egypt, the Hebrews are enjoined to treat aliens, foreigners and sojourners in their midst fairly and with respect. Leviticus 19:34 echoes and expands upon the Exodus teaching. "The alien who resides among you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God." From the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews we hear, "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so some have entertained angels unawares."

Why is the matter of the immigrant or the "foreigner who resides among you" such a concern of the Jewish and Christian faiths and what bearing does it have on the current immigration debate in our country? As for the first question, the answer is that God didn't want the ancient Hebrews to forget where they had come from, or how they had gotten where they were, namely, the Promised Land. They had come from slavery in Egypt. They knew what it was like to be exploited and taken advantage of.

It was for this reason that biblical law is remarkably generous towards and supportive of the strangers in Israel. It is acknowledged that such people have no power, and are frequently poor and needy. Yet they are accorded fair and hospitable treatment. Whether assimilating or not, strangers were protected from abuse, especially abuse stemming from patriarchal authority, protected from unfair treatment when employed by Israelites, and protected from unfair treatment in the courts, including justice at the city gate. The example of God is also cited as a motivation, as in Deuteronomy 10:17-19: 'The Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, he shows no partiality, and loves the alien.'
Much after these scriptures were written, in 586 BC Israel as a nation, or strictly speaking the southern kingdom of Judah, was exiled to Babylon. They were not so much refugees, but even worse, deportees; not chased out, but led out or shipped out. The forlorn Israelites sat down by the rivers of Babylon and wept (Ps 137:1), with Jerusalem in ruins and their infants slaughtered. Predicted in Leviticus (26:33) and Deuteronomy (28:64; 30:3-4), lamented in the book of Lamentations, and with Ezekiel and Daniel as exilic prophets, the Old Testament gives much space to this catastrophic experience and future generations of Jews lived under its cloud. Even after the Return, not unlike Jews today who continue to shudder at the memory of the Holocaust, its shadow remains. With only a little overstatement, we could characterise the Old Testament as a book about refugees.

When we come to the New Testament, the obvious question to seek to answer is, what would Jesus do? What did Jesus do is more pressing and fundamental. In short, he did two things.
Jesus broke into history with a kingdom from heaven which encompassed those Israel conventionally thought to be its least likely subjects, namely, the poor, women, children, the socially excluded (prostitutes, lepers) and eventually, gentile sinners like us. Jesus redefined the people of God. 'Many who are first will be last, and the last first' (Mark 10:31; Matt 19:30; Luke 13:30; cf. 20:8), sums up the breathtakingly radical reversal that stamped his work and agenda.
The second thing that Jesus did was to insist that those who acknowledge him as the Christ should care for the poor and the powerless. Each of the four Gospels captures a distinctive feature of the moral vision of Jesus for his people. In Matthew Jesus calls for a surpassing righteousness; Mark sees him challenging us to a heroic discipleship; John focuses on the common life of love Christians are to provide for each other

The example and teaching of Jesus impresses on us a compassionate response to refugees, strangers and the marginalised. We know the heart of the stranger, for each one of us were once lost and estranged from God. The same logic applies to us as it did to Israel. Christians of all people can empathise with foreign strangers. Once we were strangers to God, then having experienced his welcome, we become strangers in another sense - strangers to the world in which we remain. The Christian response of welcoming the stranger, in full knowledge of the attendant risks, is not based on Christian niceness. Rather, it is grounded in God's love for all, even (or especially) for the outcast and the stranger.

Learning from the wise men

We all know from our Sunday school days about the story of the wise men. They are called Magi. These were men of science, students of astronomy, and students of the body of knowledge of their day. They were seekers of the truth and they had come upon some very important knowledge. But that knowledge alone is not what made them wise. It is what they did with that knowledge that mattered. These wise men knew how to apply the truth they had. And that is what made them wise. What can these magi teach us today? What example do they give us to live by? As we look at several characteristics of their wisdom, if we will be open to follow their example, we may find the ability to live above the level of ordinary mortals.

An Attitude of Expectancy

The first characteristic which typified these wise men was an attitude of expectancy. Expectancy motivated them to seek out the child. Certainly they had knowledge that the King of the Jews would be born. They told Herod they had seen His star while they were still in the east. But merely the having of the knowledge was not enough. I’m sure they could have made note of the sighting of His star in their journal. They could have recorded it for posterity, but they wanted to see for themselves. They were filled with anticipation of what they might discover. So, they became men on a mission. But it was a mission full of hope. They expected to find what they were looking for. In fact, they were so sure they would find Him that they brought the gifts with them. This was no academic endeavor. This had to do with life itself. Expectancy makes all the difference. Expectancy can put one into the Kingdom, or the lack of it can keep one out. In order to come into the Kingdom, we must look to the Lord with hope. We must believe that He can do something in your life. Expectancy says that Christ can make a difference.

On the other hand, if we look to life with a negative, cynical attitude, we never see the possibilities. If that’s the attitude, then we are doomed to live life in the realm of the "what has been" instead of the "what can be." Things are not always what they seem, and if we look at life through cynical eyes, we will never be privileged to see what might have been if we had only dared to hope against hope.

A Willingness to Take the Risk

The next characteristic we find is a willingness to take the risk. Not only did they exhibit certain expectancy, but they also were willing to risk that they were right. We’ve all heard the little cliché, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." There is truth to that statement. Jesus said it another way. He said, "Seek and ye shall find." In other words, we must step out on our expectation if we would find what we are seeking. The wise men were willing to put their faith to the test of action.

And when you think about it, risk can be faith in action. Risk is what puts the works to faith. It is the wise men hitching up to the camels and starting out across the desert following the star. It is Peter stepping out of the boat to walk on the water. It is Moses being pursued by Pharaoh, stretching out his rod to part the Red Sea. It is Abraham lifting the knife to sacrifice his son, Isaac, believing that God knew what He was doing. It is Joshua marching around the walled city of Jericho, trusting that God would bring the walls down, it is David going forth to face a mighty giant, armed only with a sling and some rocks. It is Nehemiah and his men with a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other, rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. It is Daniel walking into the lion’s den, refusing to leave off his devotion to God. It is the three Hebrew children being willing to be thrown into the fiery furnace rather than disavow their faith in God. It is Paul putting his life on the line in city after city for the cause of Christ.

An Openness to Discovery

The wise men began in expectation and risk. Now, their expectation and risk became discovery. The Scripture says, "And they came into the house and saw the child." They had taken the risk and now they had arrived. They had pushed beyond their horizons. And now they were witnesses of the greatest event in history. They had discovered the child who was king. What they came upon was the God of the universe, who had left His throne in glory to be made a man. They discovered there in Bethlehem the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.
What we behold here is the quality of their faith and wisdom. These wise men were wise indeed. They were able to discern the reality from the show. They knew of the kingdoms of this earth: Caesar’s Rome, the mighty kingdoms of the East. They had passed Herod’s palace, had heard the false claims of religion. But they knew life’s meaning was not there. They saw it in the most unlikely place — in a little, out of the way town, where a baby had been born in a stable. He was not born in a palace or placed in a golden bed. Rather, He was born in the stench of a stable, and found His resting place in a feeding trough. This is not how the world would do it, but true wisdom looks past worldly ways to real truth.

A Heart to Worship

But the wise men didn’t stop with discovery. The wise men were wise because they had a heart to worship Jesus. When they found Jesus, they bowed down and presented the gifts they had brought. This was the fulfillment of their journey and it reveals the wisdom of the wise. The Scripture says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Far from being foolish, these wise men knew the truth, and I suspect that the truth set them free. They bowed before the King of Kings, who, at that time, was only a babe. We see by the wise men’s actions what worship truly means. They not only bowed before Him, but they gave out of their treasure to Him. They gave gold, which is the gift for a king; frankincense, which is the gift for a priest; and myrrh, which is the gift for one who was to die. They acknowledged Jesus for who He was, and they exhibited, by their actions, their allegiance to Him. True worship is giving — yourself — all you are and all you have.

