WAYFARING STRANGER

Steve Roy, January 31 1990 - September 30 2011

2011-09-30T08:22:00.003-06:00

How much death and disease does it take for us to think seriously about the end of our days? At the risk of turning this blog into an obit column, I'm penning my thoughts on a shocking death in our family yesterday. Steve Roy died in a motorcycle crash last night in Kerala, India in a collision with a truck. He was 21 years old and the only child of his parents. I don't have any words at this time to describe the impact of this on his near and dear ones.

A friend of mine came through Brain Tumour 14 years ago and currently works in a mission organization dedicated to seeking justice among bonded laborers in India. Her recent comments on her Facebook page about this:

Its been 14 years....2nd Sept 1997, I underwent a surgery to remove a brain tumour...my only hope and assurance was that if I died I would be with Jesus and if I lived I had a purpose to live for the one who overcame death through His resurrection-Jesus...Who sustains me and has given more than I could've ever imagined or dreamt of!

I responded to her a second time after Steve's death:

I'm re-reading your post and trying to derive comfort from what God has done for you and through you. As I see people I know dying one by one and I get shocked into questioning God I need to hear a testimony like this to help me understand his goodness. Thanks again for saying these words.

Her response to this:

I know what you mean, I see suffering and injustice everyday and did question God's goodness but the perspective of seeing God from eternity and his provision to change our destiny eternally helps me see this as a momentary suffering...gives me the joy and peace to enjoy today and hope does not disappoint, it strengthens faith and keeps fear away...if there was no eternity and redemption then I would be shattered...remember the Trichy trip when we sang the song Rev 21:4 -He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.

We will never make sense of death and will always be shocked at it this side of eternity. On the other hand we will continue to live as if we will not die any time soon. Every time it happens to someone close to us we are filled with doubt and fear. And as Christians this still happens when we know and cherish the fact that he will wipe every tear away. I don't have any words to describe this reality that conflicts with our experience.

In a later, more advanced age, human beings may find a way to save cases like Steve's, and using technology give people like him a new lease of life, at once making the person more and less human at the same time. We do our best to cheat death, but as surely as the world is fallen, death overrides attempts to delay or eliminate physical atrophy, repairs to the mind and body and all other efforts we put in to further life, not knowing that eternal life is something else entirely.

Sandra McCracken's song, 'The Tie that Binds' was written about a little girl who died. The words express with pain what I can't at the moment:

The sorrow of a friend
From a long way we stand
Grief is second hand
But I'll send my tears in a locket

Amelia smiles under lights & wires
Thorns for every flower
We number every hour
And live the days we are given

Oh, the pain
It makes you feel alive
Oh, the broken heart is the tie that binds
And I pray to God, these things will be made right

When the morning shines
On tear stained eyes
Oh we shall overcome
The Father gave the Son
To break the curse we are under

Oh the pain that no man can escape
Oh the sting of death, the empty grave,
And I pray to God where comfort has no place

When our tired eyes look through the veil
The colors are so pale but we raise high the sail
And call the winds to carry us home
Call the winds to carry us home.

Commentary on Psalm 84:11 from Sir Richard Baker

2011-08-15T07:53:00.002-06:00

For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly

I heard this commentary at a Sara Groves concert yesterday- she shared this and I later looked it up.

But how is this true, when God oftentimes withholds riches and honours, and health of body from men, though they walk never so uprightly; we may therefore know that honours and riches and bodily strength, are none of God's good things; they are of the number of things indifferent which God bestows promiscuously upon the just and unjust, as the rain to fall and the sun to shine. The good things of God are chiefly peace of conscience and the joy in the Holy Ghost in this life; fruition of God's presence, and vision of his blessed face in the next, and these good things God never bestows upon the wicked, never withholds from the godly, and they are all cast up in one sum where it is said, Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt: Blessed are the pure in heart (and such are only they that walk uprightly) for they shall see God. But is walking uprightly such a matter with God, that it should be so rewarded? Is it not more pleasing to God to see us go stooping than walking uprightly, seeing stooping is the gait of humility, than which there is nothing to God more pleasing? It is no doubt a hard matter to stoop and go upright both at once, yet both must be done, and both indeed are done, are done at once by every one that is godly; but when I say they are done both at once, I mean not of the body, I know two such postures in the body both at once are impossible; but the soul can do it, the soul can stoop and go upright both at once; for then doth the soul walk upright before God, when it stoops in humility before God and men.

Although I agree with largely, I have some nagging questions:

1. Material things or lack thereof affect us, in soul formation.

2. We are meant to provide for others' material needs.

3. We ask God for our daily bread.

How are these things then not "good things"?

The Art of Selfish Obfuscation

2011-07-21T10:21:00.007-06:00

I came across this article in the conservative periodical, the Weekly Standard. The article makes the argument that while the inalienable rights as defined in the Constitution as the freedom to worship, free speech, presumption of innocence until proof of guilt and so on are natural and does not require human intervention to create them. On the other hand rights which are pushed by the political Left, such as the right to a job, right to income, right to the best available healthcare, etc are paid for by human blood, sweat and tears, and therefore need to be compensated. The article lauds the Left for having the best intentions, but portrays them as being naive in imagining that any of these provisions could or should be provided free by some of us who pay taxes. It goes on to explore the failings of many welfare states.

I emailed the author with the following note:

This is a good argument. I'm a centrist and hold no political ideology to be above moral absolutes. I have a gripe about this though.

Although the Left packages many goods as rights I don't believe they think these are inalienable rights. Rather, they think these are collective responsibilities. The Jeffersonian ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may not have been inherently selfish, because it was drafted by people who wanted these things for their countrymen and not simply for themselves; but it has been understood in a narrow sense of "what is in this for me" by contemporary Americans. We only think of rights as being sacrosanct, and not of responsibilities. Or, some responsibilities. Our successive governments have not hesitated to rush arms and soldiers to foreign countries when there was no threat to the US from those countries- all at the cost of the taxpayers. We regard this as a responsibility. Somehow we do not think of taking care of the elderly and the sick among us as being a collective responsibility. There are other things you mentioned which do not merit such collective pooling of resources. But atrophy, disease, old age and intensive care are among the kindnesses a humane society cannot do without. The pursuit of happiness precisely this- to build such a community of responsible people. Without this we would simply become greedy and selfish, all the while justifying it with ideology and the oft-repeated excuse that there is no free lunch. There isn't, of course, but no responsibility is painless; and a society that cannot bear any pain to do something good is a society that is in decline.

I wonder if the distinction between the Left and the Right is not so much naivete or unkindness on either part as the article seems to imply, but a wrong understanding of our responsibilities and others' rights. Fighting someone else's war even on serious grounds presents moral dilemmas that noone should think of war as being a good choice under any extenuating circumstances. It is wrong, period. As wrong as it is to justify the Holocaust because as a result the Jewish people got a homeland or to justify the horrors of the British Raj because Indians received the benefits of the English language, law and a democratic government. These are excuses to justify our prejudices or selfish interests. I'm not saying that we should never fight wars- simply that even when we have no choice in the matter, we are doing something wrong. And our soldiers whom we pray for are killing people daily, which is wrong. It takes a toll on them for good reason. If it didn't we should be afraid, that somehow we have become numb to the guilt in our consciences that was intended by God to turn to Him.

To withhold care from the aged or infirm because of the financial strain on taxpayers would be irresponsible and simply adding to the me-first mentality that we have come to prize in our super-private society.

2011-03-11T11:18:00.006-06:00

Back in the day when choices were limited, there was only one brand (I think) if you wanted "squash", a sort of punch drink in India. That brand was Dipy's. Its mascot was a blond cowboy with a smiling face playing/mock-fighting with Native Americans. The ads were usually in cartoon-strip format with a one-page storyline with a plot straight out of any scene from the dime-a-dozen Italian spaghetti westerns that abounded in the 70s. Except that the Native Americans' aim was always to get the squash from the cowboy (named Dipy). Dipy managed to ward them off with this superior lassoing, gun-toting skills. Besides the Natives were portrayed as pretty pathetic, goofy guys. Sometimes Dipy encouraged them to leave their violent ways and share with him in tasting the squash. Train robberies, horse chases across the prairie, were all part of the lore. I have not seen any of these ads since the mid-Eighties. It was fun to read them as a kid.

I saw a smaller, non-plot version of these ads from another blog featuring vintage Indian print ads (on the left). The memories came flooding back. The punchline for these ads was always the cowboy riding into the sunset singing, "Dipy Dee, Dipy Doo, Dipy Dum Dum". I just can't find a full cartoon strip version on the Internet.

On the other hand when I look at it now, these sure weren't politically correct, and would never fly in today's America (or perhaps even today's India). A similar cartoon strip format was used to market Poppins, small candy packed in bunches in a roll. It was clever because the kids' magazines that carried the ad usually attracted the kids' attention due to their cartoon format. And now, if I could only find a vintage cheese ad from Amul that keeps playing in my mind!

Oh the Humanity!

2011-03-03T13:41:00.003-06:00

I've heard about flight attendants calling for medical doctors over the PA system, but it was the first time I'd been in such a flight. I was flying United 635 from Chicago to Seattle early this week, and heard this announcement. A lady had fainted out of low BP and they needed someone to assist. Strangely there was not even one doctor on board. The stewardesses spent the rest of the flight (about 3 hours) caring for the passenger. They were about to change the flight to Denver as it was closer, but the person felt better and after consultations with doctor on the ground through 'Medlink' they decided to stay on course. I was impressed withthe flight attendants who cared for her. Somehow in our busy world that seems to not care a hoot about the next person it came as a reassurance of our purpose in life.

4G Nonsense

2011-02-22T13:38:00.003-06:00

Close on the heels of people wondering what an iPad actually does that is groundbreaking, here is another set of lies around 4G. The whole world knows by now that what are being touted as 4G are really 3G'S latest versions. Worse still are the claims to having the largest, fastest, most evolved 4g networks in the world. Here are 3 serial offenders I know of- it hurts me to see their ads when I open Yahoo or a tech magazine:

Verizon

T-Mobile

AT&T

Remembering Elizabeth Mary Nicholas, 27 Jan 1921 - 30 Jan 2011

2011-02-09T11:12:00.003-06:00

Another person whose life marked a milestone in the life of our family passed this week to the world of light. VJ Elizabeth Mary, later Mary Nicholas, my maternal grandma was 90 years old on January 27^th this year. On January 30^th she breathed her last, having fought to keep her life for 2 days on a ventilator. She suffered a heart attack as her body functions gave way one by one, and in a moment she was gone. I traveled to India to send her on her way home.

Her passing left a gap and this was evident by the sense of disbelief on her loved ones’ faces. She was 90, but no one really thought grandma would go at this time. In every way healthy and vibrant, an accomplished woman for her times, a person full of life and ambition to her last day, she is remembered by every one for her sheer involvement in all things contrary to what others of her age were involved in. So many travels in her golden years, many overseas. She visited me once and was thinking of another trip to the US as she neared her 90^th birthday. Her tour of the Holy Land was the highlight of her traveling life. Her insistence on having a leaf from a tree at the Mount of Olives led to a fellow traveler obliging her for one- the leaf, plucked illegally, still resides among the pages of her Bible.

I can’t get used to not seeing her around ‘Old House’ which is what we called her home. Turn a corner and you see a bar of Pears soap, used only by her. Indeed it may have been used just 2 days before her death, marked as it is by the solidified lather on its surface. Move around and you see volumes of correspondence, photos, memorial cards of friends who have passed, old bills, postcards from the 1940s through the 2000s. Grandma was perhaps not a hoarder in the American sense but she saved mostly reminders in paper form and some in the cloth form. I have a baptismal dress from 1947 which belonged to my mom. She gave it to Alma the last time we visited a year and a half ago. When I go to her grave, now adorned with flowers, I fondly recall the feast days, particularly the ‘All Souls Day’ on which we (as kids) would go with her to the family grave (in which her parents and husband were buried) to light candles and place flowers on it. Just a few months ago my aunt remembered those days and mentioned how she looked forward to the occasion.

I see a note of encouragement written by a friend to her son, my uncle when he first started his teaching job as a college lecturer. He is now retired. I see pictures of me, my siblings and my cousins, which when I see them I realize I’d forgotten they ever looked like that. I see pictures of my mom as a baby- which I’d never seen before. I see pictures of her younger brother, who died in 1996. He is standing proud and tall in this pre-World War II Royal Indian Air Force uniform. The later story is that he was given a medal for his bravery in the India-China-Burma theater of the war. I see pictures of her youngest brother when he was a boy. He is still alive, and I saw him at her funeral.

Although she was fascinated by my experience of coming to Christian faith and constantly sought after the born-again experience (which I believe she did have, though not in the Damascus Road sort of way I experienced it), and was constantly reading the Bible in the 3 years before her death, grandma was not used to the idea of death. She did not prepare for it in a financial sense until the month of her death. It seems like she had a sense of what was coming in the last month of her life. Strangely she wrote vast sums of money as a gift for my dad and my elder brother, after initially offering (and being refused) to write my Dad a blank cheque. She wanted them both to buy the best shirts available in the city. My dad bought some decent shirts which cost a lot less than she gave him, and with her permission, bought a large supply of food for the ‘House of Providence’, a Catholic charity which cared for old people who were generally poor. A few weeks prior, she was watching a Latin mass being offered and told my Dad that she wished to have the same priest officiate at her funeral. Dad went through many hoops to get information on the priest and on the singing group and spoke to them at the time about potentially having them officiate at a wedding in the future. It turned out that they officiated at her memorial service (n the 7^th day of her death) according to her wishes. It was the most beautiful liturgy (as far as I could figure it out) I’ve heard and truly beautiful singing in Latin. Out of the blue, she had insisted that her body be displayed in the living room of her house for visitation. This too was done.

It had been wish ever since she’d heard of the Titanic in her teens or twenties that the hymn ‘Nearer my God’ should be sung at her funeral. Sure enough, it was sung several times, once by a beloved nun who came to her funeral, later at a memorial service by the Latin choir and several times played over a PA system for the group of well-wishers who had gathered at our door before the funeral.

When I think of her my thoughts drift to the many trips we’ve taken with her of which the pictures remind us constantly and strongly, of the childhoods fun we’ve had with her, of her singing us lullabies to sleep (one, titled ‘Evening is Falling to Sleep in the West’ is a rare song from the 1920s she had learnt in school, which after a lot of research I received information on the composer and the complete lyrics from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2002), of her tales of her ancestors (one of whom was reputed to have heroically fought a leopard by his bare hands and killed the animal) and her voice keeps repeatedly ringing in my ear, often calling my name or telling me to preserve the memories by taking some of the old pictures or keepsakes with me.

It seems amazing now, I had a wonderful experience in India during this visit, bonding with many relatives I had long ceased to connect with. Grandma’s passing brought us all close together. It was painful to leave. A trip to India always leads me to question myself as to what I’m doing in this modern Tower of Babel, 2 oceans and 12000 miles away, feasting in plenty when others needed my presence and my support in so many ways. But this time it brought me so much clarity as to how close relationships are in India. I miss that terribly. No, I’m not homesick at all. My family took root in the US, and after 11 years we have many good reasons to call it home. But we are at once at home and at once in exile in the US, so lonely, so focused inward, and yet so familiar. Will my kids ever know the laughter and warmth that marked the gathering of our family members when we were kids? I hope they can get a glimpse of it in their short visits to India.

She never got to see our second child, David, although she was overcome with joy when she heard the news of his birth. She loved the name. Someday I will write about all of these for my kids to read and know. Someday when the realization hits me that she is gone. Gone home, no doubt, but gone from us nonetheless. Until then. Goodbye, Ammachi.

Thoughts on Real Needs and Investing in Them

2011-01-27T15:10:00.003-06:00

You have to wonder how much longer the demand for gold can last. Gold has no real value in that there is no real need for gold. People have a clearly established need for essentials like food, water, air, clothing, shelter, education, health, relationships, quality of life, fiscal stability, stability in governance, physical safety and so on.

Assuming that only such essentials were invested into, one also encounters strange hybrid beings stalking this investment landscape that drive up or down the prices of even these essentials: complex derivatives, debt-leveraged and price-inflated artificial demand, instruments that are meant to distribute risk (like mutual funds) but due to their mix of different types of products, presenting a dubious proposition- and so on.

In the past few years we have seen the rise and fall of many hypes, translating into bubbles and bursts, among them real estate (which is a 'real need'). The derivatives and easy credit clearly inflated that market, and the instance serves as a good example of a situation in which investors put the cart (derivatives, credit-fueled prices, capital gains prospects) ahead of the horse (the real need for housing).

A few months ago an investment advisor warned me against placing any money in the realty sector in emerging markets. As an Indian I wasn't seeing what he was seeing- a crash in the real estate funds as well as one large realty company. I was seeing parcels of land in rural southern India which I bought at a reasonable price, which has appreciated on expected lines. The land lies in a zone which is seeing demand from people returning from overseas or others who wish to live just outside of the cities in which they work. The demand is also fueled by infrastructural developments in the vicinity of these parcels. The 'real need' usually pays. The derivatives are priced at perceptions of capital gains of those derivatives and not necessarily the underlying asset. This market is volatile due to any number of reasons, significantly the worldwide loss of faith in real estate.

Let's take the example of clothing. There are many brands that are mere relics of once-famous icons. In the US, the demand for clothing is pretty consistent but the demand for brands is more volatile. What are the essential clothing? Well- the essentials literally. Underwear, socks, casual jeans and so on. There are good ways to judge a sound investment in these categories by the volume and scale of their reach and their portfolio of clothing options.

Water is a real need. Water purification systems may be here to stay. And so may be safety systems. Hoping for quick capital gains based on derived demand may prove to be the long term loser.

The best example of this is in currency markets. I know of people who have invested in Euros in the early stages of the recent recession. Clearly that did not turn out to be a good idea. The internet is buzzing with $500 billion disappearing from investors' wealth due to their holdings in foreign currency derivatives, notably those with the Dollar as the underlying asset. Their moment of loss came during the short term value loss which the Dollar experienced 2-3 years ago. Remember the value climbed significantly afterward. When the largest debt in the world and the vast majority of traded goods in the world are denominated in US Dollars, and the world's most forex-rich nations (China, South Korea, India) hold over $2 trillion in USD (and intend to keep its value high as they need this reserve to spend), it must be understood that the USD will have a high value in the medium term (and likely the long term as we know it). For a firm exporting its goods or services from a different country into the US, it was (as it always has been) much more advantageous to keep its earnings in USD within the US or in a tax haven. Instead many of these small scale businesses converted USD into local currency, then bought USD derivatives which saw their value trough out and peak in succession. When they troughed out these companies had their contracts cancelled and suffered a great loss of value in their wealth. When they peaked they no longer had those derivatives in hand and thereby could not get any of this value back. The financial institutions which underwrote those derivatives laughed all the way to the bank. The underlying asset- in this case the USD- proved far more reliable than its own derivative.

I believe in the future (and now) the investors who reap profits will be the ones who abide by Benjamin Graham's principles of 'real need' and 'understanding the business' in which you invest. Gold may have been somewhat stable. But in the absence of real need gold is about as wobbly a deck of cards as you can get. On the other hand watch out for artificial demand which inflates prices.

Climate Change in Chicago

2011-01-21T12:22:00.004-06:00

Here is the historical climate date for Chicago, from over 100 years of data collection:

Climate data for Chicago (Midway Airport)
Month	Jan
Record high °F (°C)	67 (19.4)
Average high °F (°C)	30.7 (-0.72)
Average low °F (°C)	16.2 (-8.78)
Record low °F (°C)	−25 (-31.7)
Precipitation inches (mm)	1.95 (49.5)
Snowfall inches (cm)	12.9 (32.8)
Avg. precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in)	11.2
Avg. snowy days (≥ 0.1 in)	6.2
Sunshine hours	136.4

And here is the same for Moscow:

Climate data for Moscow (VVC) normals 1981–2010, records 1879–the present
Month	Jan
Record high °C (°F)	8.6 (47.5)
Average high °C (°F)	-4.1 (24.6)
Daily mean °C (°F)	-6.5 (20.3)
Average low °C (°F)	-9.1 (15.6)
Record low °C (°F)	−42.2 (-44)
Precipitation mm (inches)	52 (2.05)
% Humidity	83
Avg. rainy days	0.8
Avg. snowy days	18
Sunshine hours	33

Moscow, although in the same “humid continental climate” zone as Chicago, is colder by far, right?

Now compare today’s data for Chicago:

TODAY

Current conditions as of 11:51 AM CST

Fair

Feels Like: -18 °C

Barometer: 1,022.2 mb and falling

And compare this week’s forecast:

TODAY

TOMORROW

SUN

MON

TUE

6-10 DAY

Mostly Cloudy

Cloudy

Few Snow Showers

Partly Cloudy

Extended Forecast

High: -13°

Low: -15°

High: -7°

Low: -13°

High: -7°

Low: -12°

High: -4°

Low: -6°

High: -3°

Low: -8°

I’m so moving to Moscow!!!

Notes on Reading Philippians

2011-01-03T15:10:00.005-06:00

Text and Summary Points

Chapter 1

From

Greetings

Affectionate remembrance

Commendation

Prayers

Paul’s imprisonment and purpose

Brothers preaching Christ

Joy in any circumstance

Exhortation in the face of future trials and call to stand firm in the Gospel

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,

To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me. God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ--to the glory and praise of God.

Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance. I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, so that through my being with you again your joy in Christ Jesus will overflow on account of me.

Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved--and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

Chapter 2

Call to love and unity in mind

Christ’s example of humility and reward

Call to work out salvation and God’s purpose

Call to holiness and caution against grumbling

Paul’s perseverance and joy

Sending Timothy and commendation of his unselfishness

Paul’s eagerness for news from Philippi

Returning the Philippian messenger (and trustee of their offering) Epaphroditus with this letter

Epaphroditus’ love for his people

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

Do everything without complaining or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the word of life--in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing. But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.

I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, that I also may be cheered when I receive news about you. I have no one else like him, who takes a genuine interest in your welfare. For everyone looks out for his own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel. I hope, therefore, to send him as soon as I see how things go with me. And I am confident in the Lord that I myself will come soon.

But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him, because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.

Chapter 3

Rejoice

Warning against Judaizers

Paul’s pedigree as a Jewish rabbi

Paul’s view of his pedigree as rubbish in comparison to his knowledge of Christ

Paul’s desire to know Christ in dealth and resurrection

Paul’s desire to eagerly fulfill Christ’s purpose

Call to consider these things well

Follow my example

Warning and tears about wordly false teachers

Citizens of heaven in comparison

Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you.

Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you.

For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Chapter 4

Loving call to stand firm

Call to specific people to agree in fellowship

Joy, gentleness, contentment, prayer, thanksgiving, peace in Jesus

True, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, praiseworthy thoughts

Joy in their love for Paul (through their gift in his hour of need)

No other church but you sent me gifts (though I lacked nothing)

God will reward you richly

Praises

Final greetings

Benediction

Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends!

I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me--put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid again and again when I was in need. Not that I am looking for a gift, but I am looking for what may be credited to your account. I have received full payment and even more; I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings. All the saints send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar's household.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Notes

People mentioned:

Paul: Writer of the epistle. Written in AD 62 whilst he was imprisoned in Rome. After having completed three missionary journeys around Greece, Asia Minor and lands between Palestine and Asia Minor, Paul traveled to Jerusalem in AD 57 where he was arrested in the temple (into which he went at James’ suggestion), held at Caesaria for one year and shipped to Rome via Malta (where he was shipwrecked). He remained in Rome (until sometime in the mid-sixties) where he was (according to tradition) beheaded under Emperor Nero’s reign. During the time of writing this epistle it is more than likely that he was expecting to be sentenced to death at any time. Nero ruled from AD 54 through AD 64 until the famous great fire of Rome and his subsequent death. According to secular historian Tacitus, Nero had blamed Christians for the fire and in the consequent genocide against them Paul may have been executed. Tradition holds that Peter was executed upside down. Paul, being a Roman citizen by birth, may have received the lighter sentence of death by beheading (as tradition has it).

Timothy: Mentioned as co-sender of the epistle although the text makes it clear it was Paul who composed the letter on his and Timothy’s behalf.

Epaphroditus: Philippian representative who had carried an offering or gifts for Paul from their church to Rome. From the epistle he emerges as a loving, kind, trustworthy man. He fell seriously ill whilst in Rome. His church back home learnt this and were concerned about him. This news in turn saddened him and after his recovery he is keen to get back to them. Paul sends his epistle with him as a harbinger of joy, thanks and good news. Paul urges the church to receive him with joy and honor men like him (2:29). He is only mentioned in this epistle.

Euodia: A Christian leader in Philippi who worked with Paul. She may have some disagreements with another such leader, Syntyche, both women.

Syntyche: The leader with possible disagreements with Euodia mentioned above. The disagreements may have been minor as Paul mentions them as having contended at his side for the sake of the gospel. Also his exhortation to them to agree does not seem too severe as other such exhortations in other situations have been.

Clement: Paul mentions him as having contended at his side for the gospel, like Euodia and Syntyche. Tradition identifies him as the first pope (from AD 92 to 99), honored as saint by not only the Roman Catholic but also several Orthodox churches- Greek, Russian, Alexandrian Coptic, and others, but there is no other mention of him in the Bible.

“My True Yolk-Fellow”: A man in the Philippian church who Paul urges to help find agreement between Euodia and Syntyche. He is unnamed but clearly a man whose word was respected. A possible explanation is that this could be Epaphroditus himself. Epaphroditus is not simply a messenger, but (in 2:25) an authoritative delegate and minister.

About Philippi and Background:

Founded as a Macedonian city by Greek king Philip II in BC 356, this settlement was abandoned in the 14^th century after conquest by the Ottoman Empire. In 167 BC the city passed into Roman hands and was the scene for the Roman civil war after Julius Caesar’s death in AD 42. The Battle of Philippi saw the defeat of his assassins at the hands of Mark Antony and Octavian. Some of their veteran soldiers settled in this place. Paul visited Philippe in AD 49 or 50 after having seen in a dream a Macedonian man pleading with him to come to his city. The gospel was thus preached for the first time in Europe at Philippi. His first convert there was Lydia, a purple dye merchant. Also at this time he freed a slave woman from demon possession. This created problems for him as the slave woman was used as a diviner by her captors/masters. Paul and his coworker, Silas, were arrested here. However after they prayed and sang aloud in jail, an earthquake resulted and the jail door was opened. The jailor there realized that this escape by wanted men would result in his own execution and was preparing to kill himself when Paul intervened and let him know that they had not escaped. This jailor then came to faith in Christ. After Lydia and the former slave woman he was perhaps the third European convert to Christianity. Paul visited Philippi again in AD 56 and 57. The Philippians seemed to have been mostly (but not all) poor, and Paul’s joy in receiving their offering was- according to him- not because he lacked in anything but because of their love and generosity. Paul’s confidence in the Philippians’ partnership in Christ’s grace with him stems from this joy. Consequently, he is always thankful, always full of joy and praise when he remembers them or prays for them. He therefore desires and prays for them to grow in love, knowledge and insight.

A Season of Silence

2010-09-09T14:20:00.000-06:00

I've been silent for a while because I've been talking without considering. Just a jumble of confused thoughts and angst-ridden questions but my words come out as if I've got it all together. Enough. I need to listen and pray, and consider the possibility that I'm in the midst of kings before God, and it is far better to keep silent and learn for this season more than anything else.

Today may well be the last day before we become four in the family. Tomorrow is Alma's scheduled C-section. I have a lot to bring before God.

Solar Still Update

2010-07-21T13:08:00.003-06:00

It didn't work. I realized that the plastic strip wasn't thick enough so I reinforced it by covering it with thicker plastic. I then realized that the water vapour was indeed getting created and being condensed by the pastic strip but not flowing to the receiver because the plastic was blocked by the edge of the box. Then I placed a small receiver inside the module, hanging by a binder clip. This collected very little water as the condensed vapour was not flowing smoothly down the plastic strip. The strip was really crooked and did not create a smooth flowing surface.

I have not substituted it for a sheet of glass (which should work), but instead emailed 'The Farm' which has a prototype design on its website: http://www.thefarm.org/charities/i4at/surv/sstill.htm

This design is expensive and tough to implement in an Indian slum, so I wanted to know if I could use local materials. i also talked to friends about what we can do. Here is the answer from The Farm:

Dear Vijai,

I agree that silicone and rubber caulking are high-tech items. I am sure there are local substitutes. Lately we have been using an elastomeric paint, but again, that would not be something easy to acquire in the poorer sections of India. Any black paint, if it is not lead-based or otherwise toxic, might work if applied with enough thickness and perhaps sealed with a clear coat of some material that would not easily melt. Perhaps if a layer of fine charcoal were laid across the bottom, no black paint would be needed and the charcoal would also filter and protect the condensate.

Good to know you are experimenting and we would be happy to publish any new designs to our site.

Albert

My friend also suggested that we add a reflector to capture as much sunlight as possible, and instead of a plastic blox use aluminum. All this will add to the cost but we need to implement it in India to actually test the results.

My friend is working on a design diagram. I will have it published when it is done!

Making a Prototype Solar Still

2010-07-08T19:54:00.006-06:00

Solar stills may be the way forward in emerging nations like India to provide fresh water to the billion-plus populations.

This is the first phase of a working prototype for distilling brackish or unclean water. If this works well we will build a bigger better model. Under normal conditions of daylong sunlight in the summer (90-100 Fahrenheit) I should be able to collect 1 gallon of pure water for every 8 gallons of brackish water

Components: Rectangular Plastic Box, Clear Plastic Wrap, Aluminum Foil, Cardboard strips to slant the plastic top,

Begin with the plastic box as the base of the module

Align cardboard strips on the side, cut it to create a sloping roof

Cover the interior of the module with aluminum foil, fill up the module with water

Cover the top of the module with clear plastic wrap; make sure it sticks out a bit at the end to create a catchment area for the pure water

Position the catchment vessel in the catchment area

"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 3 of 5 (Harischandra)

2010-06-16T13:15:00.021-06:00

I've been putting this off for a long time. This story is tough to capture in words because I don't fully understand the context in which the story is placed. I do not understand what necessitated his supreme sacrifice and how he could place the burden of this sacrifice on his family (even if they may have willingly accepted it). It illustrates some events that are a shadow of Jesus' sacrifice, I can see that. It is also strangely resonant of my difficulty in comprehending the crucifixion. In spite of many-sided truths that Christ's sacrifice offers, I find myself asking why. Why so much pain and suffering to make this possible. I can joyfully accept that I need a sacrifice to make it real to me- indeed I do not think I can see how my sin can be excused and not paid for, but I cannot comprehend it rationally that the Son of God willingly, wilfully offered himself to a gruesome death to give me life.

Harischandra's story, though is offered in Hindu traditions as an example. The denouement of his story is offered as the reward for true followers of Dharma. A side story about him that is not as popular as is the main one appears in the Rig Veda. In this story he prays for a son to Varuna, the god of oceans. The god appears to him and lets him know that he will grant him a son on condition that this son will be sacrificed to him. The king is greatly troubled but agrees to this strange demand. Varuna grants his wish but Harishchandra, though in the main story a man of his word, is hesitant. After suffering long both mentally and physically as a consequence of his hesitation, he arranges to make a substitutionary sacrifice with another man's son. This is not a very happy ending or creditworthy story. It is often the case with the Hindu scriptures that references to a king's name could mean different people with the same name or that the stories are crafted to favor patrons, usually royals who were predisposed to certain views on the subject. This story is so out of line with the main story that one cannot resolve the dissonance.

In the main story, appearing in two puranas, both presented as a dialogue between a sage and his disciples (different sage and disciples in each), this man was the 36th king of the Suryavanshi ('Of the Sun') royal family ruling over (presumably) Northern India from his headquarters in the city of Ayodhya. The king prided himself on being a man of his word. He hated deceit and lies.

Harishchandra loved to hunt (clearly vegetarianism was not the norm for this Kshatriya), and on one of his expeditions to the woods, he heard a strange cry for help. As he rushed in the direction of this call he inadvertantly ran into the sanctuary of the ill-tempered priest Viswamitra who was in prayer. The sage was incensed at the king's intrusion and as was his wont on such occasions was about to dispense with a terrible curse, but the king fell at his feet and begged for mercy. Viswamitra realized that an evil spirit may have tried to disturb his prayer and used Harischandra for its purposes. Harischandra promised to give the sage anything he asked for in return for forgiveness. (See where I lose context? I'm not sure of the reasons why a king would make such a tremendous promise in return for appeasing a sage. Of course, one hears of phrases like 'Even unto half my kingdom', but surely made in jest. In the Hindu tradition, these words have literal meaning. But clearly Viswamitra- a man with a troubled past and a fearsome reputation- was not someone to be trifled with. The temporal monarch bows before the sage, an acknowledgment of the illusory nature of wealth).

Harischandra, as he had in the previous occasion with Varuna, went back to his palace and soon forgot the incident. Viswamitra though, was a man who kept a record of such encounters. Indeed his history shows a bent of mind that seems predisposed to exacting a price from his rivals. One day the sage went into the king's court and demanded that he kept his promise. The king asked him what he wanted, to which the man said, 'Your entire kingdom- immediately.' The king had no choice but to keep his promise. He called his wife, Queen Chandramathi (known by several names) and son Rohitashwa together and left his kingdom, seeking refuge in the city of Varanasi, which was dedicated to Shiva, and therefore outside Viswamitra's sphere of influence.

This did not stop the sage from demanding even more from the king. He demanded that the king pay him a dakshina- a sum usually paid voluntarily to sages for the services they rendered. At this point Harishchandra had nothing to give except literally the clothes on his back. To pay this sum, he decided to sell himself in the open slave market. However as he had grown skinny in the months in exile (without much food and water) noone would buy him. Out of desperation he asked his wife if she could put herself up for sale. She was sold for 500 gold coins to a Brahmin. His son, Rohitashwa, was heartbroken to see his mother go, so he ran after her and begged to go with her. The Brahmin agreed to buy him for another 250 gold coins. The entire sum he gave the sage, who was not impressed. He demanded that the king pay him another 250 coins to fulfil his dakshina.

At this point he sold himself as an assistant to a grave digger (which was among the lowest of jobs performed by the lowest of castes) for 250 coins. A few days later, his son died of a snakebite. His mother sorrowfully brought the corpse to the crematorium for his last rites. Harishchandra too was heartbroken. At this point he asked her for a fee to cover the son's last rites but Chandramati had no money. The king then asked for her garment (her only one) to pay for this. (This cannot be squared with my understanding of Indian history or propriety- the whole context seems clouded with myth at this point). Shocked but equally compliant of duty and honor as her husband, Chandramati begins to disrobe, but is stopped by the sage Viswamitra who appears to the couple at the grave site and tells them that this was a test which they both passed. The sage let them know that he would now offer the Harishchandra's kingdom back. A pantheon of deities appear at the scene, bringing the dead Rohitashwa back to life. Due to their steadfastness, Harishchandra and his family were promised the reward of entering heaven at that instant but the king refused to go without his subjects. He asked the gods for his subjects to be placed in heaven alongside them, but the gods explained that his subjects were subject to individual Karma. At this point the king requested that his righteousness be imputed to his subjects (my words here), so that they could go to heaven even if he could not. At this the pleased gods opened up the gates of heaven to the royal family and to all their subjects.

All the similarities to Abraham, Job and Jesus not withstanding, the king's superhuman strength of character and the incomprehensible context cloud this story for me. Many Indians, like Gandhi, found this tale inspirational. To me it is not so much inspiring as it is dumbfounding. For a person who sees this story literally and rationally, it cannot be of much merit. To get at the heart of it it has to be narrated in terms of the fear that kings had for powerful sages, the reputation that kings needed to keep up, the ignominy of dishonouring one's word (for which a king was prepared to die), the reality of the caste system and slave trade in India, the place of the woman in ancient India (which as the story illustrates, was both elevated because her modesty could not be transgressed without both terrible temporal and eternal punishment, and secondary to the status of a man, as the instance of the king asking Chandramati to be sold tells us) and the incredible thinking around sin, guilt, penalties, payment and so on which the Hindu tradition grapples with- but cannot resolve using the resources at hand.

The Visitor: Movie Review

2010-06-08T22:26:00.004-06:00

I watched the movie 'The Visitor' sometime ago. After this I read some of the review on this movie. They were all glowing tributes. I was impressed but puzzled by some premises in the movie.

My first question on watching it was if there was any political message in reality in the story. It was made in 2007 during the Bush administration, a period in which filmmakers of a liberal political bent created some very good movies. This one, which tells the story of how Tariq, an illegal immigrant from Syria, a political refugee, came to be deported, tugs at our heartstrings for what it means to him, his girlfriend, his mom and his new friend, widower Professor Walter Vale. It tells the story poignantly, but one is left wondering if there really is any strong admonishing for policymakers who tackle immigration, besides the fact that they (and everyone else in the US) need to show kindness to the alien and the refugee among them. Tariq is eventually deported due to existing immigration laws- the movie does signal the need for change in these, but I'm not sure if it is actually arguing for a relook at the policies with regard to political refugees only. Tariq is a political refugee but I think the movie wants to create a case for a relook at all refugees- economic, political and any other kind. I do not think it creates the case. USCIS officials are portrayed as they are in reality, employees who do their job and may not necessarily be aware of the circumstances of every person they deal with. I know this from experience- from trying to get the status updates on petitions for legal immigrants or people awaiting legal immigration status. I have lost money that I paid upfront to this agency and after they acknowledged the receipt of my petitions they simply lost the petitions and dropped the ball. This portrayal is accurate. The bureaucracy is stifling and long overdue for a radical revamp. Beyond this the movie takes no swipe at any administration or laws.

The movie does portray the sad state of those immigrants who are detained. It is almost as if civil liberties do not apply to them. This must engage our attention. Ultimately the thorn is America's side when we talked about our freedoms may be our failure to care for the marginalized, primarily those cannot afford to fight for basic rights. Laws cannot be different for them from those of us who are privileged.

My second question was, who is the 'Visitor' in the movie? Tariq and his girlfriend are illegal squatters in the professor's apartment in the movie. After his initial shock in finding them there (he returns to his New York City apartment after a long gap), he eventually lets them stay on, shows them more than hospitality, becoming their friend and helper, hiring them an attorney to help them in their plight. He too benefits from this relationship, learning how to play the djembe, finding a release from his bereavement from his wife's death. In a scene, the professor takes Tari's mom and girlfriend to Ellis Island. The mom asks him if he's been to the Statue of Liberty before and he says he hasn't. The girlfriend lets him know he and Tariq often went there, and in the boat Tariq liked to jump up and down on seeing the statue, pretending as if he were coming to America for the first time. This begs my question, who is the real visitor. Those who are born into liberty often tend to lose real freedom by keeping themselves from all that is implied by freedom. Tariq and the other refugees though are fully alive to this liberty and through their music, hard work, strong relationships, social intimacy and genuineness, keep its spirit alive. The professor seems to be a newcomer and therefore a visitor to this liberty. He is the one coming into his apartment after a long gap, like a long lost acquaintance. The squatters are about to leave, but the professor shows them kindness.

This may be the movie's lesson. In the end the professor (in a very understated and convincing performance) tries his best but there are limits to his powers of persuasion and influence. Though he fails he has won the hearts of his friends. As a Christian I think the movie encourages us to take a look at what the Bible has to say about this topic. Here are some verses:

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God...loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 24:17-18 – “Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt...”

Matthew 25:31-46 – “...I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Ephesians 2:11-22 – “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.”

There are reminders in both OT and NT that not only are we to show kindness to aliens, but we ourselves are aliens in this world or have been aliens in another country. There is a sense in which we need to seek liberty by being like aliens, because true liberty does not come from this world.

Remembering Miriam Devassy, 1909-2010

2010-06-08T09:43:00.007-06:00

Alma's grandma, Miriam passed away a few hours ago in India. She was 100 years old and if she had lived until August, would have turned 101. She leaves behind a host of descendants from 7 kids (out of a total of 9 that she had, 2 died early). In December this her first great great grandchild would be born.

She remained healthy until the end. My parents visited her two weeks ago and she spoke to them well. The past week she had been feeling weak, had a stroke and refused to eat much food. Early this morning she died as her daughter in law (Alma's mom) watched her pass quietly. While all her children had lived with the knowledge that this could happen any time soon, and had prepared themselves, we are faced with the length of time that has passed since she came into this world. 101 years is long enough, but for her small village in Southern India it is several centuries. The village has changed into a busy town since then. Pictures of rural Kerala in those parts from 1909, the year of her birth, are startling. There were no electric lights, no vehicles, no paved roads. Noone spoke English, very few were educated, noone knew much about the outside world, India was part of the British empire, but this part of India had likely not seen any white faces.

She delivered her firstborn, Michael in 1932, at the age of 23. Michael passed away recently as well. His mom outlived him by a few months. Today in this town, real estate prices are higher than they are in Aurora, and being close to Cochin, which is the landing point for the submarine cable system which connects India to the internet, the area is close to an international airport, several huge campuses of IT companies like Wipro and IBM. Nearly noone in her town could read or write in 1909, today the town is 91 percent literate.

So with her passing it is as if a page has been turned. Her children, with many petty squabbles, now find themselves prepared for her passing but unprepared to 'mature' in a way, to act like the leaders of their generation. Miriam had a husband who was an alcoholic. She was very busy feeding the kids and managing the household. Being uneducated herself, she couldn't impart to her kids the skills they needed; but contrary to modern sociological observations that deem a home like theirs unsuitable for raising kids, all the kids worked their way up the local school and the majority became wealthy beyond all expectations. Alma's dad, a gold medallist lawyer, an aunt a respected pediatrician in Michigan, another a Homoeo doctor, another one who had a successful career in B2B sales, and as is common in Catholic families in Kerala, a priest who heads up a parish close to the town of his birth.

