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:
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Question of Liberation Theology
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Book Review- A Better Freedom- Michael Card
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.
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.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Syriana- A Late Review
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.
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.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The 800 Pound Gorilla
A couple of my friends responded to my last post. Thomas responded as below (sic):
Susan responded this way (sic):
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.
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.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Gay Penguins and Our Response
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.
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.
Monday, May 18, 2009
No Purity of Purpose in Terrorism
[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 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.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Christmas and Our Darkness
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)"
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Hour and the Man
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.
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.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Truth without Grace
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.
Monday, July 7, 2008
In Memoriam
41 people including 4 Indian nationals died in the Kabul bombing yesterday. As we shed a tear those who died, a section of the world's people rejoices.
It's good for those who sympathize with violent organizations like the Taliban to understand that an administration that can destroy people at will without a cause against them can as well destroy those it administers. This is true of every single totalitarian regime in the world. They have destroyed previous regimes with much collateral damage and unleashed a reign of terror that has dwarfed any before it- Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the Burmese Junta, et al are examples and so will be, we can be sure, others like Bin Laden, the Hezbollah and the Hamas, were they to assume authority over nations.
The Taliban and its supporting arms in the Pakistani establishment and military are no exceptions. Those who applaud yesterday's suicide bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul would do well to remember that.
Friday, March 7, 2008
An Innocent Man Pays for a 26-Year Silence
"You've been telling half truths.One who tells lies hides the truth but when telling half truths,you've forgotten where you've put it."- Mr. Dryden, in Lawrence of Arabia
Evey now and then a stoy like this tugs at our notions of human justice. Here are the questions that come to mind at first shot:
1. Lawyers need to keep their clients' information confidential. Are there any exceptions to this? What if it threatens the survival or sovereignty of the nation? What about an outright confession of crime, such as in this case, when silence would mean that an innocent man will be punished in the perpetrator's stead?
2. Isn't it an obstruction of justice to keep knowledge of a crime secret? Doesn't that conflict with the lawyers' bond?
3. If these lawyers had come forward with this information, what would have happened? They may have lost their jobs and their licenses to practice law. But wouldn't it have been admitted in court as evidence?
4. If such a disclosure on the lawyers' part would have been admitted in court as evidence, shouldn't we question ourselves as to what we need law schools for? Are we (the same question could be asked medical schools) fostering simply careers by establishing law schools? Or aren't we attempting to uphold the law? Isn't the law at least partly sacred? From the Christian vantage point, isn't the law a poor version (but a version nevertheless) of God's law?
From a purely humanistic point of view, that last question doesn't hold any meaning. An innocent man was punished, the criminal went free, nothing more was said or done. The criminal completed a full life and handed in his dinner pail. The unfairly accused gets a re-trial after 26 years of his life have been wasted behind bars. The rest of the world went about their normal lives. Not a blip in the course of history. By and large the humanistic paradise didn't move much, did it? From a Christian's point of view this is injustice which will be surely answered with the perfect justice and the perfect mercy of God's judgment. This is an affront to God's original plan for humanity just as every sin has been before this.
If anything at all it points out to us the frailty of human justice and the still small voice inside of us seeking true justice. The Cross tells us that such justice is to be established first in ourselves. The judgment must indeed be meted out to each of us and the Cross cleanse us in fulfilment of that judgment and God's mercy.
Alton Logan paid for not just Andrew Wilson, the perpetrator, but also the lawyers whose silence sealed his fate, not to mention the loved ones of the accused whose desire for justice consumed him. Except in human terms he was unable to save any of their souls. That is possible only by the vicarious death and resurection of the One who being in the form of God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped to himself, btu made himself of no reputation, was found in fashion as a man and took our sins on his ravaged body on the Cross. Death could not keep him down and his life is our only hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