A Determination to Obey

Finally, the wise men were warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod. It seems that as a result of their worship, God was with them. And here, He gives them immediate instruction. Being wise as they were, they obeyed God’s instructions. This is also a key characteristic of true wisdom — a determination to obey. The only choice which honors God, that we who would be wise have, is to obey. We must put God’s truth into practice. We must apply it to our lives. The wise men did. We can infer this because of their actions. When God spoke to them, they obeyed. They risked incurring Herod’s furor rather than incurring God’s wrath. I think they made a good choice. They had seen a great light, and now they went forth to live in its glory and brightness.

This is also what we must do. We must put into practice the principle the wise men exhibited and live in the grace and glory of that babe in Bethlehem who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. We must never lose sight of the reason why we are here. We are here to glorify God and to do his bidding. The wise men still preach to us the virtues by which they lived: expectancy, risk, discovery, worship and obedience. They speak to us about the possibilities in God for all of us. They speak to us about what can happen when we put our faith into action. They speak to us about an encounter with Jesus that can change a life.

Contrasting powers

What comes to mind when you think of the word power? Perhaps we think of power in economic terms as in the worldview that says money, wealth and politics are power. After all, someone with lots of political "clout" is able to change whole communities. There's lots of power when you combine economic and political power. So we have a lot of media hype about PepsiCo's chief executive-designate Indra Nooyi has who been named the fourth most powerful woman in the world, while Congress chief Sonia Gandhi is the 13the most powerful, according to the World’s most powerful women list released by Forbes magazine. In its issue dated September 18th, 2006, According to the list, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, overtook US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to become this year's most powerful woman.

If not economic or political power, some people think of power in terms of military might. Power is represented in that image of a giant mushroom cloud hanging over the earth. An atomic chain reaction is a huge source of power. That power can be used to "tear down" or to "build up". The spectre of atomic power has loomed over humanity like a giant sword of Damocles. Whether used for good or for evil, atomic power used in any form requires an extraordinarily watchful eye -- precisely because it is so powerful and so unpredictable. There is a relatively new power that has emerged in the last few years. It has taken the world and the stock market by storm. It has been the fastest growing segment of our economy. Then, there is the internet of course. The power of Microsoft is so significant in this field that the US Government has been involved in litigation to break the company up.

Throughout recorded human history runs the thread of human beings trying to rule and control as much of this earth as we are able. Nation rises against nation, there are wars and rumours of wars, empires rise to control vast territories, enduring for perhaps a hundred, perhaps a thousand years, and then they are gone, surviving only in the history books and in the collective consciousness of the human race. Today, the United States is the dominant power on this earth. Some people think this is wonderful. Others think it is terrible. Still others are of two minds about it.

But every human power is temporary. We may build great empires that last centuries, and great structures that last thousands of years; but in the end, everything we humans do here on earth will crumble into dust and be gone. We may gain control over a large part of the world's territory and wealth, but that, too, is only temporary. It may last for our lifetime, or over many lifetimes; but sooner or later the wealth and lands that we accumulated will pass out of our hands, or out of the hands of our descendents.

We humans on our own are mortal--creatures of time. And everything about us that dwells in and relates to this material world will live out its life and then die. We can have no permanent memorial here on earth. Even if we manage to build physical or cultural monuments that last thousands and thousands of years, we know that in the end, the earth itself will be swallowed up by our dying and expanding sun. The universe itself will eventually either collapse back on itself, or dissolve into a thin film of inert matter, dead stars, and random energy, incapable of supporting any further life. All things of this material universe live out their lives, and then die.
It is only in a temporary sense that any one of us, any group of us, and any human government can be said to rule any part of this earth. We may have the reins of power in our hands for a time, but then they are gone.

Yet even when we apparently have the reins of power in our hands, much of that power is illusory. The United States is now the most powerful nation on earth. Recently they militarily crushed the governments of two nations with ease. Then they discovered the same thing that the North Vietnamese discovered: that winning the peace is much harder than winning the war. With overwhelming military superiority, breaking the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq was not difficult. Establishing reasonable governments to replace them is turning out to be far thornier a task than had been imagined.

Even here in our own land, with our government wielding the most sophisticated means ever devised of tracking its people's movements and their economic and recreational activities through computerized databases reaching into many of the things we do each day, our government remains in power only as long as the people want it to. The power that our leaders feel they wield is not their own, but is only donated to them for a time. Those who were in power twenty or thirty years ago are now simply private citizens, if they are not already in their graves.

In the end, all human power--whatever effects it may have for a time--is merely an illusion. It is real for a time, and then it is not real. And it depends on so many factors beyond human control that the power can hardly be considered our own. Even the President himself depends for his power on thousands and millions of others who could at any time decide that they do not want to do what he wants them to do.
In contrast to all the power lists of the world is Jesus. Jesus was a king because he has a kingdom but his kingdom is totally at odds with any display of power in this world.

People like to dominate others, abuse their power, and manipulate others. But that has no place in Jesus’ kingdom. We have had so many tribunals in this country and scandals because of abuse of power but Jesus is totally powerless on the cross, he cannot even save himself, “He saved others, let him save himself if he is the Christ of God.” The values for Jesus’ kingdom are service and humility. If we want to be great we must be like children. We are to carry our cross after Jesus every day. There is no place for violence or retribution in Jesus’ kingdom. Jesus is a king but his kingdom is not of this world

In many ways we see that Jesus’ kingdom is totally at odds with any kingdom or display of power in this world. He kept company with tax-collectors, sinners and prostitutes, so much so that the authorities described Jesus as “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners.” You would expect kings to receive important people and dignitaries but Jesus received the lowly and rejected people of his time. A king might expect to receive a gift but Jesus gave gifts, he restored health to those who were sick. Jesus was not the kingly type according to our understanding of king, he is a powerless king! Kings wear a crown. What sort of crown did Jesus wear? It was a crown of thorns. What throne do we see Jesus sitting on in our Gospel? It is the cross. Instead of an army there were people beneath his cross asking him to come down if he was indeed the Son of God. So Jesus’ idea of king and power is totally opposite to the world’s idea of a king and power

In the grand finale of His life, Jesus was sitting on the most unusual throne of the cross. ‘King of the Jews’ was written over it. But that moment of pain and humiliation was passing, and then he assumed his real throne on the right hand side of his Father. This can teach us something; to bring about the kingdom of God we have to abandon what the world considers important and even be prepared to be ridiculed as Jesus was on the cross. It was not easy for Jesus to begin establishing his kingdom with values at odds to those of the world, it cost him his life. It is not easy for the Church either now trying to establish the kingdom of Jesus in a society growing daily more secular and pagan. But for those who die to themselves, who truly open themselves to Jesus, the reward is a share in Jesus’ kingdom, “Indeed I promise you, today, you will be with me in paradise.”

All of us who may have power or authority of any kind are invited to compare their use of power or authority with Jesus. Are we using our power to serve others or to manipulate? Are we using our power for the building up of a more just society or to feather our own nest? Are we using our power in any way that might cause pain on others or in a way that could help to alleviate pain? Jesus taught us, to pray, “thy kingdom come.” Jesus has shown how to bring about that kingdom. Let us pray that nations and individuals will be humble enough to look at how Jesus used power and bring about the kingdom of God

Lessons from an ageing film star

Dev Anand, the evergreen actor celebrated his 83rd birthday onSeptember 26th. A commendable feat is that he is still active, stillmaking movies and still full of zest. At an age, when many who arestill alive have either fully or partially retired, Dev Saab carrieson unabated. However, looking at things from another point of view,the view of the film lover, his fans and the market, I am reminded ofa quote by the late cricketer Vijay Merchant who retired from theplaying field at the peak of his career. When asked why he retiredwhen he still had plenty of cricket ahead of him to all intents andpurposes, Vijay Merchant replied that people should fade out at a timewhen people ask " why" and not linger on till people begin asking "whynot "

Dev Anand was a great actor of his time and his film "Guide" isconsidered as one of the all time greats of Hindi cinema. Along withDilip Kumar and Raj Kapoor, he was part of the super star triumvirateof Bolly wood of the 50s and the 60s and even till the 70s. the moviesof the time – Hum Dono , Jewel Thief, Black Mail , Kala Pani , TaxiDriver and many , many others were not only box office hits but werealso known for their melodious music and giving breaks to singers andcomposers like Kishore Kumar and R.D.Burman and gave opportunities toveterans like S.D.Burman .