She organized the house in often ingenious ways. Alma let me know the other day that the family grew up in poverty. Their house was situated close to a government run school. She let the kids from the school empty their leftover lunch into a part of their backyard with which she fed their animals- cattle, fish (in a large pond) and poultry. Until their ancestral home (which still stands) was sold she kept working day in and day out, cleaning, scrubbing, cooking, sweeping, tending. Her husband, with his alcohol problem, could not have been a good influence on the kids- indeed all the male kids have this same problem. Indian society which rewards merit and is highly stratified, compels kids to study. This factor, in addition to Miriam's example of hardwork, may have likely spurred the kids to do better than degenerate. This stands as a contradiction to modern trends in cities, but from my own family's experience and others in Kerala, I can say that it was not uncommon. Nearly everyone was poor, and nearly everyone went to school and achieved some measure of success- even if it was only a high school education with perhaps some technical training for factory work.

Miriam had a rich life. She spent her final days with a daughter in law who may have been her least favorite, but also the most kind hearted. Miriam belonged to a generation that did not sound out expressions of gratitude or affection, and nor was this daughter in law interested in such exchanges, but she cared for Miriam with diligence and kept her in cleanliness and dignity. This was not easy at all- it involved a lot of difficult work as Miriam had lost control of her bowels some years before. I suspect that in their silent partnership, though, that there was comfort. She was the only one by her side when Miriam took her last breath.

My Turn to Whine

2010-04-28T19:44:00.004-06:00

I flew today afternoon from Boston to Chicago on United, my trusty airline with whom I have flown nearly every week to various cities in this country. This was a one way ticket to Chicago after a multi-city itinirary. I went to the United kiosk at Logan Airport, and printed out my boarding pass and on it was the mysterious legend 'SSSS'. I didn't give it any thought (there are several other mysterious things on the boarding pass). But I found out that I would be screened in a special way at the security line.

The girl right in front of me at the security line was also selected for this random screening. She had blonde hair, blue eyes and a happy smile, but these were now marred by a frown and she was now muttering under her breath, "this is just ridiculous". We both stood in line and after what seemed a long, long time (actually about 10 minutes) came up to the front when we were whisked away by TSA agents.

The TSA personnel are almost always friendly and the guys who patted me down and went through my incredibly jumbled laptop bag (with 4 different adaptors and cords, 1 iPod, 1 earphone, 2 Blackberrys, 1 highlighter, 2 permanent markers, several expense receipts, folders, presentations, mouth fresheners, 1 necktie and many, many other such paraphernalia) did so with patience, directing every now and then a question in my direction as to whether I was doing okay there- which I was.

On parting I was given time to rearrange my laptop bag, and I noticed that my boss who had accompanied me through the line was waiting outside with an expression of weariness on his face. I remarked to the TSA agent that if a person were selected for the pat down, he or she may as well be stepped up to the front of the security line to save him or her some time, as well as alleviate the chagrin that inevitably comes from the extra scrutiny. The agent replied, "well, maybe you should just come ahead of time." I let him know that I was indeed ahead of time, but I came early precisely to get through the checks early. It would be only fair to let these randomly selected patted down folks move ahead in the line. The agent let me know that he didn't have any control over such things (I doubt that he had any control over the random selection- which came out of the United kiosk, but I think he did have the authority to make the call on who should move ahead of the line).

I was also assigned a seat in the last row of the plane. If I'm giving you the impression that I was outraged by all this, the truth is far from it. I was in good humor throughout, and still am. But most people dislike being patted down- the airline could help them by giving them at least first dibs on an Economy Plus seat (with extra legroom) and the TSA by letting them move ahead of the security line. Given such freebies I think people would want to be patted down (I know I would:)).

This is not a rant on a blog site. I've been in touch with executives from United in the past for our company's business- I plan to email them about this. I will post any positive or negative responses right here.

Film Review- Born Into Brothels

2010-04-16T18:22:00.006-06:00

Last night we watched the 2003 Orscar winning HBO documentary 'Born Into Brothels' on Netflix Streaming. I had seen a similar documentary on an organization that did undercover sting operations to expose and bring to justice coerced prostitution in India and elsewhere. This one dealt with children of prostitutes living in Sona Gachi, one of Asia's largest red light districts.

The film focused in on a dozen kids who are introduced to us in a very personal way through the course of the movie. The filmmakers Zana Briski and Ross Kauffman shot the movie through several months of living and working in Sona Gachi. Briski, a theology major from Cambridge, spent a few years living with the kids, teaching them photography and eventually staging an exhibit of their works in India and elsewhere.

The film traces how the kids lives are slowly changed as they move into schools after months of red tape, social ostracism and concerns about potential HIV infection (as it turned out, non-existent) kept the kids from decent schools. It then traces Avijit Halder (now in his senior year at NYU) is praised for his work in photography and is selected to go to Amsterdam where his work is exhibited among a select group of kids with outstanding skills.

The movie ends with notes about how the kids are faring. Except a couple of kids who mvoed back into the sex trade (primarily due to their family's reluctance to let them study further), the others all fared well and as of today are doing very well in India and the United States.

I liked the fact that the movie stresses the significance of social change as a result of commitment and consensus. The parents of some of these kids earned some money out of the film project but one of them did not want her daughter to move out of the trade. In a recent interview she says, "'At this age, I have a flat, a laptop, costly phones and plenty of money. What do I lack?"

One wonders why these parents did not see far enough to understand the opportunities these kids had before them. They got some cash from the proceeds of the movie, and they had a good reason to keep their kids off the trade. Another kid whose aunt was raising her after her mother's death was pressurizing her to go into prostitution. While she wanted to go to school and learn, she wasn't allowed to; and moved back into the flesh trade.

Of course, cash isn't the issue- but perhaps in Sona Gachi the abilty to understand that life outside of the familiar if hellish street life is something desirable may be limited. Years ago as a summer intern in my second year of MBA I lived in Bombay for 2 months at the YMCA on Lamington Road near the Opera House. Although it is nothing to compare with Sona Gachi, it is a semi-red light area. You turn the corner from a nice-looking street and come up on this crowded area with tired yellow buildings built at the turn of the last century. Many evanglists came to preach at the YMCA, and several good friends who were committed followers of Christ lived there, but everyone (including me) turned our faces away from the griding poverty and the nightly circus that went on on the sidewalks, the women pacing up and down amongst the crowds, shifty-eyed, druken men moving in and out of their tenements. One day in the early hours of dawn we were woken by angry shouts from the streets below. We were on the 5th floor of the building. I looked down and a number of prostitutes were fighiting, presumably over money, screaming at each other, mouthing profanities, pulling each others' hair.

The HBO movie shows us a similar scene inside the brothel (a squalid, dark place which most of us would never see). It is remarkable how these women, all in the same tragic plight, would accuse each other of being filthy and immoral. The film shows us the faces of the listening kids, their expressions showing numbness and distress at the same time. Sometimes a picture like that takes you back to Lamington Road in an instant, shocking you without warning.

Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." The more I live the more I see the truth of this. As I read the book Mountains Beyond Mountains on Dr. Paul Farmer, and understand how the battle over high drug prices in poverty-stricken Lima, Port-au-Prince and Russian prisons were fought, by a committed minority, and won decisively, and I see the pain and heartbreak that accompanies such commitment, the more I realize that a bunch of people promising huge amounts of money in aid through Government programs may not truly realize the insignificance of their actions. You can spend a fortune on the Third World and see the cash disappearing down a black hole without making the slightest difference to anyone's life- unless you know that at the other end are committed people with the ability to connect with people.

This movie was made on a shoestring budget. The kids went to school based on the creative energy unleashed by the filmmaker's commitment in teaching the kids the skills they knew. Who can deny that their lives were changes by the commitment of a few?

Postscript:

I had ended my post with te above paragraph, but I need to end with a nod to the music. Composer John McDowell weaves both Indian melodies, some from Bollywood and others from India's religious tradition, into the movie. The result is outstanding. One of the hooks, Gopala, doesn't leave my mind. As an aside I can appreciate why they chose this song. Gopala is a devotional to Krsna, his childhood as a precocious happy little charmer has captured Indian's imagination and affection for centuries.

You can see a vide of a live performance of this song here:

"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 2 of 5 (Sudama)

2010-04-14T13:20:00.002-06:00

This is the first part of the 3 stories from Hinduism and second post in the 5-part series. This is about Sudama, a Brahmin who is a reincarnation of the immortal sage Narada in Hindu mythology.

Sudama looked up from his bed at his wife and three kids sprawled out on the dirt floor in exhaustion and hunger. Their lean bodies expanding and contracting with labored breaths in their stupor. He looked up at the heavens and wondered why he, a poor devout Brahmin suffered this way when he had given himself to a life of pure devotion. He thought of his childhood with Krsna who was revealed to him as an incarnation of Vishnu the object of his worship, the supreme deity that he lived each day to meditate on. Krsna had moved beyond the squalor and simplicity of the Yadavs, the cowherds he was raised with, and taken his place as a royal ruler at Dwarka in the splendor of a magnificent palace, devoted subjects and riding on the crest of breathtaking military victories against the forces of evil.

Sudama's wife looked up at him and asked him what he was thinking. "About Krsna, my dear. Didn't you hear of his siege of the Kuru kingdom?"

"Yes, I did." said Susheela, tucking the loose end of her tattered saree into its hip. "I was wondering if you could request him to help us."

Sudama was silent. Susheela looked into his face. She knew what he was thinking. "You don't have to, you know."

Tears came into his eyes as he looked at Susheela. They had no clothes except the ones they wore. The food was meagre, the alms they received from people they prayed for. There was little left and if they did not get some soon they will surely die. All this in the middle of a devastating drought in Mathura.

"I will go, my dear." Sudama stood up, his mind made up. Surely if anyone would help, it had to be Krsna. After all he had lived out his days worshipping him.

As Sudama prepared to go on his journey by foot, Susheela tore a part of her saree's end and packed together some crisp rice, mingled with the dust of their house, wrapping it in the worn cloth as a gift for Sudama's friend.

For days he walked through the forests that ranged between the cities of Mathura in Northern India to the Western city of Dwarka. As he approached the citadel, he looked up to see the goldem dome of its palace glittering in the noonday sun. But Sudama's mind was filled with awe on meeting his friend.

He approached the palace doors and the two Yadav guards glanced enquiringly at his appearance. He explained that he was Krsna's friend. The guards looked shocked, but deciding in their minds that this was a Brahmin in whom there is no falsehood, they decided to check with Krsna himself.

As Krsna heard that Sudama was at the door, he came to meet him himself, embracing his long lost friend.

Days passed as Sudama listened in rapt attention to Krsna's telling of his exploits, the lessons he had imparted to Arjun at the battle of Kurukshetra, the moral quandaries he had faced, defined and solved in war, justice, judgment and relationships.

In Krsna's company Sudama forgot his poverty and was filled with joy. As he prepared to return the thought of requesting a gift was far from his mind. Perhaps it was the unalloyed joy of being in Krsna's presence. Perhaps it was that a tiny voice at the back of his head kept telling him not to ask anything while the friendship was still pure and unworldly. Sudama simply did not ask for anything. As Krsna rode out to meet another evil enemy in battle, he packed up his belongings and bade farewell to Rukmini, Krsna's wife, and left for home.

As he walked back, Sudama thinks about his friendship and his heart is filled with gratitude. He finally reached the forested area where he made his home and suddely realizes what he had failed to do. Weeks had passed. Apprehensive as to whether Susheela and the kids were still alive, he turned the corner of the acacia tree that marked the beginning of the clearance which was his frontyard. He looked up and what he saw took his breath away- a magnificent palance in the place of his lowly thatched hut! Susheela had seen him coming up and ran out to meet him, dressed in a fine saree. Sudama realized that his unspoken needs were met in the worship of his Lord. He vowed to continue in his austerity as he felt that it was desirable and good to be away from the transient pleasures of life and to be utterly devoted to God.

"Christ-Bearing" Scenarios in Hinduism- Part 1 of 5

2010-04-14T13:11:00.003-06:00

I'm putting together three beloved stories from Hindu mythology to illustrate the idea that Christianity is either the "fulfilment" or the "crisis" of Hinduism. The three stories are based on 3 personalities- (1)Sudama, (2)Harischandra and (3)Arjun. This is in 5 parts, this current post counting for an intro, then the three stories and finally their elucidation in the context of Christianity. Please bear with me as this will be a long term (1-2 months) project as I put the material together. Also do not be surprised if there are other posts in between.

My goal is to present Christ as the end of our desires. He is clearly the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the hitory and tradition of the Hebrews. But if the Law needed to be fulfilled and thereby superceded, then the traditions of the non-Hebrew world could be understood to face a crisis of fulfilment at the end of their questions. This is the way I'm hoping to posit the Christian Gospel. So here goes.

Where's the Love, Arundhati?

2010-04-06T16:03:00.003-06:00

In the wake of the Maoists' killing of 75 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in India, so many thoughts come to mind. What makes the difference between the shrill desperate voices of rebels and the powerful redemptive works of people like Paul Farmer and organizations like the International Justice Mission?

Writer Arundhati Roy said last year that the Maoists were justified in their violence because the government has been unjust to them. Ms. Roy, no stranger to controversy, has been consistent in placing the blame squarely on the government (and by implication the relatively better off society that supports it) for several ills- capitalism, free trade, military purchases and upgrades (notably on nuclear weapons), large private or government projects that displace thousands of people from their own lands without adequately compensating them, the Kashmir issue and the social and economic inequality in India.

A few weeks ago she published an article in the Guardian about her interview with the Maoists, the first time a journalist received an invitation to talk to them.

A fair reading of Ms. Roy's articles convinces us of the pain she feels in coming to acquaintance with the tragic history of these peoples and the injustice they have been victims of. A writer by profession and "activist" on the behalf of oppressed people by calling, she gets this information and does what she does best- write articles about it. These articles are clearly sympathetic to the oppressed people, and the people they kill are frequently the "emerging superpower" (full of hubris), policemen who are trained to kill in cold blood, fight like a guerilla, use high tech weapons and training from Israel and other countries against the poor.

I wonder, has Ms. Roy ever thought about talking to some of these police men and women, their spouses, their parents, their kids? Some of these are ex-Maoists who help the police in tracking down violent criminals, trying to redeem some of their terrible past. Who are these people who are engaged in a war with the Maoists? Are they simply paid vassals of big government, corporations, landowners, et al- in short, glorified thugs who are only to eager to draw blood? If they were not around, would those of us who are not Maoists exist at all? For it seems to me that the Maoist vision of India- as so many such revolutionaries of the past have envisioned in places like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and other places- that their vision of India is not so much cooperation but a reversal of dominance and power.

Ms. Roy often says that Maoist violence is triggered by events so horrifying that one cannot help but take arms against- case of rape, humiliation, murder, forced eviction and so on. I have worked with people in the slums and others who minister to them in large citites like New Delhi and Chennai. These people are largely peacable, going about their work but thankful for the opportunity to learn from the social workers I was with. We worked with the kids, giving them basic education, sometimes material benefits, support with getting jobs or setting up businesses, medical care and very often emotional and moral support. One of my most abiding memories is that of a little girl who had lost her mother to heart disease, refusing to come out of her tiny hut. When another kid let her know that we were there, she came out hugged one of our woman team members and cried for several minutes. Their trust and pain have changed me as a person. I see that the only answer to their pain is our love and commitment.

Back to my earlier question: what makes an organization like IJM or World serve go quietly about freeing bonded labourers in Tamil Nadu or sexual slaves in the Phillipines? Is it the rush of power that comes from leading them out of the unjust system? Or could it be the promise of a new world order in which every one could be equal?

Dr. Paul Farmer described his remarkable efforts in Haiti as the "Long Defeat"- a series of soul-wrenching battles which often seem destined to be lost. But hope, in his case rooted in his Christian conviction, gives us rumours of other glories and keeps us fighting.

One has to ask as the old Bud Light commercial used to ask- Where is the love, Arundhati? I thought once that you had the love. When you were heriocally and peacefully opposing the dam construction at Narmada. Besides your protest, I wonder what those long years achieved in getting the erstwhile residents of those lands to settle in communities that would have benefiited them. What have you gained for them that our society lost in the process of the dam construction? Yes, I know that the Narmada Bachao Andolan has materially helped them. Have you truly rallied the Indian people to be giving, to be generous and organize to help these people? No, you have simply raised a call to fight the good fight. Isn't it far easier to carry a placard and shout your platitudes from the rooftops than to actually sacrificially give of yourself to help people?

The Maoists can fight until the cows come home and achieve nothing in the process. The Phrase 'cooperation not competition' has been around in social networks for some time now- meaning that small communities organized together, doing things that build societies and economies will win the day. Those who simply want to fight the good fight will end up the way they have been ending up for centuries, whether they win or lose- create other inequalities which yet others will rise up to fight.

People, Not Money

2010-03-31T11:51:00.002-06:00

My parents always tried to tell me that money doesn't work always in making the most significant changes. I didn't understand this except as a truism that 'money isn't everything'- it was perhaps the way they meant it. But I'm convinced of this truth every day.

I'm convinced that human commitment working in a community is the single biggest conduit to any kind of significant event- economic progress, social redemption, witness to faith, education, reduction in crime and so on. There are too many proofs out there, the latest of which is in a story carried by yesterday's New York Times, titled 'City Will Stop Paying the Poor for Good Behavior.'

Excerpt:

The three-year-old pilot project, the first of its kind in the country, gave parents payments for things like going to the dentist ($100) or holding down a full-time job ($150 per month). Children were rewarded for attending school regularly ($25 to $50 per month) or passing a high school Regents exam ($600).

When the mayor announced the program, he said it would begin with private money and, if it worked, could be transformed into an ambitious permanent government program.

Clearly this did not work. Of course, this is not to say that private or public money should not work for social redemption, but perhaps the way to progress is by educating those who have rather than pushing money into those who have not. In a Sara Groves interview, accessible here, she mentions that IJM does precisely this.

Excerpt:

So, for me, as a stay at home mom - a mobile stay at home mom ... a bus bound stay at home mom (laugh), IJM doesn't just want my money. They say, "You, stay at home mom, you are an abolitionist. Your kids are student abolitionists." And to me, that's empowering. They don't just want my money, they want to educate me about justice - about advocacy, and about worldview - about God's heart for the poor. So, I am fired up! I feel like I have found my place in this world when I met IJM - as far as something I can get behind with all my heart, support. It's just an incredible organization and move of God.

Again in the case of artists like Bono who by his own admission, uses his celebrity as a currency to enable himself to do what he does in Africa for HIV/AIDS, the key to his appeal is getting through to more and more people. The best things in life truly are free, but certainly not cheap.

The Red Headed League

2010-03-31T08:40:00.002-06:00

We watched the old Granada episode of the Sherlock Holmes adventure The Red Headed League. We've been watching this series for old times' sake. For a sinister affair masterminded by none other than Moriarty, this one is also a truly flawless comic masterpiece. My favourite quote:

Sherlock Holmes: Now I begin to think my reputation, such as it is, will suffer shipwreck if I am so candid. 'Omne ignotum pro magnifico.'
Dr. John Watson: [explaining this to the clueless Mr. Wilson] Everything becomes commonplace by explanation.
Sherlock Holmes: Watson, that is a very loose translation!

[The phjrase by Tacitus could be translated "we have great notions of everything unknown"]

This link gives the numerous repartees in this superb episode:

The Question of Liberation Theology

2010-03-25T10:52:00.000-06:00

It is a comfort to one's soul to fight evil that is outside of us- injustice, oppression, poverty and so on. In a sense this is also a part of fighting evil within ourselves- the evil of apathy, greed and selfishnessness. However the liberation theorists I have encountered usually give up some of the virtues of the more orhotodox Christians in order to uphold the above values. Some of these may be personal values like clean language, grace, sexual fidelity and constraint, faithfulness to the the whole of the Bible in its inerrancy and resisting the temptation to take some of it with a pinch of salt, patience with people who do not readily subscribe to their thinking and so on.

There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.

Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.

Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.

You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).

To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.

It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?

In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:

"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."

Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).

If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?

If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.

Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.

As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.

Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.

In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.

A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."

Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.

The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.

Our Causes Define Our Allegiance

2010-03-24T08:31:00.010-06:00

Question: I fight for justice in the world, especially in HIV/AIDS torn Africa. I believe God is just, and his righteousness means justice! Who am I (meaning what do you think of me)?

Question: I think killing unborn babies is wrong and such practices should not be supported by federal funds. I think the delilberate avoidance of this in the new healthcare bill is a shame. Who am I?

Question: India and the US signed a nuclear deal recently. My Facebook update states my take on this: There cannot be an absolute liability for an Indian and lesser liability for Americans! If India wants another Bhopal Tragedy... go ahead and pass the Nuclear Liability Law in the current form. Who am I?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you did not conclude on anything.

But if I were asking these questions separately to three different people who are complete strangers, I think each question will have established a core identification for me that these people will use in their conversation with me. But the fact remains that these are my virtues. So what makes us decide in favour of one when we are pressed to choose, as in an election. There are terms floating about like 'voting one's conscience', but that is rather unhelpful because if it is an honest conscience it would need to agree that there are plenty of Life Issues out there. How do we choose?

I remember Mark Young, current president at Denver Seminary, talking about voting on the basis of what will allow the Gospel the greatest possiblity of access into the hearts and minds of the people. This too is a value and a virtue, one I did not fully understand before, but is now becoming clearer and clearer. As time is of the essence and we are living with little time to spare for fighting any side battles, we have to remain focused on ushering in the Kingdom- by spreading the truth, fighting sin in our lives, churches and the evil that abounds in the world- economic slavery, hunger and other ills.

Here is a conversation I had with a former intern at our church who is now at a church plant in England. I reconnected with a couple of days ago and we had a good exchange of mails. I've hidden the names, but here is the exchange- it gets to the matter quickly:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M
To: Vijai
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 10:14:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting

Hi Vijai,
Sadly we are not in James Herriott country, but we are only 2 hours drive from it. So it would not be impossible to come and visit us, and see the Yorkshire dales!

How wonderful that you have thrived at __________ Church. What are some of the epiphanies you and Alma have undergone?

And I am very interested in the Justice movements you mention. Can you tell me more?

in his grip

M

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vijai
To: M
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 8:47:46 PM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting

Hey Mat:

I have to stop and think where to begin. There are many angles to this, and it may not be the best way to begin at the chronological beginning. Let me try to sum up my hazy thoughts as briefly and crisply as I can without losing your interest. This is not in chronological order.

After the Haiti incident I read an article by Richard Dawkins in the Guardian- as one could expect it wasn't about any scientific rebuttal against the existence of God, but more about (a) Christian inability to explain the existence of evil, (b) Christian hypocrisy in saying that people like Pat Robertson did not represent them, and (c) the tyranny of Christianity in holding people and the world itself accountable for sin.

It struck me that nearly every conversation I have had with skeptics have turned in this direction. After all there are several scientists out there who do believe in God and many are Christians. Without going into other empirical observations I made, it struck me with pretty blinding clarity that the only real objection in a person's mind/heart to God or Jesus was evil- in 3 different forms: (1) evil in the form of one's own personal sin and the guilt that follows it, exacerbated by the difficulty in getting rid of it; (2) evil in the form of someone else's sin, especially those of faith, especially Christians who are perceived as hypocritical; and (3) evil that cannot be attributed to direct or overt human action- like death, severance of relationships, economic hardship, earthquakes, disease, natural disasters, et al. I'm fairly convinced that other objections are only a smokescreen, or perhaps "the icing on the cake" from the point of view of a skeptic. I suppose one could extend the argument to the believer as well, that scientific, geologic, archaeologic, logical, historical and all other proofs are an afterthought to faith.

Be that as it may, it struck me that if evil is the single stumbling block to an unbeliever, then Christians as the image of Christ, created to revere and reveal Him, must demonstrate holiness.

It then struck me that we tend to explain away our lack of holiness in certain situations when one virtue seems to us to take precedence over others- as in politics, when for instance abortion takes precedence over world hunger. But the fact remains that whatever our politics, these issues- abortion, hunger, poverty, social justice, healthcare, environment, racial healing, charitable giving, sancitity of marriage- are all "Life Issues". Our political grandstanding tends to constrain us from demonstrating, preaching or allowing free access to the Gospel. When I vote, do I consider the stance that will make the Gospel as accessible as possible to people? I think that is also a value, as much as voting one's conscience is.

It seems to me that some of areas of deep need for Christians to pour themselves into are right in front of us- human beings are slaves in every way. Some are slaves of men, others slaves of sin, others slaves who don't realize that they are slaves at all- in fact they believe sincerely that they are free. As Christians we read and teach that being slaves to Christ, slaves to righteousness is true freedom. From reading a book by Michael Card, A Better Freedom, which deals with the same topic, I was surprised to see something I hadn't noticed before- that Christianity is a "slave religion"- out of the 54 or so parables that Jesus told, 34 had to do with slavery. The terms, handmaiden, servant, manservant, 'one who serves', etc are all translated 'slave' in many versions. Card says it is important for us to maintain this translation of the word 'doulos' because in the context of Roman slavery in which these books were written, noone would have had any doubt what this term meant- the kind of economic slavery that they saw in their own lives or others' lives. Slaves were owned. Card connects this with African American slavery in which there are many parallels.

This book is really revolutionary- there are examples in this that took my breath away, I hadn't noticed them before. Another book on the Gospel of John by the same author, Parable of Joy, dealt with similar themes.

It seems to me that if Jesus who was free came as a slave and died a slave's death, then rose again as Master, in order to free us from slavery so that we may be free to offer ourselves as slaves to Christ- then as His slaves who continue His amazing mission, our priority is to free slaves of every kind so that they may be able to offer themselves as slaves to Christ.

It seems to me that we must free slaves of all kinds- economic slaves, sexual slaves, indentured labourers, slaves of affluence... The book by M Card has a 'coda' by Sara Groves, the artist, who also works with IJM. She talks about modern day slavery in many parts of the world. Sshe says there are more slaves today than at any point in history, many of them in Asia. Indentured labourers in India who cannot repay a debt and must work for his master to even keep paying the interest or minimum. The slavery extends to his family as well. Many are brutally treated and exploited. Sexual slaves in Thailand and the Philippines. Children trafficked in other parts of the world as slaves.

International Justice Mission and other organizations are modern day abolitionists. This one area seems to be to be the loudest and most painful call that we hear but choose to ignore. Closer to home, it is important for us to consider those in West, in the cities and towns who are in ghettoes, often of their own making, and others who are systemically denied a good fostering community, education and other benefits. Racial divisions and tensions which are artificially created by the divisions in our society- in terms of good suburbs, gated communities, exclusive schools (not bad things in themselves)- only serve to drive us inward to our own safe havens further. As Christians cut off from those who need us most, we deteriorate in our lives in Christ, unable to live Christ before them, fearing for our lives, our 'culture' and our children's culture when it was Christ who gave us these blessings in the first place and without whose grace, there would we go. We know who these people are- perhaps African American kids in Detroit, Pakistanis in Newcastle (and perhaps Indians as well- I don't know)? Card is part of an organization called the Empty Hands Fellowship that has built bridges with some of these communities in his hometown of Nashville, TN. Too long a narrative to go into here.,

I have friends who work with some of these organizations, particularly one if the trenches working with the International Justice Mission in India. Her stories appear regularly on IJM's website, right up front Their lives are full of challenges from seeing the difficult lives before them and from threats and dangers which come with the territory. But they are also truly incarnational as Christ is; and they seem to know the joy that I once knew- that of seeing as Sara Groves puts it 'a slave awaken to the value of her soul'.

But then I think of my work, family, future, etc.and get cold feet. I'm not looking for any mission agency to sponsor me- there are others who are eager to get into mission- one such couple in _______ Church with whom we are accountability partners are young, faithful and about to go into India. I think of what I can possibly do to move in this direction.

I think our biggest inertia is in thinking that all this is somewhere down the line, in the unforeseeable future when we have enough money saved up for retirement, kids' education and other such things. Given that we all need to support our families and have other responsibilities in life, we make a mistake if we live in perpetual angst about a future mission and not think about the here and now. If there are people in our inner cities who are homeless or refugees in Wheaton or Newcastle who are new to the country and looking for some help, I think it is a good place to begin to demonstrate Christ before we take a step in a larger direction. The couple going to India I talked about moved into a low income apartment in Wheaton, and have developed numerous friendships with the Burmese refugee community there. One particular family has been close to them- they are in fact informal foster parents for a boy who lost his dad to war with the Burmese government.

I also realized that a genuinely lived Christian life- complete with confession, "coming clean", getting rid of the Christianese that our sub-culture bestows us with, connects us with the world out there quickly. I had dinner with an Indian family that was disillusioned with some of the community's Christian leaders who look down on anyone with a glass of win in his hand but practice dubious methods in evangelism, handling finances and other issues. This family had recently discovered __________ Church's Naperville Church plant, pastored by Doug ______. They absolutely loved Doug. Meeting a Christian in that sense is a release for those who are looking for the real thing, a joyful conviction that this is indeed something true.

Mat- I can't claim that I'm anywhere near it. I want to be. There are people at work who are longing for answers. Many are Hindus, several are part of charities like the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. When you were here I think I discussed with you India's neo-Nazi movement. This is actually a quasi-nationalistic organization that serves community interests in the States. It seems remarkable now, but they tied up with Calvary Church, a pentecostal organization, to provide food and shelter for the homeless in the Naperville-Aurora area recently. This organization now regularly contributes to Loaves and Fishes, a Christian organization that serves the poor in this area. One of coworkers who is a leader withi the organization confided in me recently that he was deeply impressed by a CEO of a client company who gave up his position to go into Christian ministry fulltime.

In my lifetime I never thought I'd see this rapprochement taking place, but the God we serve is the great reconciler. His Gospel may be offensive to many, but why should *we* be offensive as well?

Plenty of other stuff about contextualization, the potential of Christ-bearing in the Hindu community, etc to talk about, but it must another time. I've not exhausted the extend of epiphanies yet- but it gives you the idea. 'Nuff said, I'm curious to know about your own interest in this topic.

In Him,

VJ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: M
To: Vijai
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 6:42:30 AM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting

Hi Vijai,
Thank you for this. I have just read your email -- and am very encouraged that the Lord has so clearly been challenging you.

I want to respond in greater detail, but don't have time to do that now. Very briefly, I would say that we are in middle of an urban area with enormous need. We have the slaves of religious system, alongside the slaves of economic deprivation, and educational destitution. We also have the slaves of pleasure too. So all of what you say is deeply challengining.
I wish that more of __________ Church were thinking along a similar line to you! Have you chatted to Chris __________ about any of this?

When the Gospel is preached, and believed, it also has to be lived out. And it has to be lived out in every area of life. A visiting speaker was telling us about William Wilberforce. He observed that Wilberforce was not primarily concerned about slavery, even though that was his life's work. Rather, he was primarily concerned that the rule of Christ ought to be lived out, so that the Gospel ought to be preached, and men ought to bow the knee and live for Christ. And *this* is what motivated him to fight slavery. This is getting it right I think.

I could write a lot more, but sadly do not have time.

in his grip

Mat

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Vijai
To: M
Sent: Wed, March 24, 2010 1:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: Reconnecting

I agree. What has kept me from this thinking much earlier was the posture of many well-meaning friends who have tried to talk me into a very narrowly focused liberation theology. It doesn't make sense that simple social or economic liberation is Jesus' mission- that is so uni-dimensional a view!

[This is not part of the email, but I want to add this as a clarification: I also want to add here that the voices that have turned me off have typically been strident, harsh, judgmental of Christians in a way that shut me out from listening to the truth in their words. When artists like Dererk Webb feel the need to rely on profanity to get their message through, people tend to judge them- and this may be hypocritical but it is the way we are wired, to look for faults. When others rant about Christians' political infatuation with the Republican party without connecting other non-Republican values gently and lovingly to the Gospel message, the Christian loses the connection and therefore the interest to continue in this line of thinking. This is what happened to me- I simply did not identify the speaker as being truly Christian except that they mouthed desperate calls for justice, often laced with judgment, profanity and insults. I do not see how this could ever be edifying.]

What finally put it together for me was the consistent message of some of these Christians I trust, that the Gospel necessarily includes embracing the 'poor' of every kind. I haven't talked to Chris- is he thinking along these lines?

VJ

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Reconnecting
Wed, March 24, 2010 9:23:31 AM
From: M
To: Vijai

Hi Vijai,
It's fascinating that you mention liberation theology. In some ways the situation is analagous to old fashioned liberal theology. What happened there was that conservatives allowed the liberals to "corner the market" on social action. But just because the liberals do it, doesn't mean it is wrong!! And the situation is the same with liberation theology. Just because liberation theology says that the sinful institutions of slavery ought to be torn down doesn't mean that it ain't so!! It just has to take its proper place under the Lordship of Christ, and the bringing of his kingdom, which first means proclamation, but must include the fulsome consequences of this proclamation. Sin must be opposed because it is anathma to God.

Regarding Christ -- you will find him very thoughtful, and open to engaging with you. Make an appointment for a coffee with him (best feed him at least one Espresso -- he's Italian!) and you will enjoy his take, and he may even have some ideas about how to take it further within ________ Church.

cheers

M

Music Review- 'Fireflies and Songs' by Sara Groves

2010-03-11T11:57:00.004-06:00

I can't review Sara Groves' December 2009 album 'Fireflies and Songs' any more eloquently than this interview with her does.

While this is the best confessional songwriting I've come across it is also the best songwriting that adapts to any artist's vocal style that I've seen.

I've been listening to this album for over 2 months, and some songs have been difficult to listen to because they question me at my deepest levels- on my marriage, the level of confession in my life- the "coming clean", the freedom of letting "light shine to the very inside", the idea that there are "different kinds of happy" in our relationships, the haunting picture of asking for forgiveness in "It's Me" and finally to my relief and infinite comfort the song 'Joy Is In Our Hearts', reflecting on a passage of Scripture from Paul's epistles that was one of the earliest bookmarks of my Christian experience, the chorus finally praising God for suffering, "Alleluia, Alleluia, Christ our Joy and Strength."

I talked about a series of epiphanies in my previous post. This has been one.

Book Review- A Better Freedom- Michael Card

2010-03-10T15:09:00.007-06:00

Once every few years a book comes along that questions everything we know about ourselves, God, reality, work and life. When we read these books we are confronted with the heady elixir of unchartered territory and the sweet familiarity that this rings true.

Michael Card's new book 'A Better Freedom' is truly Biblical orthodoxy, and is empirically verifiable in our lives. There is little that we could question in this volume, but it stirs the pot and gives us a breadth of perspective that either provokes old defenses to action or lays our contentions to rest.

For me this has been the latest in a series of epiphanies that have confronted old dragons and slayed them with the Truth. The marvelous aspect of this has been that the words of this book appeal not only to my desire for Biblical, logical, linguistic and historical accuracy, but it blunts the non-arguments that the 'St Paul versus Jesus' school of thought has been putting forward.

In contemporary American experience, prejudice is a dark, sinister motif to be avoided at all costs. When we hear about Michelle Obama's ancestry which includes a great great grandmother who was a former slave girl (even in her childhood) and gave birth to a mixed race boy, we cringe- rightly so- but we heave a sigh of relief and self-congratulation that it is the progeny of this former slave that now graces the White House as First Lady. Yes- that is indeed beautiful and we need to feel the pride of the moment. But the Bible's references to slavery often ring against our ears and hearts with annoying vagueness. Paul in his writings has pieces of advice for both slaves and masters, but we do not see a William Wilberforce in Paul rousing slaves to action against their masters, Christian or not- and we feel the irony. Didn't Christ come to set us free from the yoke of all bondage?

Michael Card's look at slavery is instantly sensitive and affirming of Jesus' call for us to be slaves of righteousness or slaves of Christ. His insistence that those of us who are in situations of slavery are indeed in a dark place but those who are not owned by Christ are in worse slavery is a transforming truth. This theme resonates through his illustrations of Christ's parables, over 60 percent of which have to do with the theme of slavehood, often translated "servant-hood" in English versions. It brings up people who identified themselves as slaves- Paul, Mary ("handmaiden" in the KJV actually makes the word milder than it should be), Stephen, John and others who also exemplified with their lives what it meant to be owned. He also illustrates through Jesus' life and specific actions that our Lord himself considered his life as a slave's life. He, the Master, came as a slave and died a slave's death, served us so that we who are in bondage might be freed to become his slaves. The Master becomes the slave to be the Master. The slaves die to be free to be slaves to the Master.

What struck me most was the parable of the prodigal son which Card talks about. Perhaps this should be called the parable of the Legalistic Son, as it is as much about the 'good son' as it is about the prodigal. Consider the setting. Jesus is talking to a motley group of sinners and lawyers. He tells three parables- the parable of the sheep that was lost and is found, the parable of the woman who searched for and found the lost silver coin, and finally the parable in question- that order. The first two end with a feast, a celebration because the lost has now been found. The final parable ends with a celebration to which the 'good son' is invited, but we are left with the father's invitation and no answer from the son. There is no closure. The explanation is clear enough. Card says, with Jesus nothing is as it seems. While the prodigal speaks to the wretch that was lost and now is found, the good son is the archetype of the Pharisees and lawyers who are invited and need to respond to Jesus' call. The prodigal prepares a lame speech that he will deliver to his dad on returning home, but he never gets a chance to say it all. He says, "'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But he also wanted to say, "make me like one of your hired men." He never gets the chance because the father showers him with kisses, covers him with the best robe, puts a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. He then throws a big party- and as Card points out parables with this extravagant celebration and kindness (and there are several that Jesus told) are clear indications of our Father's attitude towards repentant sinners. The prodigal hoped to be a slave to the father, but he becomes as a prince. The 'good son' says, "All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends."

Card asks us, Who was the slave between the brothers? Those who would be slaves in humility and brokenness find that true freedom comes from slavery to Christ. Those that think they are free are in reality slaves.

The Demographic Myths of Our Self-Centered Age

2010-02-22T13:28:00.004-06:00

The term 'demographic-economic paradox' refers to the inverse relationship between economic progress and birth rates. Education and wealth go up at the cost of birth rates. This has been observed in almost all developed and developing nations. Although countries like China and India have government sposnsored programs to restrict their populations, unbiased population metrics from the Western countries and industrialized Asian nations like Japan and South Korea confirm this.

In my economics and civics classes in high school, India's population growth rates were partly attributed to the farming community's labour-intensive trade, in which more children (especially male) meant more farmhands and therefore more revenue. As agriculture declined as a percentage of the GDP and agricultural income for farming families began to be articificially kept low in India due to the presence of Government intermediaries and established 'fair prices', besides the low per-capita land holding that has been established, more children began to translate into more cost and much less revenue. India was one of the first countries to encourage family planning. This came to an undesirable extreme in the Seventies when Sanjay Gandhi forcefully sterilized, some say up to a million people in an attempt to control population growth. For an economy growing at a snail's pace of 2-3 percent a year from a poor base, more population simply meant fewer resources per capita and therefore a diminished standard of living.

After Gandhi's forced sterilization program met with outraged protests and a change of Government took place, the family planning program has been far more benign, playing the role of an advisor and encourager. China has been another aggressive implementer of family planning, imposing stiff pentalties on couples who had more than one child. Many have written about social problems and future economic problems that this has posed or will pose. Other measures like prohibition of gender determination have led to fewer female child abortions lately, but the gender imbalance in both these countries remains sharp.

The US has no such Government program but has experienced the decline in birth rates that all industrialized countries have. Unlike some other countries like Sweden and Norway which experience declining population growth rates, the US has kept up a rate of over 2 percent due to better population replacement rates internally as well as through immigration. Even so, the US has an aging population who will be supported by the younger citizens in the years to come. This is especially clear in the case of the social security funds which are now being propped up by payments made by those still working to cover the retirees. In 20 years there will be a small section of the population (younger taxpayers) supporting a larger group of aged retirees, meaning that there will be insufficient funds in social security. This is expected to lead to need-based rationing/provisioning of funds as well as a cut in the percentage of per-capita allowance of these funds.

India has a rapid GDP growth rate- even upto 7.5 percent in the recessionary 2009-10 years. China too has not skipped a beat in its blistering growth. However the economic effects a smaller percentage of a younger population are expected to show up in 30 years. This will mean fewer resources to deploy in critical manufacturing and services for export that these countries have specialized in, less availability of specialized labour to meet the growth rates needed to continue growth, a skewed distribution of labour in several fields and of course the dangers of a gender imbalance. At present the danger of a small percent of young people supporting the aged does not seem imminent, as the percentage of younger people is quite high in these countries. One-fifth of the total world population under 20 years of age is in India. As they enter the labour force the opportunities and resources are bound to be stretched, but the market that they represent as consumers in an expanding economy will be sizeable.

Here is the paradox of population economics in simple terms. The world over statistics on population remind us that hunger, disease, malnutrition, unemployment, underemployment, expoitation and other ills stalk the majority of the population. Countries that have sought to implement population controls have mostly been socialistic in the past or continue to be so today to some extend. It is easy to understand why. A socialistic view of population regards it as a partaker of the total wealth of the nation. Thew fewer the people the better the per capita income. This is true for countries in which the buying power of people is less. When GDP rates remain low, resources get divided again and again, translating into smaller populations. Land is one such resource. But standards of living are based on many other 'goods' than simply the limited natural resources of the world. India and China realized several years ago that their populations are an asset to them in an export-oriented, free trading, outsourcing world. Large teams in India could be deployed very quickly to provide application development services or financial and accounting services, while large masses of the rural population in China could find employment in the manufacturing boomtowns on the East Coast. In the past 15 years these workers have also increased domestic consumption in these countries, leading to stronger economies that have so far withstood the assault of the global recession. As income rates grew and national GDP grew consistently over a decade, these countries began thinking along new lines concernig their population, asking who are the employable people within their population.

Indian companies have had to implement stringent recruiting norms to avoid hiring less skilled employees in the face of bugeoning demand. They also began to face skewed labour distributions. Engineers in India wanted to work in IT and less in other fields. In China the long-predicted take over of the services sector has not happened because they have not been able to train enough people in the English language- despite massive Government initiatives. People want to take the shortest route to wealth and do not toe the party line.

As these populations increase, the countries are looking to educate them better. After all sustainable economic growth comes from domestic production, demostic consumption and domestic innovation. When the pie is fixed the impetus to share is limited. As the pie grows in size, the partakers realize that the more the workers the larger the size of the pie. The trick is to ensure better productivity.