Those days are over. The movies that Dev Anand now makes are hardlywatch able. Mediocre plots, obscure casts, ordinary music and littledistribution channels ensure that only through the media does thepublic get to know about movie Dev Saab is making, what is its titleand what is its plot? You will hardly see these movies being screenedin the multiplexes or even the other movie halls and their DVDs Are rarely available too. Bollywood, which may respectfully call DevAnand, Dev Saab is ultimately ruled by the market and knows that hismovies do not really matter any more as no body watches them.

Looking through Dev Anand's life and work, I thought that there arelessons that we as Christians can learn – lessons that the Bibleteaches us but are best learnt perhaps when there are illustrations.Dev Anand was once a relevant, meaningful film maker who madebeautiful films but he chose to over judge his relevance and slowlybecame obsolete. The Bible teaches us that "Man born of woman is offew days and full of trouble. He springs up like a flower and withersaway; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure."( Job 14:1-2 (NIV).Also As for man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flowerof the field; the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its placeremembers it no more(Ps 103:15-16 (NIV)

But looking at the way some of us and our organizations work, it wouldappear that we feel that the above verses will pass us by. So we carryon and on and on far past our glory days and never ever adapt orchange or give way. The result is that a glorious and productive pastwhich is worthy of remembrance gives way to a dubious present which isaccompanied only by a passive tolerance if not outright derision andridicule. Ecclesiastes 3:1-15 reminds us that there is a time forevery thing. It will be helpful to the legacy we leave behind if welisten to the verse, give away our existing roles when the time isproper and adapt and accept new and meaningful roles that are right and proper for us.

Who would Jesus hang ?

Some weeks ago, CNN/IBN flashed me the news on my mobile that Muhammad Afzal, one of the main accused in the case relating to the attack on the Indian Parliament, was to be hanged at Tihar Jail, not far from where I live, on October 20th. Later on, the news was that perhaps his lawyers will appeal to the President and that perhaps his mercy petition will be granted, then again, perhaps not. Given the many innards of the Indian judicial process, it remains to be seen of course whether Muhammad Afzal will be hanged at all and if so, when actually he will be hanged if at all.

Given that there is so much of death and destruction happening all around us all the time, it should not be surprising that someone who was convicted of bombing Parliament - the ultimate symbol of Indian democracy and its people - should be sentenced to death. And yet, it perhaps still touches a raw nerve whenever the state is involved in the taking of human life - be it as a passive bystander as when farmers commit suicide due to inept policies or when civilians die in custody or encounters or of course as in the current case, where the state formally after due process decides to sentence someone to death using the proviso that the death sentence is to be passed in the rarest of rare instances. Only in the last instance, is the state actually sanctioning and executing a death – in the case of encounter killings or custodial deaths, the government of the day and its instruments are active or passive accomplices, though arguably, the situation could be termed a lot worse if the state is seen as a passive spectator as deaths and killings happen unchecked and without any accountability under its gaze and watch.

Although the trauma of capital punishment is what it is and cannot be reduced, one of the areas where judicial reform should be directed is towards the speedy disposal of cases where the death sentence is awarded - both from the perspective of the accused as well as the state. If the state really wants an accused executed and feels that in a particular situation the circumstances warrant it, then it needs to do all in its power to ensure that the sentence passed is speedily executed and all appeals for clemency and retrial are expeditiously disposed off. It surely does not help the purposes of justice when the trials and appeals linger on for years and the public feels cheated of the verdict that was originally delivered.

From the point of view of the convict too, although it might at one level appear that justice is being delivered and lives saved by dragging the judicial process for years through numerous adjournments and appeals, in actual fact, the life the convict actually lives with the sword of Damocles hanging over him is actually no life worth reckoning. Cases have been known to drag on for years and by the time the petition is disposed one way or the other, the accused may have spent most of his or her active life in prison. Human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which routinely track custodial deaths and encounter killings have little to say about the prolonged period of time that one can spend in prison simply as an under trial with either no verdict being pronounced or the verdict being challenged in courts through innumerable appeals and adjournments.

As a Christian, I cannot imagine Jesus hanging any body or sentencing any one to death, though of course it could be argued that the final judgement that He will pronounce will be much harsher. But if it is difficult to imagine Jesus actually awarding the capital punishment, it is possible that Christians holding civil position and power may from time to time need to exercise to exercise that option though secular Europe has largely discarded it. But from a Christian point of view , this much can surely be said- that if the right to life and liberty is not meant for some because of the heinousness of their crimes, the least a humane state could do is to ensure a speedy and painless execution of the death sentence. May be Christians could lobby for a humane and painless execution of the death sentence. May be Christians couldlobby for that Surely, if the right to life and liberty is not meant for some because of the heinousness of their crimes, the least a humane state could do is to ensure a speedy and painless execution of the death sentence.

Which languages would Jesus preserve ?

The Karnataka Government's decision to shut English-medium schools in the state if they do not switch to Kannada at the primary school level has predictably created a controversy. The policy was framed in 1994, but had been gathering dust hitherto. The state government’s decision to revive the policy has affected at least 2,000 schools.

The regional language issue has been a bane of independent India and at various points of time has gripped one part of the country or another. The latest is the Kannada controversy, which has reared its head while the nation is in the process of getting integrated with the world primarily on the strength of the English language. For months now, schools in the four Naga-dominated districts of Manipur — Ukhrul, Chandel, Senapati and Tamenglong — are being pressured into adopting the text-book and syllabi of the Nagaland Board of Secondary Education and eventually to affiliate with the Nagaland Board. This, obviously, is a precursor to the demand that the districts should eventually become part of the greater Nagaland.

Whatever the motive or rationale behind such demands, it cannot be denied there are also genuine fears of cultural extinction that fuel such local insistences. One of the dangers of One-India or One-World phenomena is the great insecurity that it creates in minority groups as cultures and languages get swallowed up and there is a struggle for minorities to keep their identities alive. There is a report from Peru’s Summer Institute of Linguistics that 30 of the 100 basic languages in Peru have disappeared in the last few decades and another 12 or so are about to disappear. As monolithic cultures take shape and global languages like English become even more popular, the smaller and less spoken languages will gradually disappear or fall into disuse.

Different communities are reacting to the need to preserve their identity in different ways. Countries like Australia have recently decided that even within the English-speaking world, they need to preserve their own Australian culture and norms and have recently decided that to become a citizen of Australia, it will no longer be enough to just be a speaker of English – one will need to know, according to the Prime Minister, John Howard, “a good deal more about Australia and about Australian customs and the Australian way of life.”

It is important in a diverse country like India to preserve the delicate balance of culture and not allow the hegemony of one culture or language. Many of our tribes are struggling to keep afloat and maintain their identity. It is so easy for them to be swamped completely and be obliterated out of the anthropological map. The people of Karnataka are not a minority and therefore they can express their views, but by fighting for the English language they are teaching us that fighting for language rights and cultural identities can become a tool not of emancipation but of chauvinism.