This brings us back to the old agricultural paradigm full circle. At one time agriculture was relatively profitable. Indeed it may well have been the oldest profession. As other fields of endeavour eclipsed its position in the economy, its predominance declined and the number of employees/children farm hands also declined. These ex-farm hands moved on to manufacturing or services where the money was.

If one kept aside the limited resources our world offers- land, water, fossil fuels and others- one must ask the question: are all our population control programs barking up the wrong tree? Sure enough, there are several millions who are not part of the economic growth enjoyed by a section of the population of the emerging nations and the majority of the people in developed countries. If this were considered a reason to continue these programs, one must then ask: is there a real redistribution of resources, education, skill and other essentials needed for a safe, healthy and progressing life that is being shared with the have-nots? Of course there is, but only a trickle. Within the emerging nations, the have-nots are part of the economy. In a trickle-down sense, these people survive from the crumbs that fall from the tables of the haves. Despite the revulsion that this image may conjure up in our minds, the reality is that they are better of than the have nots in countries that are laggards in this economic rat race.

Putting this question in another way: if economic jump-starts in the emerging nations worked wonders for them, why are the other nations left behind in this race. The reasons are plenty and obvious- lack of political cohesion, a population that is already riddled with horros of war, AIDS, religious and other strife. It appears that many governments and even some of us may already have classified these people as "unemployable" or worse, dispensable.

It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the "unemployables" and the "dispensables", looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deemes unnecessary. Large well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating communities that can rise up from the ashes of destruction into sustainable, skilled people. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.

International Dog and Pony Shows- Psywars

2010-02-22T11:36:00.003-06:00

Here are some opportunities for an aspiring chest-thumper of a nation to proclaim its greatness and to use it as a lever to hopefully achieve greatness at some point in its future:

- Winning Olympic medals, having an Olympic program to create world class athletes even if sports at the individual level may not be as admirable.

- Economic Growth, celebrated at Davos and other such fora as a coming out party

- Large, widespread, successful, wealthy and local 'diaspora'

- Image of a 'knowledge economy', 'emerging market/giant', superpower

- Image of a future threat to take over economic leadership

- Political grandstanding over territory disputes

- Political psywar, mindgames, give and take in energy or other resource deals internationally

- Image of a grand history and heritage, preferably concerning a past empire, military might, martial techniques

- Image of a past civilization that was at some time the 'greatest', 'wealthiest', 'most powerful', etc.

- The ability to get mindshare from the incumbent grand daddy, viz. in our day and age, the United States.

If this brings to mind any country or countries it is not intentional on my part to draw such particular attention. Fill in the space with almost any medium sized or large country and it will still be true.

Intellectual Friends and Our Scandal of Faith

2010-02-19T12:22:00.004-06:00

In CS Lewis' satirical book, 'The Screwtape Letters', the senior devil Screwtape writes to his stalwart nephew Wormwood, who is focusing his energies on a person, the "Patient", to keep him away from God, refereed to by Screwtape as the "Enemy". The tenth letter, reproduced here, is a gem:

MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

I was delighted to hear from Triptweeze that your patient has made some very desirable new acquaintances and that you seem to have used this event in a really promising manner. I gather that the middle-aged married couple who called at his office are just the sort of people we want him to know—rich, smart, superficially intellectual, and brightly sceptical about everything in the world. I gather they ore even vaguely pacifist, not on moral grounds but from an ingrained habit of belittling anything that concerns the great mass of their fellow men and from a dash of purely fashionable and literary communism. This is excellent. And you seem to have made good use of all his social, sexual, and intellectual vanity. Tell me more. Did he commit himself deeply? I don't mean in words. There is a subtle play of looks and tones and laughs by which a Mortal can imply that he is of the same party is those to whom he is speaking. That is the kind of betrayal you should specially encourage, because the man does not fully realise it himself; and by the time he does you will have made withdrawal difficult.

No doubt he must very soon realise that his own faith is in direct opposition to the assumptions on which all the conversation of his new friends is based. I don't think that matters much provided that you can persuade him to postpone any open acknowledgment of the fact, and this, with the aid of shame, pride, modesty and vanity, will be easy to do. As long as the postponement lasts he will be in a false position. He will be silent when he ought to speak and laugh when he ought to be silent. He will assume, at first only by his manner, but presently by his words, all sorts of cynical and sceptical attitudes which are not really his. But if you play him well, they may become his. All mortals tend to turn into the thing they are pretending to be. This is elementary. The real question is how to prepare for the Enemy's counter attack.

The first thing is to delay as long as possible the moment at which he realises this new pleasure as a temptation. Since the Enemy's servants have been preaching about "the World" as one of the great standard temptations for two thousand years, this might seem difficult to do. But fortunately they have said very little about it for the last few decades. In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, the Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as "Puritanism"—and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life.

Sooner or later, however, the real nature of his new friends must become clear to him, and then your tactics must depend on the patient's intelligence. If he is a big enough fool you can get him to realise the character of the friends only while they are absent; their presence can be made to sweep away all criticism. If this succeeds, he can be induced to live, as I have known many humans live, for quite long periods, two parallel lives; he will not only appear to be, but actually be, a different man in each of the circles he frequents. Failing this, there is a subtler and more entertaining method. He can be made to take a positive pleasure in the perception that the two sides of his life are inconsistent. This is done by exploiting his vanity. He can be taught to enjoy kneeling beside the grocer on Sunday just because he remembers that the grocer could not possibly understand the urbane and mocking world which he inhabited on Saturday evening; and contrariwise, to enjoy the bawdy and blasphemy over the coffee with these admirable friends all the more because he is aware of a "deeper", "spiritual" world within him which they cannot understand. You see the idea—the worldly friends touch him on one side and the grocer on the other, and he is the complete, balanced, complex man who sees round them all. Thus, while being permanently treacherous to at least two sets of people, he will feel, instead of shame, a continual undercurrent of self-satisfaction. Finally, if all else fails, you can persuade him, in defiance of conscience, to continue the new acquaintance on the ground that he is, in some unspecified way, doing these people "good" by the mere fact of drinking their cocktails and laughing at their jokes, and that to cease to do so would be "priggish", "intolerant", and (of course) "Puritanical".

Meanwhile you will of course take the obvious precaution of seeing that this new development induces him to spend more than he can afford and to neglect his work and his mother. Her jealousy, and alarm, and his increasing evasiveness or rudeness, will be invaluable for the aggravation of the domestic tension,

Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

I wonder how many times I have fallen for this temptation. Friendship with the world is enmity with God in more ways than one. We may sin overtly by subscribing to the more visible sins, the sins of the flesh, world and self. But the ideas of the world- the temptation to take Scripture with a pinch of salt, the desire to distance oneself from 'ill-informed or simpleton Christians', from the noisy, happy-clappy people of faith who need no reason to believe- these appeal to one's vanity.

In my conversations with people, both of faith and others, the temptation to matter to them has been enormous. Especially concerning scientific opinions dressed up to look like theological objections, the desire to counter this with my own scientific or logical opinions (again dressed up similarly) is quite immense. Given that scientific objections are only a pretext to justify what people already believe to be true, this is not just a sin, but entirely uselss as a defense of our faith.

Dumbing Down of India

2010-02-17T20:02:00.013-06:00

Here are some observations I have made about Indian Americans and Indian expats in the US.

• My expat Northern Indian friend doesn't think Delhi is the right place to raise kids or live because it is a far more liberal place (in terms of morality) than the US.

• Far more expats than Indian residents are conscious of their heritage, many take religion seriously even if they had never given it a thought in their past in India.

• Many are conscious of the good things in US culture as they are of the good things in Indian culture.

• The US smoking population has come down in large numbers, the tobacco industry never recovered from the body blow it received in the mid-Nineties. Litigation that won user reparations of $248 billion from the US tobacco industry meant that some of the largest producers went into bankruptcy, were acquired or simply diversified into other businesses. TV ads over the past decade have abounded with ways to kick the habit. The Indian expat community has not yet adapted to this good development as the rest of the US population has; but chain smokers are a rarity.

• The stereotypical image of the binge drinking college student may or may not be relevant any more, but people into their Thirties do not behave this way in general. The odd exceptions prove this rule.

• Raising kids is serious business. Most parents teach their kids some kind of sexual modesty, regardless of their wild youth. One may call this hypocrisy, I prefer to see it as living vicariously a life of purpose through their kids.

• Indians who believed that family was for life viewed the US lifestyle with disdain because of the incidence of divorce in the country. Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981. But since then it’s dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That’s the lowest rate since 1970. Most people are convinced that marriage problems are not reasons enough to divorce- they are interested in learning how to stay married.

You see, when I left India over 10 years ago, many people I knew talked about the US as a morally lax and directionless society. Several believed the stereotypes about US culture as being crude, unsophisticated, rude, brash, boorish, arrogant, too wealthy for anyone's good, lustful, ignorant of true faith, making a mockery of religion by selling it to crowds of the needy with loud music, manufactured excitement and fake miracles.

Several years ago many Americans believed that India was a land of snake charmers, snake oil salesmen, evil tantriks mouthing mumbo jumbo and half naked beggars.

If stereotypes defined us all, I wonder if we'd have any love lost for each other.

Here are some of my observations of people living in India that I know or know of:

• On my wife's Facebook page a friend and her husband are on vacation in Goa. A picture proudly displayed shows their 8 month old baby holding a bottle of whiskey. Another shows the dad and baby lying next to each other, dad with a bottle of beer in his mouth and the baby with a bottle of milk in hers.

• Smoking in India continued unabated; many friends are not just heavy drinkers but they talk about their sordid binge drinking weekends proudly on social networks. Smoking in public spaces has been banned- but as far as I have seen, among the thirty-to-forty-somethings this does not necessarily translate into reduction in smoking.

• Several of our friends are divorced. Many have no kids. Some have one child and do not want another child. Most marry late, though they can afford to marry at an earlier age. Many have kids closer to 40 years of age. Some support the notion of passing laws like China's one-child policy.

I don't need to make too many observations for a reader to understand where I'm going with this. You see, I see India dumbing down. I see adults who simply have not grown out of college. I see a bunch of pot-bellied, graying boozers and chain smokers cockily walking about in bermudas with a smirk on their faces, teaching kids to behave likewise and learning or teaching nothing of value to the youngsters, least of all anything of true moral or spiritual worth. Their politics leaves far more to be desired. From clueless but spirited 'citizens' who support Narendra Modi's proposal to make everyone "vote by force" to borderline fanatics who support the gunning down of lawyers who represent terrorists in India's judicial system, we have people utterly without perpsective.

Am I exaggerating? I may have taken all of this a bit more kindly. Why am I so rattled? When I talk to many friends I hardly raise these topics. But too many audaciously claim bizarre things about the US. Arrogance radiates from these self-assured know-it-alls on so many levels- arrogance of economic growth, social issues, US political failures, the so-called 'superiority' of India's educational system (which is a myth that is believed lock, stock and barrell by gullible Indians). One could be blind, but when the blind believe they can see, the blindness is serious indeed.

One must ask, what of the older generation, the parents and grandparents whose culture was far more praiseworthy, those who raised these young turks, this brat pack that has fallen pretty far from the trees? It seems to me they are scared stiff to contradict their kids. After all, this is the internet generation, the kids who are the seven figure income earners that their parents never were. The new technologies- the iPhones, the Kindles, the Youtubes, all scare the wits out of the older, gentler folks. They don't understand it. If they did, they would wonder why the brat pack was so cocky about it all. Technology doesn't make us better people. They usually entertain us or save labour. And as anyone who is wise could tell us, labour saving devices do not make us happy by themselves. Much less do they make us better people.

Do we want to really know where this is leading us? Where does unabated pleasure lead us? Social critic Neil Postman writes this in his book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' about two views of the future- one of a strictly controlled life, by George Orwell in his book 1984; and the other by Aldous Huxley in his book 'Brave New World', that of a world where irrelevance, pleasure and indifference to reality make up the future:

"We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.

But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another - slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."
— Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

Dawkins on Haiti and Robertson- At Long Last

2010-01-30T18:39:00.011-06:00

Ah, here it is, the long aawited piece on Christiaanity and Haiti by Richard Dawkins. Over ht past past many months, talking to agnostics, I've understood that no amount of reasoning is sufficient reasoning for the existence of God. A friend and relative who I have chewed the fat over this one issue admitted as much a month ago. He said even if there was a good indication of 'design' existing in the universe, if every avenue of scientific discovery was covered by Biblical history, explanation , theology and logic, he would still look for a reason to disbelieve rathern than believe. He strongly affirmed this as being objective, while I let him know that this was also a form of prejudice rather than true objectivity.

I also shared with him my own feelings on this subject. I felt he was being truthful. As a matter of fact I would say that science is only a pretext for prejudice in theological discussions, even at the highest levels. This is of course hypocrisy in a way, which is what Dawkins accuses people like me of, by saying that we have no right to criticize Pat Robertson for his comments on Haiti, and that hje was simply being theologically consistent and true to his beliefs.

You see- I believe the problem of evil- in the form of internal evil (sin), evil in other people, especially those of certain faiths which affirm that sin is a reality and merits undesirable conssequences, and finally evil that is attributed to no human being (animal attacks, natural disasters, accidents, dealths of relatives, loneliness, depression, health problems, et al)- is the *only* objection ever to arise against God in the human heart.

Dawkings refuses to debate anyone other than ones with PhDs in the sciences. I don't know the reasons- it could be that he believes science is the only reliable guardian of truth, or that logic, rhetoric, theology, history and other such sources of truth are not his forte, or simply because he will not deign to debate people outside of the scientific community. But he does delve into theology in this article and many others. Of course, it is no surprise- a scientist who is also an activist for atheism is necessarily getting into theological waters.

The problem of evil confronts us with many questions, most of which Dawkins asks:

1. How can a loving God allow these things to happen?
2. How can a loving God destroy human beings?
3. How can a loving God destroy innocent people, or putting this in another way, how does he decide between Haitians and say, the Americans?
4. How can Jesus overlook the sins of Christians, especially the sin of hypocrisy?
5. When there are so many religious manipulations, so obvious and prevalent in recent and distant history, how could God allow such malpractice to continue unabated?
6. Isn't all religious persuasion only a tool for manipulation?
7. And if an atheist/Christian is honest with himself, he will also ask the question: how about my sins that I struggle with? Yes, I feel the guilt, but I can't believe God will judge me for these!

Of course, from a Christian's point of view, all of these questions have been answered by 'experts' and some which the Christians have answered for themselves. As a last point, a Christian would add that his own personal experience with Jesus negates all of this. You see, Malcolm Muggeridge had seen mostly evil in himself and around him (as he has admitted), but his encounter with Mother Teresa shook his skepticism changed his perspective. How does that happen? A hardened atheist sees reason for God's existence in a single act of a few acts of love, compared with the weight of immense evil he has seen in the wars, politics and lives around him?

This is a mystery, but a very real one. If one has felt the love of God in his heart as a believer, one reflects to an extend the same love to others. Arguably this love has changed the world.

Syriana- A Late Review

2010-01-30T17:43:00.012-06:00

I've had an overdose of political and espionage thrillers, thanks to Netflix's online streaming into our TV. I hadn't watched the 2005 landmark Syriana before, but I did a few minutes ago; and as usual I emerged with a feeling of having learned little.

Syriana is a brilliant film. It effectively traces connections between the Middle Eastern "Great Game(s)" and the strong motives behind US meddling in this region. If Clooney's goal was to inform Americans about their own culpability in the social, political, religious and economic lives of Middle Eastern people, I think he makes a good attempt at it. While it may not change minds (I'm reminded of a very dear Michigan pastor who in 2003 decried the idea that the US was possibly after Iraq's oil) it gives enough reasons to speculate on possible theories.

I'm no collegiate placard-holder one finds posting on websites like Democratic Underground. Some of my evangelical pals have surprisingly turned out to be among these shrill voices brimming with emotion and less with sense. But I can appreciate that the sinfulness of human beings, perhaps different in form in different cultures, are not different in essence. Greed here, lust there, pride elsewhere. They all originate from the same sources.

But the plot got me thinking. If sins are so endemic, why do we fixate on certain sins? For the above-mentioned bleeding heart liberal it may be a matter of US profit-motive. For a dyed in the wool neo-con the greatest sin may be someone's lack of love for America, as evidenced by her sympathetic opinions for the Iraqis. How often have I cringed on hearing the phrase, 'if they don't like (something the US did) they should live in Afhanistan'. How many times have I sighed on hearing the phrase, 'It's all because of Bush'. When these phrases come from Christians- and they have, from both sides of the opinion- they demonstrate a lack of love, both for the US and for the others.

Well- back to my question. The movie does portray the US as pulling the strings on every abominable deed. A cursory look at any ugly incident in the Middle East reveals that there are no good guys there- at all. Why then, the fixation? Perhaps because the US has more resources, influence, dominance? Perhaps because everyone (as the neo-cons say) hates us? Perhaps because we all think we are Americans and we have the right to criticize the US? Who knows?

So if Syriana made me think, it gave me no closure. In my theological blogposts I've mentioned that I like to stir the pot often even if I have no answers. But usually there are some overarching answers- like the truth of the Gospel, the reality of God's love and beneficence, despite seeming paradoxes. But besides a self-loathing attitude, I'm not able to penetrate the thinking behind this movie. Is it patriotica, in an introspective way? Maybe- but I'm missing something. There really is no gentleness in the narrative, no moral, no worldview that is apparent.

What I've always looked for is a worldview to inform our stories. As Muggeridge once said, it is far easier to feel righteous standing out on a street holding a protest sign than actually living a moral, righteous life. You see- I see a story without a worldview, and I see no human interest.

Apology for Pat Robertson

2010-01-20T15:41:00.003-06:00

I didn't want to add yet another blog article on Pat Robertson's insensitive and illogical comment on Haiti suffering because of its 'pact with the devil'. God's soverignity is absolute- and so is His love for all peoples, including Haitians. Don Wallace at the Parchment and Pen blog says it articulately.

As the author notes, many people see Robertson as the voice of Christians in this country. He goes on to say for the record that Robertson does not speak for him- and let me add for the record- nor does he speak for me or the millions of Christians who feel only pain for Haiti- and try to atone for it with their resources, prayers and time.

New Year- Frances R. Havergal, 1874

2009-12-29T10:51:00.001-06:00

From MCC in 1995 when I first believed, I have read this poem nearly each new year.

Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
In working or in waiting, another year with Thee.
Another year of progress, another year of praise,
Another year of proving Thy presence all the days.

Another year of mercies, of faithfulness and grace,
Another year of gladness in the shining of Thy face;
Another year of leaning upon Thy loving breast;
Another year of trusting, of quiet, happy rest.

Another year of service, of witness for Thy love,
Another year of training for holier work above.
Another year is dawning, dear Father, let it be
On earth, or else in Heaven, another year for Thee.

O' Hare airport musings- waiting on a delayed flight- Facebook, Friendships and my usual self-loathing

2009-11-22T20:02:00.000-06:00

I wonder why we have so many friends on Facebook. Oh, I'm not the only one who is wondering, I know. Our pastor today mentioned a NY times columnist who invited his 700 odd FB friends for a party and after receiving 60 RSVPs only 1 showed up.

I have about 170. Many have been good pals in the letsaytimes. I add them on but never post any updates. I do read many updates; but I ask myself- why do *I* add friends on FB? Besides the updates could it be that I would just like to be connected without actually reaching out to some of them? I may desire their presence but perhaps not yet a refresh of the acquaintance.

Wonder if I've made God just such a Facebook friend. He is always there, and when I don't feel his presence I get spiritual angst and simply make sure he is just there.

Wonder if I've made my wife and daughter just such FB friends.

Oh, I'm exaggerating, aren't I? Surely God, Alma, Emma, and my nearest and dearest are closer to me than that! If things aren't that bad, do they not resemble a Facebook relationship when we crave their presence but not their living in our living? Lives entwined but are we truly living them together? Sharing them?

Please, Father God, keep me from the sin of indifference and the sin of lukewarmness to your longing.

The Tie That Binds- Sandra McCracken

2009-08-16T20:03:00.010-06:00

I found this song on Sandra McCracken's Youtube account. As this was written to share the grief of a friend, it resonates with me as well. Sandra McCracken, The Tie That Binds, lyrics and video of her playing the song from her home:

Video:

The sorrow of a friend
From a long way we stand
Grief is second hand
But I’ll send my tears in a locket

Amelia smiles under lights & wires
Thorns for every flower
We number every hour
And live the days we are given

Oh, the pain
It makes you feel alive
Oh, the broken heart is the tie that binds
And I pray to God, these things will be made right

When the morning shines
On tear stained eyes
Oh we shall overcome
The Father gave the Son
To break the curse we are under

Oh the pain that no man can escape
Oh the sting of death, the empty grave,
And I pray to God where comfort has no place

When our tired eyes look through the veil
The colors are so pale but we raise high the sail
And call the winds to carry us home
Call the winds to carry us home.

More of her songs:

A Tribute to My Suffering Loved Ones

2009-08-07T14:04:00.004-06:00

"It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And though we are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are—
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will;
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

- from Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson

I'm reminded of our many relatives and friends, made weak by many tumours, diabetes, cardiac issues, abnormal blood pressure, losing jobs, tumultuous relationships, daunting commitments especially those made to God... and I marvel at the human spirit that God made and looks to God for strength.