How the Evangelical church has changed- Reeflections from the Micah Conference 2006

1) The passion that is there in responding to humanitarian concernsand being out there in the market place trying to shape and influencepublic opinion – be it on globalization, the war on terror , religiousfundamentalism or any other was missing may be even a decade ago. Then it was a small and motley collection of people who did social work andhumanitarian response of any kind - World Vision and Tear Fund andtheir camp followers and even they did – safe, sanitized social work –feeding the hungry and the poor – instead of asking uncomfortablequestions about inequitable distribution of resources, armsmanufacture in the West and their subsequent export and these sort ofthing. World Vision, Tearfund and their partners are still there andhave evolved but others have joined—so many that there is a need for anetwork likes Micah.

2) The gap between the liberals and the evangelicals is narrowing. Inthe India sub group meeting it was mentioned that what Micah istalking about today was embraced by mainline churches like the churchof North India in the 1990s under the acronym – THUM(Towards aholistic understanding of mission). Today , evangelicals havejourneyed a long way from just planting churches to also caring forthe material , human needs and the liberals have also journeyed toaccept that fundamental sustainable development does not happenwithout a corresponding development of the heart.

3) A decade ago, evangelicals had the war cry that they had all theanswers and the answers had been given to them to deliver- today weare prepared to accept that we might have to learn from others, thatwe have questions too – hence the expressed desire to learn the true
WCC affiliated denominations and churches.

4) The Evangelical church today is a evolving, dynamic and a learningcommunity. There are no more rigid positions in the evangelical worldany more. As evidenced by positions on matters like HIV and AIDS , thefact that there are diverse positions within the church shows thatthere is no rigidity in positions and opinions held and that churchleaders and opinion makers are ready to unlearn and adopt newpositions provided a biblical framework is provided",meaning of incarnation from the Catholics – to pray together with theWCC affiliated denominations and churches.

Lessons from a Cananite woman

Once a Canaanite woman, a foreigner and a stranger, came to Jesus and began shouting. She addressed him respectfully, even calling him "Lord," and "Son of David," and she beseeched him to do something for her daughter who is possessed by a demon. This is just the kind of situation where Jesus usually demonstrates compassion and love. But not this time. Matthew tells us that "He did not answer her at all!" How rude! How uncaring! Not even a word of sympathy for this tormented mother. The disciples note his displeasure, and realizing that he has no intention of helping her, they urge him to send her away. She is bothering them. When Jesus does finally break his silence, it is to say, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

It is not clear from Matthew's gospel to whom those words were addressed. Were they spoken to the disciples to justify his actions (or lack thereof)? Were they directed at the woman to make her understand that she had no right to expect anything from him? We don't know, but in any event, they seem cold, unsympathetic, and uncaring. We might expect that response from someone who is prejudiced, but they just don't sound right coming out of the mouth of Jesus.

It's tempting to be so upset, to feel so confused, that we want to stop reading right there. But fortunately, that's not where the story ends. The pesky woman persists. She drops to her knees and pleads, "Lord, help me!" You can hear the desperation in her voice. Life with her daughter must be hell. She wants not only for her daughter to be healed, but also for relationship to be restored and for their lives to return to normal. She ignores the disciples' cutting glances. She overcomes the snub of silence handed out by Jesus, and she cries, "Lord, help me!"

This time she elicits a response, but surely not the one she was seeking or expecting. She hears no words of comfort or compassion, no promise of healing for her tormented daughter. Instead Jesus says to her, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." Another stinging rebuke. An insult of the highest order! Or at least that's what it sounds like. Is he really implying that his healing ministry is only for Israel, and is he calling the Canaanites dogs? How much worse can it get?

Put yourself in the woman's shoes for a moment. Women already had little or no status in Jesus' day. For a woman to have dared approach Jesus at all required enormous courage. And to make matters worse, this woman was of the "wrong" religion. She was a Canaanite and Jesus was a Jew. Jesus' comment, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" is a potent reminder to her that she is on shaky ground. But this woman is not just...a woman, not just a Canaanite, she is also a mother. She is the mother of a tormented child, and she will do anything to make her daughter well. So she humbles herself, swallows her pride, kneels before Jesus and literally begs for help. His stinging rebuke would have turned most people away, but not this woman, not this mother. She squares her shoulders, and looks him right in the eyes and says with determination, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their Master's table." She will not stand for being regarded as a nobody. Every person has some rights and deserves some dignity.

It is unclear what it is about her response that makes the difference, but Jesus instead of ignoring her or sending her away, he says to her this time, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed instantly. We are relieved as the final scene unfolds. At last Jesus responds as we want and expect him to. But what really happened earlier? Was Jesus testing the woman? Was God testing Jesus? Had Jesus set limits for himself recognizing that in a limited time he could not be all things to all people? Whatever the reason, it is clear from the beginning, that this woman falls outside the realm of Jesus' intended ministry. Remember that old sailor's prayer, "O Lord, the ocean is so big and my boat is so small." Jesus knew that he could not erase all prejudice from the world; he could not feed all the hungry, clothe all the naked or heal all the diseased. He could only do so much. But he could teach by example and hope that his lessons would be passed on.

That's one of the problems we have with this story. Jesus' apparent prejudice and his hard heart are hardly what we want to cling to or believe. So we must look deeper for a message that does make sense. We all set limits. We say, "I can give, but only a little." "I can teach, but only occasionally." "I can serve on the committee, but only this once." "I can put a coin in the beggar's cup, but only once this week." Even Jesus, who presumably has divine authorization for his limits ("I was sent..."), even Jesus allows his limits to be stretched by another's need. In other words, the rule here is that there is no rule, only a creative tension between our finite capacities and the world's infinite need. We can always give a little bit more, or help a little bit more, or love a little bit more. Love and compassion don't belong in boxes with tight-fitting lids. They are to be shared, and there should always be enough to go around, always room for one more inside our circle of love. God's mercy is infinite, and ours should be too.

Humanity was created in God's own image. We each have the capacity to reflect God's goodness in our lives. We strive, we fail. We love, we hate. We admire, we envy. We pray, we curse. We welcome, we reject. We compare, we judge. We are human. We are imperfect. We are loved. We are forgiven. God's love and mercy know no bounds. We are jealous, deceitful, and afraid. We are loved and forgiven. We are the Canaanite woman, rejected, desperate, persistent in prayer, and our prayers are heard. There is no limit to the amount of love God showers upon us, no limit to the number of times forgiveness is offered. God's mercy, love and forgiveness know no bounds, and neither should ours. Our instinct should be to help not hurt, to forgive not condemn, to love not judge, to give without counting the cost. One simple act of mercy, of love and kindness, can have enormous ramifications.

The Canaanite woman is every marginalized person in our society. She is every mother or father with a desperately ill child. She is like the political refugee clinging to hope, believing in second chances. She is a person of faith. Of course, there is also Jesus, at first put off by too many demands, overwhelmed by responsibility, drained from giving and giving and giving, trying to be faithful to his mission, and finally giving in, finally responding in love. I would bet that each of us relates to one or more of these characters in some way.

I still cringe a bit when I read this story about the Canaanite woman. Jesus' words still ring false and elicit a protest from deep within, but now I can move beyond the words and rejoice in the underlying lesson, a lesson summed up in the words of the hymn which we will sing in a few moments, "There's a wideness in God's mercy, like the wideness of the sea; there's a kindness in God's justice, which is more than liberty." And in verse three: "For the love of God is broader than the measure of our mind; and the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind." God's love and mercy are wide enough to encompass everyone, wide enough to encompass the Canaanite woman, wide enough to include you and me.

God’s house and our household

All of us have places where we feel closer to God, or places where God feels closer to us, more accessible. We speak of holy places or sacred space when we refer to shrines, sanctuaries, special places in nature, or ancient pilgrimage sites. The church where I worship is such a place. The architecture, furnishings, and decorations has been chosen to enhance the perception that God is in this place in a special way-the ceilings or arches soar heavenward, there is a cross and other religious symbols, the space is open and airy, not cluttered, all designed to help us draw near to God, to remind us that God is here.