That which we are, we are. Strong in will, to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Amen.

The 800 Pound Gorilla

2009-06-04T20:08:00.018-06:00

A couple of my friends responded to my last post. Thomas responded as below (sic):

We can so amply display God's glory and truth through the love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the stage settings are God's domain and we rejoice in the knowledge of the fact that He is always with us. That is His promise. So yes we can be sure that nothing that is not in God's will can happen in our lives. The verses that come to mind are (KJV), Matthew 10:

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

And also (KJV) Philippians 4:

6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

" In everything by prayer...with thanksgiving..."

Isn't this suggesting that in all things we can give thanks knowing that God will respond in accordance to His love and mercy towards us? We can rest in His faithfulness. We can pray without a presumed outcome and simply praise God for his goodness and celebrate his companionship knowing that our circumstances are in His hands.When Jesus prayed in the garden of gethsamene was he not rolling His cares upon His father.He was not trying to influence God's will was He? He didnt have to do that He had only to ask and God would have sent Him his heavenly hosts. He was simply drawing comfort from His father in heaven and trusting God's will with the eventuality. God can do far more than we can ask or imagine. And the Bible also says that the Lord knows our prayers even before it is on our lips.

(KJV)Matthew 6:
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

If He is for us who can be against us?

Susan responded this way (sic):

In so many of life's situations we are all doubters and to see how God works through all of our shortcomings and the process of perfecting His will for us is nothing short of amazing. His faithfulness in making sure we run the race and come out victorious has never failed to touch me. More and more I am convinced that He will stop at nothing to ensure that we are people of godly character and the standards are His and not ours.

Many times, I feel like He has forgotten me and I am in this abyss with no help or support. But from somewhere He comes and shows me how much He cares. It does not mean that the problem disappears but just that He is with us and has not forgotten us.

I'm examining my own thoughts and wondering why I'm unable to trust fully in God's faithfulness in spite of repeated demonstrations and the Bible's insistence on his beneficence. I wonder why. Could it be that it is tougher to put into practice what I claim to believe with my lips and mind? I think that is part of it, but there may be something else.

It takes me to a sermon I heard in our church a year or so ago. Based on the book of Philippians, the pastor asked us the question: 'What is the 800-pound gorilla in the room?' He answered it for us: Death. Paul is writing this joyful letter with dealth looming large in his prison cell, but he is the one who is encouraging the Philippians, asking them to rejoice in the Lord always. The pastor also let us know that death is the 800-pound gorilla at all times whether we acknowledge it or not. We are so unused to the idea of the unpredictability of death that we are almost always unprepared for it. Yet it is the one certainty in our physical lives.

When a situation like this happens to us our thoughts turn towards our earthly responsibilities. We try to plug the holes that we can and we are forced to trust God beyond that. Many of us do this with difficulty, with trembling hearts and hoping against hope.

What do we do when this happens to a loved one? When it is an unbeliever who is suffering? Our need to share the Gospel is so imperative and the importance of offering temporal comfort so pressing, and we feel the pressure of the situation much more than the comfort of God's beneficence. Does it comfort us that God is in control when we know that someone is dying without Christ?

The only comfort I have in this situation is this: if we care so much about unbelievers, how much more does God care? He died for them and we know he does care. We can trust him fully to deal with all of us with perfect justice and perfect mercy. If we know that these unbelievers die to face an eternity away from God's presence, will we be truly comforted in eternity? When Paul makes the comment, '...I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race...' (Romans 9:3), what does he mean? Isn't this the sentiment of a man in agony over his brothers' damnation? If that is the way we feel as believers, does not the Holy Spirit grieve with inexpressible grief as to those who are perishing? When the Bible tells us that God Himself will wipe away each tear from our eyes in eternity, does it mean that our delight will be mixed with this grief? Do we need to be so comforted in heaven- or am I reading too much into the text?

I've said before that I'm happy to simply stir the pot even if I do not find answers. There must be a perfect explanation for this, I'm sure, which I do not understand. 'Beneficence' is one of the thirty cent words that theologians throw around to describe God's character. Thi is basic to our understanding of God and is central to God's actions throughout the Bible and through the ages. I do not doubt it at all. But if we were to take this beneficence for granted, I cannot imagine how we would ever witness to an unbeliever. As I have said before, the Bible contains verses which preserve this tension ('work out your own salvation with fear and trembling') while we rest in the knowledge that God's salvific action is sufficient for our redemption.

Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow

2009-06-03T04:22:00.022-06:00

I generally share news of hopes that never came to fruition, of coping with such disappointments and the nature of our faith. Four weeks ago we were in Atlanta at the wake of one of our relatives. He had died of testicular cancer that could have been cured 2 years ago but it was misdiagnosed and now he had died after suffering a heart condition in response to the powerful chemo he went through.

Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.

Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.

In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.

Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."

Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.

Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."

Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.

Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."

Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?

Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.

Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."

Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.

Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."

Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.

Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."

Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.

Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.

Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.

Verse 35: Jesus wept.

Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.

Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"

Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.

Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"

Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!

Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.

Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."

Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.

Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?

One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.

Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.

Gay Penguins and Our Response

2009-05-22T09:28:00.011-06:00

A school district in Alameda, CA is in the news due to their curriculum that includes a book on two male homosexual penguins raising a baby penguin. School authorities are now trying to make it compulsory for all their students to attend the class. The age group for this class- 5 year olds.

Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.

As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.

In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.

But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.

Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.

Waterboarding- Why are Christians Silent?

2009-05-21T15:14:00.005-06:00

I'm apalled to hear that Dick Cheney is continuing to justify the practice of waterboarding. It is more painful to witness the silence and the absence of outrage on the part of Christians on this subject. Our leaders have become wary of the Left when making any statement that distances ourselves from the Right. Isn't this sad?

In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.

An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:

As Augustine argued, the Christian soldier may kill enemy combatants as a matter of true necessity, but he can never assume that in doing so he has not sinned. Augustine's "melancholy soldier" knows that the use of deadly force against another human being is, generally speaking, sin. Yet, he also knows that a failure or refusal to kill can at times be a sin worse in both intention and effect than a decision to kill in order to save lives. In a very real sense, that soldier cannot privilege his desire to be free from the sin of killing another human being to supersede his responsibility to save the lives of innocents. As philosopher Michael Walzer argues, this is the perennial problem of "dirty hands." The honest soldier knows this problem all too well – as does the interrogator.

Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:

First, the use of torture should be prohibited as a matter of state policy – period. No set of qualifications and exceptions can do anything but diminish the moral credibility of this policy.

Then he goes on to give a little room:

At the same time, rare exceptions under extreme circumstances can be considered under those circumstances by legitimate state agents, knowing that a full accounting of these decisions must be made to the public, through appropriate means and mechanisms.

Second, a thorough and legitimate review must be conducted subsequent to the use of any such techniques, with the agents who authorized or conducted such use of torture fully accountable, even to the point of maximum legal prosecution if their use of extreme coercion is seen to have been unjustified (not simply because the interrogation did not produce the desired information, but because the grounds of justification were invalid).

I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?

Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!

If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!

No Purity of Purpose in Terrorism

2009-05-18T16:17:00.005-06:00

[An edited version of this article was published first in Blogcritics.com]

The LTTE chief Prabhakaran's death in Sr Lanka made headlines yesterday and brought the 35-year old Sri Lankan civil war to an end. Several thousands of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils have been killed in this war, a nation has been divided, wounded and extremist elements allowed to flourish. India has lost over 1000 of its soldiers in the peacekeeping force of the late Eighties as well as a former prime minister to the suicide bombing tactics employed by the LTTE.

A few years ago this prime minister's daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, visited one of the killers, Nalini who is now in an Indian jail. Despite the support that LTTE has enjoyed from some Tamil politicians, the news of Prabhakaran's death seems to have caused nary a ripple in Tamil Nadu, though security analyst B Raman warns us that it is too early to be complacent. It seems now that the wounds (at least in India) are being painfully and slowly healed. For how long, noone is sure.

A cursory look into the twists and turns in this civil war brings out the worst in people. You hear opinions such as 'Sinhalese are congenitally racist, 'Tamils are congentially racist', 'Christians created all the problems by evangelizing the Hindu Tamil community', 'the Hindu Tamils are to be blamed for their identification as Tamils and not Sri Lankans', 'the British are to be blamed for dividing the country', 'the Buddhists wanted to institutionalize their beliefs and culture', and so on. There are enough instances in this nation's history to illustrate these points.

Granted that many factors contributed to the civil war, what stands out most clearly is that the best of intentions cannot sustain a terrorist undertaking. The LTTE had decimated many other Tamil nationalistic and militant outfits, engaged in a reign of internal terror, used women and child warriors and suicide bombers, committed horrifying human rights abuses, targeted and abducted many civilians, engaged in piracy, arms and drugs smuggling and carved out a relationship with the grand daddy of them all, al Qaeda. A look into history may even justify the origin of a movement to represent Tamils equitably in the xenophobic and exclusionary Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan government. But a militia like this was only bound to degenerate. There is no purity of purpose in terrorism. And thus the oft-repeated maxim that'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' is wrong. The LTTE was organized like a military, but it committed abuses that are in contradiction of the principles of nation-to-nation armed conflicts. Much less do we need to say about the allegedly 'stateless' entities in South Asia that practice terror.

Today the process of healing between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka is yet to begin in earnest. Hopefully the end of the war will mean an exploration into the beginning of hostility and an equitable solution in the democratic process.

The Darkness Deepens, Lord; With Me Abide

2009-05-13T07:44:00.006-06:00

Death of a loved one from cancer. Job insecurity. Health concerns. Financial worries. Deeper questions about goals and life's purpose. I saw these in others a couple of months ago, and I see myself facing every one of these today. Add to these the problems faced by many friends with regard to their marriage, relationships, addictions, et al. Requests for prayer are increasing by the day. Such situations come up frequently and when they do they result in at least some questioning. We cringe at least a bit when we hear the truth of Scripture expressed in familiar sentences such as "When God closes a door, he opens a window" or "God wants the best for us and it is all part of the plan." Some of us who have already been through and come out stronger from a crisis of faith may not question so strongly as others do, but none of us get quite used to the valleys of life. Such is our nature.

My own questions have to do with God and His ways. We know that life is uncertain. Who can tell if we may not die from cancer in the future? Who can tell if our careers will go the way we want them to go? Who has control over what our loved ones go through? Given that these uncertainties cloud of lives, I've often wondered if life may be worth living at all, if it were not for the purposes that God has ordained it for- viz, the announcement of His kingdom in the world and the hope of eternal communion with Him.

Here is my life of questions- qhich I may never know the answers for.

1. If we are to trust God when we are in pain, will we truly be shielded from much pain? For instance, if we trusted God when dealing with a job loss, will this lessen the pain when I still need to pay the bills and put food on the table for my family? Everyday I'm reminded that the cash is dwindling and prospects bleak. We have heard of situations in which God's people have been fed miraculously- Elijah, George Mueller, and often ourselves in less dramatic ways. We know that Jesus never failed to heal, feed or comfort those who approached Him during His earthly life. We also know that He continually pointed away from the miracles and towards Himself and the Father. If there is an inference we can draw from this, it is that He uses miracles only to point to Himself. Secondly, he uses pain as a way to demonstrate His healing and comfort. This is a double-edged sword. In order to feel the comfort we need to feel the pain. Indeed, Jesus himself prayed that the cup of suffering pass from Him- and it did not. If our trust was so strong that we did not feel the pain and our chest swelled with confidence in the Lord when our body went up in flames, is this then pain at all? What then is the purpose of pain?

2. God expressly forbids divining, astrology and fortune telling. We know that such practices are from the enemy. We know that such desire may be to control the future which is not ours to control. But who among us has not wished that we could know what is to come, especially in times of suffering? Even if we were to trust God that He will work things out we still need to sweat it out in the here and now, living each day with intermittently rising and falling hopes. Is there a way to clearly hear God's voice in such times? Many say there is, but I have not yet found a foolproof way to experience such clarity of His purpose. Let's face it- very often (and more often than not)- in times of suffering, God is silent. I have experienced clarity in the past, so I cannot deny that He responds, but his silence is his most common response. Wise ones urge us to wait during this time. But waiting does mean doing nothing. Our circumstances demand that we actually do something to keep ourselves going. For instance, when we lose a job, we need to keep ourselves working on something until God shows us a way out. Do we simply wait on Him and pray? Some have found success in this method. A friend of mine did precisely this, but his waiting period was a week's time. Those of us who go for months without success find this unnerving. Besides they will question- and I think they should- whether doing nothing else besides prayer is the right thing to do. How can we hear from God?

3. Will we get to know God's purposes through pain? Some say we will- in eternity. I do not find a verse in the Bible that supports this. It does say that God will comfort us in eternity- He will wipe away each tear from our eye. In heaven there will be no more weeping. The Bible urges us to simply trust.

I hope you will see that I do not ask the above questions in a spirit of rebellion. I question some of our easy answers to the deepest questions. In the book of Job, the wretched man found out that the answer God gave him was that Job knew very little. God humbles us so much that we are silenced before Him. We may not get an answer to our "why's". Some of us fall away from the faith (if that is possible at all) during trials. Others turn to God more and more. All I can say is that the "whom" is more important than the "why". Perhaps our real question is also "who can I trust" rather than "why is this happening." It doesn't seem so- but I think it may be our real question. If so, it is interesting to know that Jesus himself went through that question in the garden. The Scriptures say that angels comforted Him at that painful point in his earthly life. We may groan and trust His promises, but He still needs to wipe every tear away.

Song of Gomer

2009-02-05T20:01:00.012-06:00

It's a six hour drive from Chicago, IL to St. Paul, MN. On the way there's wonderful scenery- the Laura Ingalls Wilder historical park, Wisconsin Dells, ski resorts, many campsites and wilderness parks. On this route twice a week I travel for work. My constant companion during twelve hours is the collection of weekly podcasts that musician Michael Card publishes. As I listen to these, the picture of Jesus in my chaotic workaday world becomes clearer. Truths we have always known and treasured become dearer and more convicting.

This week was no exception. What caught my attention was Card's 'Song of Gomer'. Gomer was the unfaithful and adulterous wife of the prophet Hosea. Each time Gomer would leave Hosea, looking for sweetness in stolen waters, Hosea would go back after her and bring her back. God uses Hosea's testimony as a picture of his relationship with the unfaithful Israel. Card's song says (on Gomer's behalf),

"Don’t know what He sees in me, he is spirit, he is free
And I, the wife of adultery, Gomer is my name.
Simply more than I can see, how he keeps on forgiving me
How he keeps his sanity; Hosea, you’re a fool.
A fool to love someone like me, a fool to suffer silently
But sometimes through your eyes I see I’d rather be a fool."

On another such podcast, Card talks about Peter's denial of Jesus after he was arrested. When the rooster crowed a third time, Jesus glanced at him; he went outside of the hall and wept bitterly. Why did Peter weep? Was it because Jesus glanced at him? Or was it because Jesus still loved him despite his unfaithfulness?

God's word tells us that it is His kindness that leads us to repentance. I had in the past understood this to solely mean that his holy spirit enables our spirits to respond to him; and that without his aid we are unable to reach out and touch his hand of salvation. I wonder if it means that his act of forgiveness alone produces repentance in us- at least the kind of repentance the Bible talks about when a person becomes a born-again Christian.

What breaks our heart? Is it our sin or the knowledge of forgiveness? Sin cretainly breaks God's heart. We hate our sin, but repentance means more than that hatred of sin. Repentance means to turn away from our sin, but turn away to what (or whom)?

What brings us to the Lord when we turn to Him for the first time? Is it conviction of sin or knowledge of His forgiveness? Can anyone truly repent without having a hint of the forgiveness?

The prodigal son in the parable could have "repented" and told himself that he simply deserved to eat the pig-food and admitted his sin, even resolving to lead a better life from then. Perhaps his resolve may even have succeeded in exemplary self-control and a total break from his past life. Instead chose to go back to his father against whom he had rebelled. Why? Could it be that he knew that at his father's house he would at least what his father's servants were getting? Isn't it telling that the Father ran to him when he saw him from far away?

If we did not know grace will we ever repent? Is repentance only the conviction that we deserve penalty for our sins? If repenteance involves turning away from sin, if we do not have forgiveness can we truly turn away? Another way to ask this question is: if Jesus had not taken the hard route to demonstrate His mercy towards us on the cross, would we have repented at all? John the Baptist had followers who were repenting of their sins in expectation of the Messiah. Similarly Old Testament repentances in the life of the nation of Israel were expectant of salvation in some way.

I would be happy to know your thoughts. At this point I only have questions. Just last week my friend and I had a phone conversation in which we agreed that it is good to speculate, stir the pot and conjecture about Biblical questions as long as we do not conclude on these matters against or without the Bible's own affirmation.

I'm even happy only to be raising these questions. As I wrote in a previous blog article, we can admire God for what we do not or cannot know of Him. He is a sweet mystery that intrigues us and captures our imaginations as well as our worship.

Dubious Witness in a Skeptical World

2009-01-16T09:36:00.015-06:00

Unlike most of my friends in America, my evangelical, Bible-believing, pro-life, pro-family Christian friends in India are not fully politically conservative in the American sense. And I applaud their ability to be objective in their thinking, separating the politically expedient promises from real ones, considering their pro-life views to be inclusive of all people, including the aged, the imprisoned, and of course the unborn. But something that struck me as I talked to some of them was that they seemed, as many are apt to do, to exclude from true faith those Christian leaders who failed their ideal.

I've often felt that disowning fallen brethren is a sure way to set oneself up for future embarrassment. Ths is true for all kinds of fallen brethren: Christian leaders who fall prey to sexual immorality, politicians who fight unpopular wars, the ones who were involved in the Crusades in the Middle ages, everyone. Why do I feel this way?

I see the errors into which I have fallen myself and see that by the clear light of God's leading and word that they were milestones to understanding God. The moment we try to appear on the right side of popular opinion we can be sure that we are going off the track. A friend recently signed up into an online community on Facebook that celebrated the departure of President Bush in a gloating manner. While I can understand their desire to celebrate a victory they were hoping for, I'm unable to understand why a Christian would endorse such a childish and disrespectful initiative. Another friend told me, "these people (Mr. Bush and other Christians in his administration) cannot be Christian."

As I think about this, many reasons come to mind as to why we do this: embarrassment in identifying with an unpopular leader or a less-educated Christian, sin in the lives of these fallen idols, ill-informed opinions, a desire to exclude those who misunderstand Scripture and may other such factors.

Given that we could easily have been in their shoes due to ignorance, sin, poor judgment, incompetence or misunderstanding, I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to own up and hold in perspective many things:

1. An unconditional rejection of sin within and outside of ourselves.
2. An unconditional acceptance that Christians could go and have gone wrong even when they believe they are acting in accordance with God's will.

If we accept the above two conditions, we will need to answer a larger question that an unbelieving friend asked me recently. If religion can be so easily misconstrued then it can be easily manipulated. Could not this mean that:

1. The way we do things in any religion today may be not authentic at all?
2. If religion can be so easily misinterpreted is it a worthwhile course to understand religion at all?

Perhaps we are intimidated by such questions. But clearly these are not a believer's questions, nor an honest skeptic's questions at all. I have some common ground with a skeptic in a way- I embrace the Christian worldview because I'm fully convinced of it and because Jesus found me 13 years ago in my sin and demonstrated his forgiveness to me. It is not because I'm credulous that I'm a Christian.

The above two questions are naysayers' questions. These are people who are not actually looking for reason at all. They simply want to deny Christianity a place in their lives or often, others' lives. We should not be troubled by these questions.

Many say that faith is not found by reason. While I disagree that faith is unreasonable there is an element of truth to the statement that faith cannot be found by reason. Simply because logical, scientific, historical, archaeological and other evidences can be found for christianity (as indeed they have been to a reasonable extend), a person cannot embrace christianity.

A skeptic needs to have other questions answered which may not have anything to do with reason at all. for instance, "why did my child die" (as in Arun Shourie's case), or "why does God allow suffering" (a question which may have more personal implications for the questioner than she is willing to confide), or "why did I get fired from my job", or "why did my parents abandon me", or "how can God's word call me sinful when I seem to have no control over my feelings or actions."

Indeed I'm convinced that all of us ask these questions; and fight it as we may, the reason why we are not convinced of any faith-worldview is precisely because these questions are not answered in our minds. Perhaps the answer to these questions may convict us of sin which we are unwilling to admit.

The difference between an honest skeptic and a naysayer is profound. A healthy skepticism as to political leanings (Left or Right) of fellow-Christians and a propensity to stir the pot and encounter mysteries in Christian thinking have stood me in good stead. These mysteries only edify me and leave me to admire God for the immense wisdom that is His and past my finding out. To be humbled in this way is to experience a thrill that God is in control and delights in my asking these questions which I may never find the answers for, either side of eternity. But the naysaying habit destroys the soul and prevents us from coming to God.

These days a naysayer's favourite refuge lies in ad hominem attacks on Christian leaders, politicians and others who have been suddenly found to have contradicted their profesed beliefs. I think an honest skeptic would be careful enough to look beyond these. For this reason alone, I do not think we need to fear questions from naysayers when we adopt an honest approach to serious mistakes Christians have made.