We all need places where we can come out of the bustle and press of our daily life-especially in these crowded, noisy, furiously-paced city-spaces that make God more accessible, or that make it easier for us to get back in touch with God. For many people, there are special places in nature that serve this purpose, perhaps a favorite mountain top or garden or a perch by the ocean. There are places in the world that many people recognize as "thin places." Places that have been sacred for centuries, even millennia, where the veil between the spiritual and the material is tissue-paper thin.

Of course, we know intellectually that God is no more present in one place than any other place. God is in all places. Yet we persist in thinking of places of worship as "houses of God," and there's no denying that we become aware of God's presence in particular spaces and under certain circumstances. They are places where we feel like we have access to the Spirit, places where we are able to feel in communion with God, where we find renewal, peace, comfort, guidance, inspiration, strength, and assurance. In God's house, wherever that may be for us, we find a sense of belonging, the reminder that God knows us, cares for us and loves us. These are places where we feel most deeply at home.

The concept of God's dwelling place, God's house has evolved over time. We see that evolution in scripture. In fact, what is probably the most significant event in the whole story of God's relationship with the people of Israel is regarding God’s dwelling place. King David is settled in his house in Jerusalem. He has been made king over all Judah and Israel, has taken Jerusalem for his capital and made it the center of worship by bringing the Ark of the Covenant to it. For centuries, since God brought the people out of Egypt, the symbol of God's dwelling, God's throne has been the Ark of the Covenant and the tabernacle that housed it-they signified that God was in the people's midst. As long as the people had the ark in their possession and took it with them from place to place, God was there with them.

That was the stark plight of the Gentiles before Christ. They did not belong, to God or to the community of God's people. But now, says this writer, "now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us." Through the death of Christ, the Gentiles, all those who were not part of the commonwealth of Israel, now have access to God. And a new community has been created, a new people, where once there were two peoples, now there is one new humanity.

It is an all-inclusive household. No one is disenfranchised. There are no more aliens, strangers, or outsiders. Through Christ, both groups now have access in one Spirit to the Father. There are no more doors or walls on God's house. The law, which once served to set God's people apart and was a dividing wall between the Jews and Gentiles has been abolished. This imagery reflects the intense struggle the Gentiles went through to be accepted into the church. The early church really wrestled with whether or not Gentiles could be full members without having to adhere to the law in all of its commandments and ordinances. That struggle is over. Jews and Gentiles both are members of the household of God, having equal access to God through the Spirit.

God's dwelling place is no longer a physical structure-it's not a movable tabernacle or a glorious temple, or this beautiful sanctuary. The temple of God is now the people of God, the community of the faithful. The cornerstone is Christ Jesus and the foundations are the apostles and prophets-all those who have gone before us-and we are the structure, joined together in Christ and continually growing into the dwelling place of God. Note that it is not individual followers of Christ who are referred to as God's house here, but the community. We all have our individual relationships to God, but the Christian faith is communal. To be Christian means to be a part of the body of Christ, the household of God. Together we are God's house, God's dwelling place.

When people say, "oh, I'm spiritual, but not religious," or "I don't believe in an institutional church," they are missing what it means to be Christian. To be Christian means that we are part of a community of faith. We are part of the body-whose individual parts cannot survive on their own. Feet, hands, arms, legs, even heads have to be attached to the body in order to carry out their function, in order to thrive, in order to survive. Together, we are God's house. That's a far more demanding calling than just to be "spiritual" on our own. We have to put up with other people. Learn to work with them, learn to love them. Put up with their quirks and eccentricities and all their annoying habits and traits.

We have to accept that we're going to think about things differently, have different opinions about what is most important or the best way to do things. We're accountable to one another for the way we live our lives of faith and we are to hold each other accountable for our actions and words that may disrupt or harm the community or its members. It's hard work being the church-but God has called each one of us into this household, told us that we're all welcome here, and that with Christ as our cornerstone, we are God's dwelling place.

God's house is not this building. God's house is all of us who follow Christ. May we always be mindful that we are God's house and that all are welcome. There are no outsiders or strangers, no aliens. God calls this kaleidoscope of diverse human beings together, and by the sheer grace of God, builds us up together into God's dwelling place. May we strive to make our community our sacred space, as holy a place as the most glorious cathedral or grandest mountain top. The household of God should be the place where we find our deepest sense of belonging, where we discover over and over again that God knows us, cares for us and loves us.

The Challenges before a Christian doctor

We are looking at the challenges faced today by a Christian doctor but just for the sake of clarity; let us define who is a Christian doctor any way! Is it some one from the Christian community? Some one who studied at Vellore or Ludhiana or some such institution? Is it some one who works in a mission hospital? Well it could be and often is some one who is one and more of all of these. But these things alone do not entitle one to be called a Christian doctor. There is more to it. The basic definition is whether the people who call themselves Christian doctors practice medicine in the spirit of Jesus? There is the story about Sadhu Sunder Singh that once when he was visiting London and called to see some one , a little boy who opened the door , took a look at the Sadhu and then went back to his mother to say they had a visitor. When asked das to who it might be, the little boy replied that he didn’t know, but it was some one who looked like Jesus. It would be nice to be described thus – that Dr so and so looks like Jesus – not in the sense of physical appearance since we don’t know what Jesus looked like of course, but in terms of an inner likeness. What does that mean? It is important to study what goes into the making of a Christian doctor, because the challenges they face and how they try to deal with them is all tied up with that identity.

What makes a Christian doctor?

A good Christian doctor: has good training, keeps current in what he does, is reasonably caring, is as thorough as professionally needed, and is helpful to the patient. He exhibits common sense, wisdom, and decisiveness, though being willing to admit to it when stumped; and he is willing to direct the patient to second or other opinions or specialists. In short, he/she does as he/she would have it done unto himself/herself (the Christian "golden rule").

But what makes a doctor Christian is not only all of the above or a set of well founded doctrines he or she professes or the church background they come from or whether or not they serve in a mission hospital--- but whether a person is clear about his call, wherever he or she may serve. It is possible to be living with integrity in a secular setting as well as build kingdoms and practice intrigue in mission settings. The call is important. Indeed , it is the sheet anchor of any life – and when things are unclear as they often are , when ethics are changing , practices are changing , values are changing and changing fast , it is one’s calling that one holds on to , that provides the consolation and conviction and the ammunition to meet the challenges as they come.
As I talked to several doctors about the challenges they face in their professional life , I found this one thing in common - the challenge is not from the context alone – remote, lonely mission hospitals – under paid, under equipped and unrecognized, important as they are but to live and serve in the spirit of Jesus , in the place they are , doing what God wants them to do and find fulfillment in the work that has been uniquely been given them to do , when all along , many others including close friends and batch mates perhaps are finding it in some place else. If this is the expectation, what are the challenges?

Ethical Challenges:

In the public domain, the Christian voice is often muted on most issues of public and social importance. But there are a few areas where this voice is loud enough to be termed a noise - talk of stem cell research, cloning and euthanasia and abortion and there is lots of discussion on these things- though largely initiated through Western Christian doctors and scientists and activists and often not interpreted adequately in Indian terms. For instance take abortion. The abortion debate in the West for instance is all about a woman’s right over her own body and the right she has to choose to have or abort the baby. The issue of abortion and a Christian response and stand towards it is as important in India as else where – except that in India most abortions happen not because women are choosing to have them and are happy about them, but because it is not a decision they make – it is a decision that often that their husbands make or their in laws make. Or if at all a woman makes them, she does because she is cognizant of the social realities she will be confronted with if she chooses to keep the baby.

When our Christian doctors blandly refuse to do abortions, and turn women away as is also the practice in the West, they are often consigning the woman to a hellish existence. A Western woman has the option to choose and act in several different ways according to her conscience; mostly she has the economic independence and the required social space to do so. An Indian woman often doesn’t and her rejection by a Christian doctor often means that she will still have to have the abortion any way, pressured by her family – except that now she will probably have it in some dinghy ghetto and die of septic abortion. No body has thought that as we are Pilate like cleansing ourselves of the unborn fetus’s blood and patting ourselves on the back, we are taking on ourselves, the blood of the woman who might die of septic abortion or hemorrhage or many of the other complications that go with unsafe abortion.

The answer is not to say, that we must reverse our position and do abortions from tomorrow. But the point to me made is that in most ethical situations, we take our stand and practice straight from text book situations in the West when the societal realities in India are quite different and the challenge is that no one has thus far unpacked these ethical matters for us in Indian setting and therefore artificial constructed responses are more likely to be seen as fundamentalist rather than humane and compassionate.


Drugs and prescribing practices

Continuing education is a challenge to any one these days with changes occurring rapidly , newer drugs coming into the market thick and fast and the enlarging scenario of not just drug competing with drug but also brand competing with brand.. The ubiquitous medical representative is increasingly playing a multi faceted role in a doctor’s life – be it in providing academic supplements and literature, sample drugs, sponsoring family vacations in exotic locales. Brand recalls are created by excessive and often unethical visibility. Since the drug companies are not in the charity businesses, the costs of these freebies are written in the drug pricing, adding to the already burgeoning costs of health care. This strategy also ensures that lesser players or makers of generic drugs who can not afford lavish gifts but can afford to supply drugs at a lower cost fall out of the market. Prescriptive practices invariably come under challenge as a Christian doctor is constantly under pressure to conform as most others do. This often proves difficult and many succumb. An added dimension is not just that of prescribing this brand or that but that of prescribing out rightly irrational drug combinations, some of which might be banned in several other nations with a more aware and alert enforcement machinery.

Closely related to this is the matter of sponsorship of medical conferences, seminars and symposia. Prima facie, there is nothing wrong because these are professional fora where people come together to share, learn and network. All of this is good and necessary. The danger is in the hidden strings attached in the form of endorsements that professional bodies often end up giving to products of their sponsors and the issue relating to the conflict of interest in a pharma company sponsoring a program where the attendees are those who would then be prescribing their products. In short, one is being invited to suspend professional judgment or at least compromise it and go by the recommendations of the pharma companies. Some people say that they will attend these conferences but use their own judgment. Is this really possible on the long haul? If one chooses not to go, then one loses out on the professional benefits that accrue out of attending such events.

The allure of glamour

The medical profession is hierarchical. So are many sections of the church. But we can not conceive of a situation where the clergy has only Bishops but no priests. But that is precisely the lot of the medical profession where every one, who is anyone is a specialist and this is a prescription which we Christians have willy nilly absorbed in toto. The question of call is relevant here again. Instead of Christian doctors asking the question of what they are required by God to do in life and then asking the subsequent question of what they need in terms of training and equipping , Christians like any one else decide their own agenda , what they will study , where they will study and then build their career and future plans around this. It is not unheard of for students to sit and prepare for two and three years in a row to get a PG seat in a subject of their choice speaks volumes for the rat race this whole game has become. While God welcomes hard work and healthy ambition, is a rat race Christian?

In our parent’s time or our grand parent’s time, the first port of call for a sick person was the G.P, the family doctor to whom all turned for succor. He kept track of all that went on, arranged referrals, deciphered complex medical jargon to the patient and his family, provided comfort and his consolation saw families through grief and bereavement. Today that institution has disappeared. GPs were accessible, affordable, and available and provided personalized care. Today that space is captured by all manner of quacks that provide treatment of questionable quality at the door step. While it is considered socially appropriate to decry them by running anti quackery campaigns, it is worth recognizing that they occupy this space because the GPs who once occupied this hallowed space have vacated this space and the GPs that do exist, almost do so by default not having passed the PG entrance exam and are so aware of their de glamorized state that they exist in a shadowy world with a ghost like existence with low self esteem and little of worth to contribute. Sadly, Christian institutions have been second to none in glamorizing post graduation and holding it up as a goal ideally to be pursued by all by the simple expedient of treating non specialists so shabbily that every one wants to be a specialist, irrespective of whether they have the aptitude for this or not.

Conclusion:

The definition of a Christian doctor will keep changing and we only keep changing it so that the definition speaks our language and vocabulary. A Christian doctor is not necessarily one who practices in some remote mission hospital forgoing comforts, affluence and recognition. It is possible to live with far greater comfort in the confines of a mission hospital with lots of people to fetch and carry for you and many doctors live like kings of the mission compound and lords of the manor. The challenge always for a Christian doctor is whether he or she is displaying in his/her life and persona the virtues and character of Christ. The main feature or characteristic of Jesus was and is that He is accessible to all. He is an inclusive God and Healer. Are we? Through our pricing, through our hierarchy, through the way and manner in which we have structured our practice, the aura we are surrounded by as well as by our physical availability, have we distanced ourselves so far from the ordinary patient that only a select few and that too often from the elite classes can approach ? The caliber of the institutions we trained in, our sound professional competence, even the low fees we charge and the quality of care we provide are all irrelevant if we are not really accessible in full measure. It was said of Christ, that he left his heavenly glory aside when he came down to earth, so that ordinary people like you and me could see him, touch him. Can that be said of us?

Finishing Well

a well respected Christian Scholar gave me a copy of his latest book- finishing well.The book is written for Leaders about how to finish what we have undertaken in lfe , well.In the race it is important how we start ,and how we run. But in the end, it is how we finish that matters.Dr.Robert Clinton, the Professor of Leadership at Fuller, USA, and the author of The making of a Leader says " Few leaders finish well. Of those on which information was available, less than 30 % finished well."I thought of giving you the summary mentioned in his last chapter, chapter 17, which summarises all main issues.

1. To finish well in the end, we have to begin now

2. To finish the final chapter well. we have to finish each prior chapter well

3. We have to close a chapter well before we move on to the next

4 To finish well, we need a perspective from the end

5 To finish each chapter well, we need to finish it with a clear conscience

6 How well we finish depends on the relationships we leave behind

7 To finish well we need to deal ruthlessly with pride

8 To finish well, we keep the main thing the main thing

9 To finish well, we extend and accept unconditional forgiveness

10 Finishing well does not mean fulfilling all our desires

11 Finishing well means letting go and moving on 1

2 Finishing all is all that matters in the end It is not hard to start something. It is hard to finish it. It is not difficult to start something well. It is difficult to finish it well. The completion is better than commencement.I hope you will take this to heart and learn to start good things without waiting for other to do things....at the same time finish what you have already started

Christianity and the Study of the Mind ------- Dr Jamila Koshy

So you are in college!! All excited about your courses and raring to go every day (since you now have a lot of time to hang out with friends!)? Three years, or more, filled with classes, canteen, friends, assignments, canteen, tests, holidays, canteen, games, festivals, canteen, and a host of other things! You would have big books to help you with many of those, but this little booklet could be important in another, vital way - it could help you, as a Christian, to begin the process of integrating your studies with your Christian faith.

Let’s guess, who you are?

You could be a psychology student or a young lecturer. Perhaps a student pursuing another arts degree but with supplementary courses in psychology. Maybe a social work major or a psychiatry resident? Or maybe you are someone from a totally different background who is interested in the study of the mind, and found the title compelling.

What’s this booklet about?

Most of us divide our world into little bits. It’s easier to handle it that way! So we have our college world, our home world, our work world, our recreation zone, our church world, friends group and so on. There may be some interaction between these worlds, but often these are separate compartments. After saying good-bye to my parents in the morning (Bye, Ma, OK, I’ll eat my lunch; don’t worry, I’ll be back in time to go to the station with Dadima), I slip into my college persona, which is subtly different - heck, I even speak differently, dude! I really love worship songs and hymns, but in college, my friends don’t know that side of me very much, they see only the Shania Twain fan.