And I think an honest Christian should be careful not to disown these people when they fall. After all naysayers are not just found among the unbelievers. A Christian naysayer can be the most disturbing of all, in that his faith and actions can come across as being insincere. An honest skeptic would call this bluff in a hurry.

Satyam's Great Fall

2009-01-07T11:40:00.006-06:00

Satyam CEO's revelations on inflated cash have rocked the bottom of the already deflated stock indices in India. Some say that India's outsourcing industry itself will now be viewed with suspicion. While I do not think it will happen (what with the American financial institutions in trouble due to reckless lending and the double whammy from Mr. Madoff's Ponzi scheme still smarting, I do not thinkg the offshore outsourcing industry will be singled out as a miscreant), I do think that such events are serious blows to our credibility as a world-beating player in IT services. They come at a diificult time and any merger or acquisition that will see Satyam become part of another company will undermine the true value that Satyam has commendably built into itself- in terms of its delivery processes and strength in Enterprise Application Services.

On online forums, Indians are reacting with customary hyperbole, "Raju is worse than Kasab (the captured Pakistani terrorist from the Mumbai siege):, says one. Another asks, "Who is the idiot who is running their Finance department?"

Raju released a letter to the board of Satym and the SEBI chairman yesterday. A paragraph in the letter caught my attention:

The gap in the balance sheet has arisen purely on account of inflated profits over a period of last several years (limited only to Satyam standalone, books of subsidiaries reflecting true performance). What started as a marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the years. It has attained unmanageable proportions as the size of the company operations grew significantly (annualized revenue run rate of Rs 11,276 crore in the September quarter, 2008 and official reserves of Rs 8.392 crore). The differential in the real profits and the one reflected in the books was further accentuated by the fact that the company had to carry additional resources and assets to justify higher level of operations – thereby significantly increasing the costs.

While ethical standards in companies like Wipro and Infosys are considered to be high by the general public (and their managements have been conservative and transparent to strengthen this impression), this is a scenario that could unfold in any organization. If there is a small differential in the cash flow as reflected by the books and appears in reality, will a CEO contradict his published, audited books and go public with this discrepancy? Will that not affect the impression of the company in the minds of its investors, customers, employees and other stakeholders. In Raju's case he just postponed the problem until it grew bigger and dominated the company itself. If he had gone public when this problem first started, will it have taken a beating? It may well have, and that is what a CEO needs to commit in his/her mind. Wipro's ethical guidelines state that "anything grey is black", meaning that whatever the price, the company will stay on the right side of the law and ethics. Will this be put to practice in a situation like Satyam's?

I'm firm in my view that the laws of the land must take their course in prosecuting Mr. Raju and any others involved. But the fact is, as Solzhenitsyn said, "the line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man."

Who then can be Saved? The Silence Speaks to Us

2008-12-29T13:09:00.048-06:00

I had an interesting conversation with my friend on Saturday which centered around the most asked but least answered question in Christian witness to an unbeliever. How would those who have never heard the gospel be judged? Will they go to hell?

We talked about this subject peripherally among other topics, but on later reflection I felt I needed to collect my thoughts together on this subject. The Bible is clear on some related issues: Jesus is the only way to inherit eternal life. Thus other worldviews are not ways to salvation. Anyone who enters heaven does so on the basis of his salvific death and resurrection. The way to receive Jesus is through faith in him. Those who reject Him will not inherit the kingdom and will receive punishment which is referred to as hell, interpreted by Christians variously as eternal banishment from God's presence, as a place of suffering for the wicked and as the place where Satan himself is punished eternally. To have faith one must have heard. For one to hear, another must be sent to proclaim the good news.

Romans 10:14 asks these questions rhetorically: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

The emphasis is on the one who is sent. What does this tell us? Almost every answer to the question on the fate of the unbelievers who have not heard or understood the gospel (in order to be able to accept or reject it) is almost always centered on this fact- that the ones who have heard have a great responsibility to preach to those who have not heard. But this answer does leave the listener with a sense of incompleteness. To me as well it does not achieve closure.

This link from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry sums up the dilemma:

-------------------------------------------

There are two possible responses. First, it could be that those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ will go to hell. Second, it could be that those who have never heard of Jesus Christ and the gospel will be judged in a different way than those who have heard of Jesus.

The Bible does not tell us specifically about what happens to those who have never heard. But it does say that Jesus is the only way to salvation (Acts 4:12). If it is possible that someone who has not heard the gospel can be saved, it must be through Jesus Christ and him alone (John 14:6). But, it could not be that a person who is not heard of Jesus can make it to heaven based upon being good since that would violate the scriptural teaching that no one is good (Rom. 3:10-12).

If all people who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ end up in hell, then that would be right because God would never do anything that is improper. On the other hand, if any of them end up in heaven, then it would be the right thing to do for the same reason.

But, if righteousness before God can be achieved through being good, or sincere, or by following various laws, then Jesus died needlessly: "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," (Gal. 2:21).

Because the Scripture does not specifically address this issue, we cannot make an absolute statement concerning it. However, since the Bible does state that salvation is only through Jesus and that a person must receive Christ, then logically we conclude that those who have not heard the gospel are lost. This is all the more reason to preach the gospel to everyone.

"for Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:13-14).

Following are some verses that relate to this topic:

John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

John 14:6, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

Rom. 10:12-15 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD will be saved.” 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!”

1 Tim. 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time."

1 John 5:11-12, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."

Rev. 20:15, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

-------------------------------------------

Charles Spurgeon said this in answer to a student’s question, (Will the heathen who have not heard the Gospel be saved?),"It is more a question with me whether we, who have the Gospel and fail to give it to those who have not, can be saved.”

I remember reading somewhere that Spurgeon believed in the 'age of accountability' for children, that is, a child who died before this age could not possibly be held accountable for sin as he/she had no real knowledge of sin and personal responsibility. He did not specify what this age may be. Logically one must assume that this differs from child to child.

If that is indeed the case, how are these children granted eternal life? Surely it could not be apart from Jesus' propitiation for their sin (which by birth is their nature). In some mysterious way Jesus' payment for sin is imparted to cover their souls as well. This concept is not from the Bible but from logic and our sense of fairness and justice. Similarly I think the case would hold good for mentally disabled persons as well. If that were so, would not the same situation apply to those who have not heard the gospel? Let's take it a step further. Would the same situation not apply to those who may have heard but not understood the gospel? This was my case prior to my conversion experience. I had heard that Jesus died for my sins, but I could not understand how. I thought his death meant that the world would somehow be made a better, less evil place. His personal gift of salvation through faith I did not yet understand.

None of these situations are explained in the Bible. The best we could conclude is what we may have said several times in the past about God's justice, that he is perfectly just and that our understanding of justice and mercy is no match for it. When the would-be executors of Mary Magdalene wanted to stone her and brought her before Jesus, the Lord effectively convicted them of their own sin and therefore their ineligibility to judge her. Later when he asked her where her accusers were, she said noone had condemned her. Jesus' response is revealing, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

His justice and mercy are perfect and we must trust the destiny of the unbelieving in his hands- our kids, those in our family who have not heard or understood the gospel, the mentally disabled, everyone. Does that make our sharing the gospel a crime? Doesn't it then make everyone accountable to believe? Yes it does for those who understand it. But this also provides for their certain salvation. Those who reject the gospel are not saved, but if the gospel is not preached, there simply is no certain salvation. This is what we must do.

I have my theory as to why the Bible leaves these issues out. Certainly the Bible does discuss with sharp focus very thorny issues apart from these. So I do not think that the Lord left these issues out because we cannot understand them at least to a degree. I think the Lord wants to preserve the tension that arises from the non-closure of these questions. He does not want us to arrive at a happy conclusion, except simply to trust his goodness. This tension prompts us not only to witness with urgency but to examine our own lives and "work out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. And if God wants to preserve that tension it behooves us to preserve it in ourselves as well. The Bible is a complete book and we need to keep its unresolved issues as such.

This is why every answer eventually comes around to the Christian's responsibility to witness, rather than a direct response to the destiny of the unbeliever. Let's live with that tension. Every great missionary endeavour has risen out of this. Who can deny that this was what motivated the apostle to apostles, Paul, when he wrote, "3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race..." Our salvation enables us to extend it to others and to take part in the sacrifical nature of bringing salvation to others that Jesus himself demonstrated. If the Bible leaves out these issues, I think it is safe to assume that it speaks to us who believe through its silence than it does to unbelievers. We are the ones to whom this silence demands to go out and preach.

Christmas and Our Darkness

2008-12-24T10:46:00.036-06:00

There are people who have benefitted from hard times. The bootleggers and the crime that was fed by them during the Great Depression, the influx of gambling and the mob into Las Vegas are all examples. In my line of work the erstwhile happy days of IT services are entering and have already entered in many cases into darker terrain. Clients are spending less on streamlining business processes, improving customer and employee experiences with processes and systems and looking not so much at saving costs over a long period of time as at cutting existing cash outflow, thereby leaving no room for arguments of investing into the future.

Who makes money during a depression? There are distinct divergences in the answer to this question depending on what market you are addressing. For our purpose let's address the most basic market of all- the workaday man or woman who has lost a job or is getting paid less due to cost cutting measures or underemployment at their place of work. What do they buy at home? On special occasions like Christmas they try not to merely subsist, because Christmas as an event comes only once a year and even keeping aside the matter of faith, most families want to create memories and look beyond their troubles at this time. They spend cautiously and try to give more meaningful gifts. Peggy Noonan wrote a column about this a couple of weeks ago, asking if we were going to see the first Christmas of restraint in America.

When Christmas is over and the New Year comes in, what would they do? Clearly they need to spend on basic items like food, heating, electricity, schooling- which they cannot do without. But we may see less private school enrolment, less eating out or high end foods (organic, gourmet, imported), lower heating, less usage of electrical appliances and so on. Some may spend money on more nice-to-have items, albeit cautiously. And yes, companies realize this, so many offer financial or other commercial structuring to ease the burden; and of course they make money off it. I received a flyer from AT&T asking us to switch to a convergent product and service offering, giving us unlimited local calls, 120 HD TV channels and high speed internet for less than the price we now pay for our home phone. I have received mais from our bank asking us to consolidate our loans into a single loan, thereby allowing us to pay less on a monthly basis, but reducing our capital in the total value of our home and car. Some of these address our needs very clearly-like AT&T's offer (it didn't come with any unreasonable time commitments), others like that of the bank involve a trade-off which gives one pause for thought.

There are many ideas out there. None are so compelling to a Christian as the idea of losing something yourself so that someone else may gain. We have heard the pithy statement that 'Christmas is about giving, not getting.' Ths message comes in soundbytes from TVs, childrens' books and other media, but the example we have set so far leaves this statement fall with a dull thud.

Why is Christmas about giving? Most of are filled with thanks when someone remembers us enough to give us a meaningful gift. O Henry's story, 'The Gift of the Magi' has been told, retold, caricatured, criticized, spoofed so many times we do not think much about it. I was reminded of it today from RZIM's Jill Carattini writing in the daily devotional. She writes:

Jim Dillingham Young and his wife Della are the subjects of The Gift of the Magi, a short story written by O. Henry in 1906. Struggling to make ends meet in their one room apartment, Jim and Della have but two prized possessions between them: for Jim, a pocket watch given to him by his father, and for Della, her long, beautiful hair, of which even the queen of Sheba would be envious. When Christmas comes, Jim and Della have nothing to scrape together to buy even a simple gift for the other. Yet, longing to give something meaningful out of great love, each, unbeknownst to the other, sacrifices the greatest treasure of the house; Della sells her hair to buy her husband a silver chain for his beloved pocket watch, and Jim his pocket watch to buy Della pearl combs for her beautiful hair. Thus unfolds The Gift of the Magi and “the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days,” writes O. Henry, “let it be said that of all who give gifts these two were the wisest.”

Why were these two the wisest? Could it be because the receiver of the gift received much mroe than the gift itself? He/she knew what it cost the other. Could it be because the giver of the gift took a step that demonstrated his/her desire to break free from themselves and love the other sacrificially? What is it about sacrifice that is so sweet and so heartbreaking? How may Jim have felt when he knew that Della couldn't benefit from his gift? Would he have felt better if Della hadn't sold her hair? Della would then have her gift but Jim would not have his. Did he feel better because Della's loss in this situation now was somehow compensated by the fact that she (like him) knew that the other loved her? Is love so strong as to give selflessly and not receive anything at all in return? But both Della and Jim did not do what they did thinking of a reciprocal gift. Maybe we could put this in another context. If we were in either Jim or Della's place, would we be the happier for what we did if the other did not give us a reciprocal gift? I'm inclined to think that we would, but I wonder- with our human inclination to sin- if that happiness would as intense when the rougher patches come up. Perhaps we need to know that acts of compassion will be rewarded, but not in the way we expect. People who do selfless acts with nothing to look forward to may be actually, even subconsciously, looking forward to something. A few years ago I read the story of a millionaire who gave away everything he had, became poor, and driven by guilt and a desire to alleviate pain, gave away his kidney, donated other organs in principle on the event of his death. He still wasn't satisfied with all that he had done. What was he seeking? If it was absolution for his sins, would he be satisfied with these enormously charitable acts? Can he now look back and say with confidence that he had done all he needed to do?

When Jesus came into the world as a baby, he demonstrated a truly selfless act, which too had a purpose that he knew it would accomplish. This was not meant to benefit himself but to fulfill his plan for humanity. Jesus also knew that this would satisfy his desire to enter into his Father's love. What does this mean? He never needed to be loved any more than he was by the Father (and vice versa), but this was a fulfillment of the love, the way by which such a love was worked out in flesh and blood. Indeed, as Hebrews 12:2 says, "Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

The joy that was set before him. If Jesus anticipated this joy as he looked to the excruciating death so immediately before him, was the cross an event with no visibility into the future? Are all our efforts to save the environment, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, medical care to the suffering who cannot afford it ends in themselves? What is the joy that drives you? If it has not been defined yet, look to the cross for a possible understanding. The babe in the manger with, as Chris Rice says, his "tiny heart whose blood will save us" was the one in whom "all your hopes and fears are met tonight". Our acts of love and compassion are yearnings to transcend ourselves, to leave this troubling self-serving existence to mean something to "others" (or could it be, to that "Other", who we are often unwilling, even embarassed, to name?). If they are yearnings, but cannot be satisfied even with giving away all of ourselves, like the millionaire did, what can save us? Perhaps O Henry's moral from his story is that giving is indeed what Christmas is about, but nothing meaningful can be given or received without sacrifice. Isn't it remarkable that the most loved Christmas carols have a minor note in them that gives us the taste of what the expectation of Advent means?

Is there joy in the cross? Christmas invites us to find out. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6,7)" "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined. (Isaiah 9:2)"

The Hour and the Man

2008-12-16T08:24:00.012-06:00

I lay awake last night, restless and thinking of why our wealth makes us dull to the gospel and soulless. Yes, we hear about Angelina Jolie and Madonna adopting infants from impoverished nations, and Bono spearheading efforts in Africa to combat HIV and AIDS. We anticipate- skeptic and believer alike- the fulfilment of the promises our President-Elect made on his unique and inspiring campaign. These are stories from the wealth of America. But these are remarkable because they are doing something counter-intuitive- and that is, sharing of their time, wealth and indeed of themselves.

I thought of Gandhi, wondering how a man could influence so many and transform the moral direction of a nation. My dad, born in 1941, tells me that when he was 5, before India's independence, people referred to Gandhi as "Gandhi Appooppan" (Grandpa Gandhi). In a remote village in Southern India, which was still a princely state and would continue to remain so until the fifties, they looked with respect to a man from faraway Gujarat and were arguably guided by his principles. Today's India has very little of those principles. Politically India's policies prior to the 90s were socialist im principle. The welfare state it created faces a crisis of epic proportions in the early 90s when policies were dramatically reversed and now has created a consumeristic nation characterized by greed and selfishness. In the turnaround which was necessary and laudable, something else happened which happens all too often- a trading away of values that called for simple living, even austerity, to make way for trumpery and shallow living. India's leadership today bears no resemblance to the one in the 40s. Martin Luther King once remarked on his trip to India, "To other countries I go as a visitor. To India I come as a pilgrim." To King, Gandhi's land held a moral clarity and courage that was unparalleled inthe world then. Gnadhi rose up in the context of an unjust and predatory governance system. Besides him so many Indian leaders then crafted a policy that was exemplary and powerful to oppose the British government with peace and civil disobedience. The hour produced the men.

Ah, but then America had Dr. King himself, a man known for his similar resistance in the face of injustice. The greatest humans in history are known for moral courage, rather than for the power they wielded, the skill they had, the money they made or the feats they accomplished. Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, Nelson Mandela, Diertrich Bonhoeffer- are all known for this. Others have had a moral dimension to them that fuelled their specia well-known activities, despite any failing they may have had elsewhere- Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churcill, President Roosevelt. Poets and authors are known much more for their profound thoughts on moral dilemmas and their resolutions- Dostoevsky, Tagore, Tolstoy. Those whose wealth and skills make the world a better place are often known because they make the world a better place, not because of themselves. Thus Alfred Nobel is known more for the prize he instituted than for his fortune in armaments. Bill Gates for now is known for Microsoft, but if he persists at his charity, he may be known much more for it in the future. This brings us to the celebrities who too are known for charitable activities than for their achievements in show business.

Why do we admire moral courage. Why is it so empirically verifiable that true greatness always comes in the face of adversity? In America we face an economic crisis, accompanied by unprecedented loss of jobs, wars in other countries and other worries. RZIM writer Margaret Manning asks in today's 'Slice of Infinity' if it is possible today to sing 'Joy to the World' when there is no apparent joy to be found. Can those of us who are not yet affected by the crisis be legitimately joyful when there are others who are so affected?

The fact is, these conditions are not new to many among the have-nots of this world. For them the crisis has been an ongoing affair. For the rest of us this is a new reality that is scary. Margaret tells us that Christmas means precisely this, that the promised Messiah came to a world that was truly dark- this made all the difference to a people that were on the verge of losing hope. The long-awaited Messiah was just so- he came into a sinful, evil world. To know the reality of this is to have known the reality of evil in our world, and indeed in ourselves.

In yesterday's 'Slice', writer Jill Carattini writes that John the Baptist who came to prepare the way of the Lord, actually exhorts us even today to make his paths straight, in our own hearts. To receive the Messiah, I need to feel my evil and repent from the bottom of my heart.

I mentioned that the hour produces the man- it did so 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. But that was God's gift to us and not the will of man. But isn't it true that every man who is so produced comes out of God's will? Jesus is God's Son, but the prophets were his messengers. My prayer is that we who need a prohet more than ever would get one- even if he calls us to turn away from our most familiar, beloved and sinful ways.

Comfort and Joy

2008-12-03T11:19:00.000-06:00

Quotes from Bonhoeffer's Christian Sermons:

In a Christmas sermon given December 2, 1928, Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “The celebration of Advent is possible only to those who are troubled in soul, who know themselves to be poor and imperfect, who look forward to something greater to come. For these, it is enough to wait in humble fear until the Holy One himself comes down to us, God in the child in the manger. God comes. The Lord Jesus comes. Christmas comes. Christians rejoice!”

“When once again Christmas comes and we hear the familiar carols and sing the Christmas hymns, something happens to us... The hardest heart is softened. We recall our own childhood. We feel again how we then felt, especially if we were separated from a mother. A kind of homesickness comes over us for past times, distant places, and yes, a blessed longing for a world without violence or hardness of heart. But there is something more--a longing for the safe lodging of the everlasting Father. And that leads our thoughts to the curse of homelessness which hangs heavily over the world.”

“Lord Jesus, come yourself, and dwell with us, be human as we are, and overcome what overwhelms us. Come into the midst of my evil, come close to my unfaithfulness. Share my sin, which I hate and which I cannot leave. Be my brother, Thou Holy God. Be my brother in the kingdom of evil and suffering and death. Come with me in my death, come with me in my suffering, come with me as I struggle with evil. And make me holy and pure, despite my sin and death.” Every day, despite its location on the calendar, a still, small voice answers our cry persuasively, "Behold. I stand at the door and knock.”

Through all the Advents of our life, we shall wait and look forward with longing for that day of the Lord, when God says, "I am making everything new!"

Deafening Silence in Mumbai

2008-12-01T12:55:00.020-06:00

In the aftermath of last week's carnage in Mumbai, the global media are exhibiting their usual callousness in reporting on the issue. There are some improvements: most (with some glaring exceptions) of the major newspapers are referring to the event as an act of terror and the perpetrators as terrorists. Except some who still keep the flag flying, they have given up on the term 'militants' in referring to those who kill civilians and destroy societies in India. This was not the case 5 years ago when a ragtag bunch of terrorists drove into the campus of the Parliament House in New Delhi, their car laden with explosives.

CNN covered the event consistently- which was another exception for the media and especially for CNN. Besides these there is barely anything that I can view without revulsion in Western media reportage on this event.