It would be sad if most of us cannot integrate what we learn in college with what we learn in the Bible, or practise Biblical principles at our workplaces. At church or Christian meetings, though, we would actively discuss Bible passages and derive the Christian approach to various issues. However, in college, the only guides for our thought systems are our text-books. We may study literature without stopping to think what view of God and life is brought out by Shakespeare or Hardy. We may work as engineers without ever relating God’s fantastic engineering skills to our own design of bridges or software programmes. We may study sociology without learning the Christian perspective on social issues.

This is a major problem! We have, in effect, two parallel belief systems running -one the college/ workplace secular belief system; and one, (on Sundays, mostly), the Christian one. Christian principles rather than supporting and under-girding, or if you like another word-picture, overarching all others, are held almost apologetically, and as if they are contrary to, or have nothing to do with the various fields of human study and endeavour. This attitude divides our world artificially into “secular” and ‘sacred” zones. It brings no glory to God; it speaks poorly about the esteem in which we as Christians hold God’s Word; it reduces our usefulness to God; it robs us of the delight of being one integrated person everywhere; it lowers our own credibility and our integrity. Do we truly wish to be “split-personalities”?

So, this booklet is an attempt to consider the field of psychology - from God’s view-point. We would look at psychology and psychiatry - with Christian “spectacles”. The Christian approach to psychology is set out under four main sections:

to be continued ...

written by Jamila Koshy

Nuggets of Hospitality

Our story begins on an ordinary day interrupted by three visitors who arrive at the home of Abraham and Sarah. Strangers show up at Abraham and Sarah’s home in the heat of the day and they are welcomed. Their hot, dusty feet are washed. They are offered a place in the shade to rest, food to eat and something refreshing to drink. Even Abraham’s posture and language as he greets them demonstrates respect and honour. Abraham and Sarah understand hospitality. Abraham, who leaves the shade of his tent in the heat of the day, because he sees travellers coming. He doesn't seem to know who they are at first.

As a nomad in the ancient Near East, Abraham knew the sacred rule of hospitality. It was more stringently kept than many written laws. There were many dangers, and travellers were at risk. The rule of hospitality was that a guest would be treated with respect and honour. Water would be provided for foot washing and a large feast prepared. The traveller enjoyed protection from all enemies for three days as the host was to provide sanctuary. This provision became part of Psalm 23 where the psalmist writes about God - 'You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemiesSo when Abraham spies these strangers, he doesn’t chase them from his land. Just the opposite. He begs them to stay, invites them to enjoy a good meal. He tells Sarah to get the kitchen even hotter by baking bread and he tells his servants to start the barbecue. He brings water for these men, some to wash their feet and some to quell their thirst. He insists that they stay and won’t take “no” for an answer.

When the feast is prepared, he serves it to the unknown travelers and then stands deferentially in the shade by a tree waiting on them as they finish the feast. But even without knowing who they are, Abraham makes haste to offer them hospitality. He runs from the tent to meet the visitors. He hastens back into the tent to talk to Sarah, and bids her make bread quickly. He runs to choose a calf and gives it to a servant, who hastens to prepare it. In addition to the speed, there's a protocol for hospitality: when you see visitors, hurry to meet them, greet them with courtesy, invite them in, offer refreshment, serve them, and pay close attention to them. A superficial reading of this ancient tale might lead to the idea that all of this was done because it was God (or at least God’s angels) who came knocking at their door. But there is actually strong evidence that recognition of divine presence only comes later, after the hospitality has been offered.

They were only doing what good hosts do -- welcoming the stranger into their midst.Three things to consider from this story. First: We know of course that it was God who was visiting Abraham, but in the actual story there is no indication that he knew it was God. When he used the words, 'My lord,' he uses a word with a small 'l' which is simply a term of respect. Second: While there is no indication that Abraham knew it was God, there was a common belief among the ancients that a wandering stranger could be a deity or the servant of a deity. Hebrews 13:2 reads, 'Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.' In other words Abraham was surprised when it turned out that God was his guest. The third consideration is that Abraham did not greet the men by asking them their business. Only after meeting their physical needs did he dare ask questions.

This too was part of hospitality.Abraham and Sarah offer their best, not knowing anything about these three unexpected visitors. They do so not cautiously, but enthusiastically, not in search of a favor from them, but with glad and generous hearts. Had they not risked this, they would have missed the promise for which this story is most famous. They would not have heard that Sarah would soon bear a son. We would not know the origin of this son’s name as Sarah laughed at this news, laughter being the English rendering of the Hebrew, “Issac.” Had Abraham and Sarah not done what they did, Issac would not have arrived as the promise of all the nations and his distant ancestor Jesus would have come from a different root. As a result, the patriarch becomes a model for faithfulness, not only in the pages of the Old Testament, but in all of Scripture.

Abraham is not hospitable to the strangers to arm twist a promise from God, like their descendant Jacob will later attempt with the angel of God by the river Jabbok. And yet, it is through their hospitality that they open themselves to a visit from God, to hearing a fresh word from the Lord that will forever change their lives and the life of the world. What would this mean for us today? What if you and I could risk exploring new language to worship God and new music to praise God not in fear that we will reject our rich heritage of liturgy and music, but open to fresh insights from the Spirit of God? What if you and I could welcome new people whose color or ethnicity or economic background or denominational tradition is different from our own?

What if we could do so not with the trepidation of those who fear change, but with inviting arms, glad to share with others what we have come to know of God’s grace and the love of Christ in this community of faith, knowing that the Greek word for hospitality is a combination of philia, brotherly love, the kind of bond that one feels for those who are kindred in some way, and xenos, the word for stranger. It is about showing the love of kinship to those who are strangers.Throughout Christian history, this has been the accepted meaning of hospitality. Kindness to one's family and friends was taken for granted. This is natural. Christians were expected to do more than this.

They were to see themselves as sojourners in this world, living by the grace of God's hospitality and offering hospitality to others especially the stranger in need - in grateful response. The early church was famous for its hospitality. As Christianity became more of an established religion after the fourth century, this came to include the setting up of more institutional, public locations for hospitality: the founding of hospitals, hospices and the like were all inspired by Christian understandings of hospitality. But somewhere along the way, certainly by the eighteenth century, hospitality lost much of its moral content. It had come to be seen, much more as it is today, as a way of self-advancement rather than a way of self-giving.

Today, our culture seems very far from that early Christian understanding of hospitality as welcoming the stranger, the person in need.The distortions of hospitality in our world today are manifold. Many people are too busy to do much by way of entertaining even their friends and family at home. Indeed, one of the basic elements of hospitality, eating food together, is apparently fast fading even from family life - TV dinners, eating from the micro wave. Where then is the energy to even think about the stranger? Life has become quite atomised, depersonalised. Today the word 'hospitality' conjures up the picture of having family and friends over for a pleasant meal, or of the 'hospitality industry' of hotels and restaurants which are open to strangers as long as they have money or credit cards.

Hospitality tends to be seen as a nice extra if we have the time or the resources, but we rarely view it as a spiritual obligation or as a dynamic expression of vibrant Christianity.In ancient times all strangers depended on someone else's hospitality. Today it is those without resources who depend most on the free provision of food, shelter and protection. For the people of ancient Israel, understanding themselves as strangers and sojourners with responsibility to care for vulnerable strangers was part of what it meant to be the people of God. Hospitality, in the Christian sense is a willingness to open up our life and your heart and our busy schedule to another human being.

Hospitality is opening up some space in your life - making time, making room, for another person's needs “When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? I tell you, whenever you did it to the lost and overlooked and ignored, you did it to me.” (Matthew 25: 37 & 40) True hospitality involves attentiveness to the guest, even when the guest is a stranger. True hospitality not only helps the guest feel welcome, but also sets the stage for the host to recognize the divine presence in our midst. When did we encounter God this way last?