The headlines are quick to judge, condemn and at the least 'tut, tut'. This article in 'The Week' magazine talks about some of them. They are urging India to let the "new" Pakistani government cooperate with Indians, asking India and Pakistan to do some "non-reacting", noting that India as usual is accusing Pakistan prematurely and without evidence, rebuking India for fomenting religious tensions and creating "disenfranchised" Muslim youth, showing puzzlement why India would continue to gnaw at Pakistan's heels when the Pakistani government clearly said they were not involved in the event and showed their cooperative side by sending their spy chief to India to talk to the government. Others are talking of how this will affect the way foreign investors look at India's business climate, thereby inflicting a heavy wound on the economy. Some others are deriding (sic) India's handling of the situation. Others are claiming that this was an event perpetrated by Hindu extremists, notwithstanding the growing mountain of evidence as to the orchestrators of the act. All of them are asking India to begin dialogue on the Kashmir issue, to open it up to the US and other nations to solve multilaterally and to ensure that the Muslim community which is by and large economically and societally backward and undereducated, is given focus and care in being able to redeem itself. Some of the more honest ones speculate that this will divert Pakistan's attention to engaging India's anger when it should be focused on the Afghanistan border. After all that is more important than subcontinental tragedies that will inevitably be forgotten in a few weeks.

It is events like this that open one's eyes to the agenda, prejudices and stubbornness that characterize Western political minds when it comes to India. As Samuel Huntington observed in 'The Clash of Civilizations', India is the only major country that is isolated, alone and culturally set apart from the world. India has no true friend. The closes of its allies, Israel and the US, are proving to be opportunists as India has always suspected them to be. The most puzzling question is why India has not been as hardnosed and decisive as China has been in pursuing a tough, self-centered, independent foreign policy.

The other remarkable observation one could make (this is no surprise though, having been repeated ad nauseam in the past) is the alactrity with which Pakistan has removed itself from suspecting eyes. The Pakistani government is new, ostensibly helping the US find the last stalwarts of the Al Qaeda hiding in the Afghan border, and has washed its hand off the responsibility. It is a victim of homegrown terror and the media argue therefore that it must be trusted implicitly by India, never mind that the legilative branch of the government has no connection to the Executive, especially the military; and never mind the calls and emails of the terrorists traced back to Pakistan; and certainly not the confessions of the captured terrorist that he had trained in Pakistan with the terrorist group LeT to fight his dirty war. Some Pakistani journalists are making the case they have always attempted to make- that the solution to all of this is for India to clean up its own backyard. Granted that India has many societal problems, but how convenient to suggest that if only India started behaving, perhaps giving away Kashmir among other things, it would all be solved. Almost all these articles call for US intervention to investigate the cause. Clearly they are dissatisfied with the evidence that is coming out of India's cops interrogating the captured terrorist and the email/phone conversations traced to Pakistan from the terrorists' satellite phone, the contact names of LeT leaders on those phones and so on. And they seem to sincerely believe that India should disbelieve its own police force and trust the US to come up with a plausible explanation for the tragedy, which of course, must exonerate Pakistan.

The LeT had of course named former president Musharraf as its honorary head prior to 9/11. This was hastily removed later. Reports of the LeT and the ISI, Pakistan's spy agency being almost interchangable, are also of course old news and therefore to be conveniently forgotten. We must trust the Pakistani claims that the LeT has somehow fallen from grace and is now an enemy to Pakistan. the connections with the ISI and deeply rooted common individual elements in these two organizations must not be relevant any more, for whatever reason.

For any media eyewash in the US, this issue has to take the cake o nbeing the most blatant. Their deafening silence in speaking out what is the obvious truth is telling. The US newspapers claim that India and Pakistan "mistrust" each other. This patronizing psycho-babble clearly muddles American minds. To India and Indians this will remain a deeply personal matter, and will only serve to further convict them of US opportunism. There may be no permanent friends in politics, but it will serve India well to remember that there are no friends at all in politics, only situations that they can manipulate. Machiavelli would be proud then, never mid Gandhi.

Let's Rest Now and Bridle Our Tongues

2008-11-05T16:27:00.018-06:00

When I first arrived in the US in 1999, many members of the diverse Asian community let me know that in the US no woman or non-white could ever be the President. I did not form an opinion on this sweeping statement until about 2 years later when I disagreed with them and against prevailing sentiment. Today they have been proved wrong resoundingly. We had a magnificent election in which a black man with an unusual name and a history of international upbringing and education won the elections, competing first against a powerful white woman within his own party and then against a white woman and a white war hero. The naysayers still ominously add that it is the war, the economy and any number of other disasters that led to this- but the fact still remains that the immense margin of victory lays to rest such speculations. It is an historic day for America. And what a fantastic perspective from a pillar of contemporary American Christian Conservatism- Al Mohler. His column, while mourning the setback for pro-life activism, nevertheless declares the moment's glory unabashedly. Quote:
That victory is a hallmark moment in history for all Americans -- not just for those who voted for Sen. Obama. As a nation, we will never think of ourselves the same way again. Americans rich and poor, black and white, old and young, will look to an African-American man and know him as President of the United States. The President. The only President. The elected President. Our President.

This is glorious. I was talking to my friend about how President Obama's victory will change the quality of discourse among lawmakers. He has demonstrated his gracious speech and consensus building approach. It is safe to say that most lawmakers will treat him with more respect than they showed President Bush if only for the reason that he is a minority. This is all good, regardless of that twisted motivation. Al Mohler's article reflects Christian grace, but outside of such bright lights, the quality of the current discourse on both sides of the centre is terrible. This Wall Street Journal article talks about how ungracious Americans have been in their treatment of Mr. Bush. Regardless of the fact that his presidency has been followed by a trail of problems, some created by the presidency and some not, this shabby behaviour reveals more about ourselves than about Mr. Bush. Quote:
Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in
support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.
Last Thursday's Presidential Bash on SNL showed Mr. Bush's daughters talking about the fact that "everybody's calling Dad dumb"- although this was supposed to be funny, it proves how irresponsible we have become in our public discourse. The incredible lies that have been circulated in emails about Mr. Obama belong in this same category. I'm reminded also of George Clooney's comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimer's, when he refused to apologize for a joke he made about it with "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him." I've written elsewhere in this blog about the declining quality of conservative bickering about liberalism, from religious leaders.

All these statements are intended to hurt, not build up; it is full of malice and spite; it reaches families; it alienates and divides us as a people. Yes, some Americans for all their progress against racism have become a crass, crude bunch of people- and I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama's term will lessen that. In that sense we look to him not only for leadership but an example. The Messianic fervour not withstanding, I think it is right for us to expect that level of class from every lawmaker. I'm glad that so far Mr. Obama has indeed given us the right signals.

And thankfully, Mr. Obama has the media on his side. I hope that a few months of economic and social upheavals do not turn the media against him. When that happens it will time to run for the hills.

Truth without Grace

2008-10-31T08:52:00.050-06:00

Peggy Noonan's column this Friday (today) on the Presidential elections has an air of defeat, no matter that she has been trying her best to present both sides of the argument for some time now, battling her Republican allegience to give Obama credit where he deserves it.

In this column she makes this great point (among several others):

When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.

As a Christian Obama's only blip in his campaign came at the time when he had some observations to make about the Bible. I think he was mauled by Conservative commentators, in particular Dr. James Dobson (which may be understandable because Obama singled him out and hinted that he was as far Right as Al Sharpton is to the Left). But Dr. Dobson's comments seemed to me lacking in Christian charity. I have listened to his radio program and certainly it is not all about politics. I think he cares about the family and the values that we cherish. But his blindsidedness has affacted him to a point where his comments in response to Obama's do not reflect Grace.

Besides this I have to say I have not seen a political candidate anywhere in the world take on detractors with the finesse that Obama has shown. The great orators among statesmen- Nehru, Churchill, et al showed at least some hints of arrogance in public. To date except for the blip above I have not actually seen Obama ruffle anyone's feathers. That is not the important thing, though- the most significant point is that he still fascinates with his ideas a nation that is used to listening to short, pithy soundbites meant to excite, anger or polarize.

Dr. Dobson's response to Obama in June brings me to another thought. I have seen Christians debating from both sides. Dobson, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others have crossed the line from civility to ungracious behaviour many times in these debates. Other Christians, rooting for Obama, too have followed the world's way of ranting and raving- with a caveat that we will laugh all about it in eternity anyway. While this is true, it reminds me of what a comedian once said about the American Deep South: You can say anything you want about anyone, as long as you add as a suffix, "Bless his/her soul." It is funny because it is actually true to a large extend.
The fact is Christians, whichever side they have taken, have been largely ungracious. You see it in conversations, in blogs, in emails. It seems to me that we may not be evaluated by the unbelieving neighbour so much for our allegience as our attitude. After all if we simply take sides in a debate, we will be considered simply as part of a voting bloc: Conservative vs. Liberal, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Capitalist vs. Socialist, Right vs. Left.

When and how do we get counted as Christians? I do not share the opinion that Christians have no role in politics as such. I think our convictions- the Gospel, the saving grace of Jesus Christ- compel us to act in the social and political sphere. All too often, due to the limited nature of the fallen world, we are forced to take sides, often compromising one value for another. We all become single-issue or two-issue voters in most elections, whichevere side we are on. We assign priorities. We sometimes get the label "nutcases" by those opposing our views. This would not matter so much if it had been just the unbelievers on the other side. But the fact is we squabble about it the exact same way as the secular world does. Though the words used are not usually as severe, I have seen words and phrases used by Christians in this debate which should not be on their minds to use at all. Schaeffer's columns (one of which I had commended on this blog) with respect to Dr. Dobson has been peppered with truths couched in language that is hurtful and sometimes (though rarely) inappropriate for a Christian.

From this and my other writings on this blog, I think it is by now clear that I feel that Christian behaviour that does not reflect Grace (as well as Truth) falls woefully short of the Lord's command. Being Pro-Life is indeed being Pro-Truth. Being Pro-Poor is surely being Pro-Truth. But being crude in our conversations about it is being Anti-Grace. Jesus, as the prologue to John's Gospel says, was full of Grace and Truth.

I have a confession to make. My faith has been shaken a few times in the course of these political debates- not severely, but shaken nevertheless. This has nothing to do with intellectual charges against the Christian worldview. Intellectually I'm convinced strongly of the truth, grace and beauty of the Gospel. I have listened to endless debates and statements from men who want to rip the Gospel apart- men and organizations like Richard Dawkins, Infidels.org, Swami Prabhupada and so on. Besides the fact that I find their positions intellectually untenable, I derive comfort from Christianity that my research into other faiths and worldviews cannot match. Christianity is Truth, and in addition it is also Good News! The comments that Obama had made in reference to slavery, capital punishment for an erring son, et al in the Jewish law are not mysterious elements to me. Slavery in the Old and New Testament were realities that when read in conext were not supported by God or His Law, but acknowledged as extant among the Hebrews as among the other Semitic peoples. In fact the Hebrews were given clear instructions to be humane towards their slaves- and from history we know that this was a benign form of domestic servitude, unlike the economic slavery that the Roman empire and pre-Lincoln America practised. Paul's writings also tell us how he regarded slaves to be free men in Christ and masters to be slaves to Christ. He considered himself to be a slave to Christ. Jesus calls himself as one who serves- quite literally, a slave. The concept of the slave that the Bible refer to is distorted by Obama's implicit suggestions about it, but we cannot hold it against him as a Presidential candidate simply because of his limited theology. After all, if our standards were so stringent, in some sense the theology of most Christian Presidents have been limited enough to warrant our displeasure. Obama's comments about stoning the errant son are derived from actual words in the Old Testament. It is important to note the distinction that Jesus made about Old Testament Law and what God actually desires. When questioned about divorcing a wife, he said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." When questioned about stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, he said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was he contradicting the Law? As He says, "Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jesus thus claims to be the end goal of the Law, that He came to fulfill it. The fulfillment of the Law is not found in its penal code, endless requirements, Sabbath regulations, ceremonial cleansing and so on, but its fulfillment in His Person- including his vicarious death and resurrection and the Christ-life that ensues after a conversion event in a believer's life- the gradual folding away of the flesh and the dominion of the Spirit, in which His righteousness becomes manifest.

None of these pronouncements trouble my theology, though it may trouble me that the Bible is being misinterpreted in the public sphere.

But as the Psalmist says in another context in Psalm 73, "But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled;. My steps had nearly slipped." As I watched debates among Christians, my heart sank as disappointment turned to shame and anger that these brothers would be so influenced by the world that they could address each other in the same way. I wondered almost hiding even from myself, if what the detractors keep harping about Christianity could be actually true. Individually their arguments are easily disproven. But the clamour of voices chip away at one's conviction, especially in moments like this, when one is frustrated with those who one has looked up to as leaders and exemplars. The violence over Christ in history, recent arguments about Christ's alleged non-existence, the scandal of the Da Vinci code and other gnostic writings aimed at draining divinity from Christ, the watering down of the Bible, following the cafeteria mentality of picking and choosing what one likes in the Bible while discarding others... All of these are no match for the theologically sound answers that Christians have come up with over the past 2000 years. But when one sees a community meant to reflect Christ reflecting something (or someone) else, one's faith is troubled.

In John chapter 6, when the people who witnessed Jesus' miraculous multiplication of bread and fish to feed them all were offended at his saying that he was the bread of life and that they must feed on his flesh to be saved, Jesus asked his presumably scandalized disciples if they wished to leave as well. Peter's reply finds an echoe in many troubled hearts: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:68-69).

The secular humanistic worldview offers a cold world with morals justified only by one's Quixotic imagination and ideals with no purpose to live or die for- a barren wasteland that is embraced with zeal by those fuelled more by indifference, misconception or animosity towards religion than those with conviction. Hinduism, with its view of the world as immaterial and illusory as Maya, a view of life as terrifyingly cyclical, only an abstract understanding of salvation that is called Moksha- and that by a lucky throw of dice in which chance, noble birth, Karma, Yoga (in its different spiritual forms), meditation and so on come together. Buddhism with its escape into the inner world so distant and disconnected with the world we live in and its myriad cries for help, with a non-exitent Deity that changes into a Deification of the Almighty Self, Islam with its rules and regulations, strictures and no hope, assurance or certain way (except by physical or spiritual Jihad) to attain salvation.

Forests of tongues, as Chesterton said:

Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.

Then I realize that I have nowhere to go. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do our spirits. In Christ there is fullness of joy.

Last week in church a ministry resident talked to us about the letter of James, chapter 3, versus 13-18. He made the point derived from this that spiritual ends cannot be achieved without spiritual means. So better programs, management, more resources and so on cannot save a dying church. The church is after all a group of people into whom God has breathed the Spirit of Life, and is thus inspired by that Spirit. Our engagements in the world are not to be governed by earthly means. When we use earthly frameworks such as governments, employers, law and other organizations, let us be mindful that we cannot push our agendas through manipulation, partisanship or out-arguing each other- if indeed our first agenda is to preach Christ and Him crucified.

As Peggy Noonan notes insightfully in her article, Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." Perhaps the era of some Christian leaders have ended as well, but the era of Christ never ends.

Alienating Our Own

2008-10-29T14:45:00.026-06:00

A few months ago my cousin, a Catholic as most of my family is, let me in on a conversation she'd had with a guest at a common Baptist friend's wedding. She was asked which church she went to- as an ice breaker, to which she replied, "a Catholic church". The answer came back promptly: "I pity you." Clearly my cousin carried this in her mind for months and later shared the incident with me.

My wife's cousin was a medical student about 7 years ago. She was attracted to the praise and worship meetings that were organized by Evangelical students, and being a religious Catholic, she felt she'd found something closer to the ideal she imagined Christian worship to be... until she began interacting with her well-meaning Evangelical friends who went to the meetings with her. They were far more interested in "holy huddles" and beyond a cursory smile or friendly hello towards her no real relationships were built, and the ones who did talk to her talked ill about the Catholic faith and just a bit about the Gospel.

Thirteen years ago, in MCC, I came to the Lord, a rare Catholic student on campus and embraced whole-heartedly the fervour and the authenticity of the Evangelical faith I found there. My mom had shared horror stories with me of Protestants, especially Pentecostals; and it was the Lord's grace that overcame much prejudice about them for me to listen to these Christian students and accept the Lord. Mom had let me know of the Pentecostal believers who visited our home to share the Gospel, of their vehemence in ridiculing the Pope and Catholicism. Quasi-Hindu practices such as penance-for-favours practised at shrines like Vailankanni drew their ire and they did not conceal their distaste for these. Mom let me know even before I went to college that the Pentecostals had specifically targetted heavily Catholic countries such as Brazil and transformed it into a Pope-hating, fire-breathing radical Pentecostal community. Her explanation for all this then was that they hated Catholicism. For an impressionable young man, this was a pretty strong seed of prejudice.

On campus in MCC, after I became a Christian, I found great joy in my new faith. I also read with a friend a book about Francis of Assissi in a book called 'A New Kind of Fool' written by an Indian Franciscan monk whose talent in music, art, photography and poetry combined to make this book an intimate look at Francis. The monk traveled through Assissi and many other places of interest to Francis-researchers and captured his impressions in art, poems, snapshots and sheet music. The life of Francis took my breath away. I was amazed to find such depth of faith. A page in the book carried a black and white photograph of an unpaved road somewhere near Assissi. The author captions it this way (my paraphrasing): "These old roads carry a special signficance, because somewhere along these roads, Francis saw a leper, dismounted from his horse and ran to embrace him." This did not go down very well with most of my friends in college. We had long discussions about Catholicism, mostly criticisms from them and nuanced agreements from me. More than the fact that Catholicism had introduced many corruptions into Christianity, my displeasure in these disputes with brothers I loved dearly was that their dismissal of Catholics and their faith was simplistic and somewhat aggressive. True friends of the Reformation they were, as I myself turned out to be later (I still am- except that I would like be a kinder gentler friend).

I did realize of course that the word Catholicism means different things to different people. There have been people who turned to Catholicism like Chesterton and Muggeridge and others who were influenced strongly by it like CS Lewis. Francis lived in a time before the Reformation began, when there was only one mainstream church- and that was the Roman Catholic Church. Besides the practises of the church that drew Martin Luther's ire came to that extend of corruption much later than Francis' time. The later Catholic Reformation did much to clear these after the Protestant Reformation had done its work. But apart from a few believers I heard the oft-repeated criticisms of the Catholic church from my friends.

Three years later I was working in India and visiting at a believing friend's house. He and his wife talked of how a Hindu friend did not want to confess his new-found Christian faith to his orthodox Brahmin parents. He later married a Christian girl from a Brahmin background and they had a Hindu-style wedding with a former Hindu priest-turned-Christian officiating, somehow fooling the parents that he was chanting Hindu mantras! What was remarkable was that my friends believed that this was allright, while they simply could not think that a Catholic could remain in his church and be a believer.

When I listen to the retelling of Catholics' brushes with the Protestant crowd, I get the feeling that we are back in the times of the Reformation. Catholicism has greatly changed and is continually changing, and is differently practised in different parts of the world. For instance, the high theology of Pope Benedict XVI does not find any takers in syncretistic India where new age practices like Pranic Healing is practised by some in the clergy. Muggeridge and Chesterton remain names to be learned in Indian seminaries, with none of their thinking permeating the policies and practises of dioceses. Many heroes of the Christian faith could be found in Catholicism- Henri Nouwen and Josef Damien come to mind. We know that the average lay Catholic anywhere in the world pay no more than lip service to men like these. After all they are not 'canonized'.

Catholicism has a lot to settle in its cesspool of beliefs, in order that the core beliefs of Christianity may remain and all else may be weeded out. But we Evangelicals are guilty- in more instances than not- of ignoring one of basic tenets of our faith: charity. Jesus, as the prologue to John's gospel says, was full of grace and truth. We may have truth on our side (if as we say we are true to the Scriptures) but we have no grace to give in what we say or do to these Catholic brethren.

It is tough to witness to my relatives, not least because their few interactions with Evangelicals has scarred them. We have talked ad nauseam about the Gospel, the non-existent dichotomy between faith and works, the validity of the Catholic argument about the written tradition of the Word and the oral tradition that is supposedly enshrined within the Magisterium of the church and all other areas of conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants. The disconnect is so much that this has ramifications in the political level. Strong pro-lifers turn pro-choice, their faith in Christian teachings deteriorate and many turn to other religions such as Hinduism which claims to be a religion that "accepts all" in peace, although the logical and historical invalidity of this statement they do not necessarily delve into.

Why do we alienate those who are willing to listen? If salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Catholics are, arguably, those closest to us in terms of faith. They embrace mystery and paradox which many of our churches have lost as a result of the almost Deistic effect that our interpretations of Sola Scriptura have had on us. We may have good reason to question some of these mysteries, but the fact is we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In many churches this may not be true. Indeed many Evangelicals embrace the mysticism of A'Kempis and Bonhoeffer (who was Lutheran). But it simply isn't true of the majority.

Is it strange at all that churches that advocate mystic experiences that should give us pause- like the 'Latter Rain' movement- have sprung up in Protestantism? When we lose the mystery of communing with God, we feel the urgent need to replace it with something. After all, God is so mysterious and his judgments past finding out- we need to hear from Him badly. I think it will take years and years of right living and gentle corrections to win back Catholics, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others. Many were drawn to Jesus not because he kept contradicting them (which he did often), but because of his compassion- and the Bible says that they were like sheep without a shepherd.