The covenant aspects of marriage

At one point , it was considered quite horrifying if a Bible believing Christian who knew the Lord Jesus Christ either got married to an unbeliever or endorsed in any way the marriage of any one who married one, even It happened to be their own children. These days, while the distress is still there in private in most instances, as incidents of this nature become more common, the public condemnation has reduced. In fact these days, it is not so uncommon, even in broader evangelicalism, for young Christian singles to find it a temptation to marry outside the Church. Not merely outside their own congregation, but outside the people of God altogether.

There are numerous reasons for this. Sometimes it is because they are keeping the wrong company to begin with. Single Christian men and women actually sometimes have few friends within the church; most of their single friends are unbelievers. Sometimes it's the common interests of co-workers, or perhaps just activities like going to the gym, where you meet people. And that's who they get to know. Or sometimes, it is frustration. Perhaps the congregation is small and the young man or young woman looks around and says: "Who can I marry here? There are no candidates." And in the event, they go to the altar with somebody who is not bound to Jesus Christ. This is not merely a modern problem. Israel too faced the issue of intermarriage and in Malachi 2:10-12. Judah marries the daughter of a foreign god.

The Lord takes this seriously. This intermarriage has very significant ramifications. Judah marries the daughter of a foreign god. This is betraying Judah's identity. It undercuts who Judah is. It is also betraying Judah's community. The issue is not simply a personal issue, but it affects the people of God as a whole. Further, such marriage is betraying Judah's God. And finally, it is provoking Judah's punishment. The fundamental issue at stake in connection with this question of intermarriage is not racial. In other words, what provokes Malachi's inspired blast against the marriage practices of Judah here is not that he is offended that people are marrying non-Jews. Seen in this light, intermarrying with pagans is a betrayal of Judah's identity. Such intermarriage undercuts God's purposes. It attempts to undo God's creative act, to return everything to the formless void. Intermarriage disrupts the viability of God's new humanity.

We tend to see marriage as primarily a personal affair. Whether or not I marry this girl or that girl is my business, not yours. But Malachi says, "No, everybody lives with it. By intermarrying with pagans, you have betrayed not merely your individual identity; you have betrayed the identity of the community." The people of the world may think of themselves as so many little individual islands, but the people of God are not allowed to think of themselves in that manner. We belong to one another; we are covenanted together. The point is not, however, "what others think." The point is the identity of the community of God's people. What you do in this area affects the community in a profound way. Marrying "in the Lord," to use Paul's language, affirms the covenant people; it builds according to the pattern which God has created. Marrying outside the covenant does the opposite. It erodes the character of the people of God.

Therefore, single people contemplating marriage must ask the right questions, questions prompted by the covenant which God has made with His people. Would this marriage be glorifying to God? Or would it be compromising God's new creation? Would it contribute to the health of the Church, or would it undermine it? Failure to ask such questions and act faithfully with reference to them means betraying the community of God's people. And that means that God's people are not allowed to marry outside the faith. That is to import a competing deity, a detested "god," into the fellowship of the covenant. God says, "You are my sons, and you may not marry the daughters of other gods. That is to bring my enemies into my household. It is to betray me."

This was what the sons of Seth were censured for, way back in Genesis 6. They looked upon the "daughters of men" - in other words, the young ladies descending from the line of Cain - and they saw that they were beautiful, and they married them. And that practice was so abhorrent to God that it is the one thing that is singled out in the context of the destruction of the world by flood. Isn't that remarkable? The Satiate intermarriage with unbelievers wiped out the line, it mixed together the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, to the extent that really there was no covenant community left. And the result was that God spared only Noah and his family, in order to start over.

Having said this, it must also be said that God has shown Himself powerful to overcome even the greatest sins of His people. Think of Samson. We can look at him and say, "What a lech!" He was a man driven by his hormones. It resulted in the loss of his eyes, the loss of his freedom, and the loss of his life. And yet we must also say that it resulted, not only in his repentance, but also in the opportunity for him to destroy more Philistines, more of the enemies of God, at the time of his death than he had done all throughout his life.

So too with mixed marriages. Unlike under the old covenant in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, Christians are not called to divorce unbelieving spouses. Paul makes that very clear in 1 Corinthians 7: if the unbeliever is pleased to dwell with the believer, then they should remain together. I think the reason for the difference is the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost. There is a new wealth of God's power in the Church, and Paul is confident that God's grace is not only sufficient to keep us united to Christ, but even to spill over and convert the unbelieving partner. And time after time, that is precisely what God in His grace does.

That is not to minimize the seriousness of the sin of intermarriage with unbelievers. It remains a great evil. And we have no right to put the Lord to the test by marrying outside of the covenant people. There are too many examples of people who have left the faith altogether because of failing at this point. And even if God does ultimately prevail upon the heart of the unbeliever - which He is not bound to do - we may well find that there are all sorts of negative consequences for our disobedience. As Paul says, "Marry - in the Lord." Let us commit ourselves and our children to be faithful to God in this area.

But the heart of faith is able to hear the gospel in words even such as these. Passages like this remind us of God's passion for His covenant. They remind us of His faithfulness. They remind us that God is ready to speak to us, to call us to faithfulness, rather than merely to abandon us to our own devices. That in itself is wonderful grace. The value of Judah is that she is God's treasured possession. The great privilege of Israel is not ethnic. It is the covenant which God has made with her. And therefore the covenant must be defended. Malachi would rather see the people of God reduced in number than to see the covenant perish through corruption. It was better that God saved Noah and his family - eight people - than for the whole world to have continued on the way it was, because then there would have been no covenant and no hope. But there is more here than that for us, as significant as that is. The great mutual character of the covenant community. Our lives are not our own, to do with as we please. They belong to God, and they belong to Him by way of covenant. And that means that in a very real sense, they also belong to each other.

We see therefore that God has more to do with us than just Sunday worship. Sunday and the rest of the days of the week are closely interrelated. If you do not serve God from Monday to Saturday, it is folly to suppose that God will accept our worship on Sunday. As God says in the book of Amos to those who are acting unjustly, "Take away the noise of your songs!" "I won't listen to you, because you do not listen to me." As we are faced with temptations to sin, as we are confronted with the world, the flesh and the devil, let us remember our identity; let us remember our covenant with one another, so that we may be moved to greater holiness, both for the glory of God's name, and for the good of His community on earth. May we seek its prosperity always?
-----------

Was at an interesting discussion the other day. The context was that anew 'youth' group was trying to start up. One of the issues that thegroup had to think about was what their pastor would say about such agroup. There was no official representation from the church in thegroup to govern issues such as doctrine.So it was feared that the pastor may object to the group. The pastor,from a independent church, must have spent tons of energy building uphis church. Any group that forms of its own probably was a potentialquestion mark to the church. Besides such groups have been led astrayso he was justified to a good extent.His offficial stand was supposed to be ' let the church have a higherpriority than any group '.

The members of the group feared that theycould not agree with such a stance as they wanted their freedom tochoose where they belonged to.What was also very interesting is that the group members came fromdifferent church backgrounds and had been influenced by missionorganisations which are inter-denominational in nature.Church history is replete with issues of such nature - early churchsplit into 3 major divisions atleast because of the power strugglebetween rome and other places. Even in the bible Peter and Paul had tostruggle with it.

The origin of 'missions' clearly shows how medieval church could notaccomodate the vision of all its members and hence capable peoplestarted off on their own establishing successful missions.I have had experiences with mission groups who had asked me to choosebetween church and mission work. The same could be extended to giving- to the churches or missions. While several middle positions existfor resolving the issue , plenty of bible verses are quoted by bothsides and unlike medieval times the bishop or pastor cannotexterminate people so easily anymore, it will be interesting tounderstand the stance on the issue from different angles.Herbert Roy