Transformation through transformed people

Evangelization in India demands church to be a transformational agent. Missions in India cannot be an isolated program for a particular community in a limited geographical location. The effect of the mission activities of a particular mission field must transform the people in that area at the same time influence the entire nation. It needs to have a specific focus and a nationwide purpose. This can happen only when the church becomes the transformational agent.

The church is the body of transformed people (born again) who has the mission of transformation. The danger, the church can easily shift into is becoming parish oriented rather than mission oriented.   There are mainly three groups of people we see in the society. Let us name them as enemies of gospel (resistant), friends of Gospel (receptive) and children of god (church members). A parish oriented church has activities mainly for the church members where as the mission oriented church focuses these three groups equally. Evangelization of India is possible only when the church focus these three groups of peoples in the society. Therefore the missions of the church is three fold

· RESISTANT to RECEPTIVE

· RECEPTIVE to CHILDREN OF GOD

· CHILDREN OF GOD to MATURE IN CHRIST

Every day we come across these three groups of people. They are next to us. Identifying them as receptive or resistant is primary task before sharing the gospel. Direct sharing of the gospel help the receptive where as addressing the felt need helps the resistant.

Church is the salt and light of the society. It cannot limit its boundary only for the church members. The church must relate with every member of the society through its various mission activities. All our programs and celebrations be an opportunity to relate with not only the church members but also the resistant and receptive of the society because our church is St. Thomas Evangelical Church OF INDIA which is a transformational agent.

This article written by Rev. Jersih Varghese (State Coodinator, Bihar) in Hindi Belt Mission's newsletter in the month of October 2012

‘Evaluation of the claim of Swami Vivekananda that, “Hinduism is the throne of all religion and that all religion lead to one great truth that is found in Hinduism: Sanatana Dharma.”

Introduction

              Swami Vivekananda is the person who has influence around the world with his philosophy of practical Vedanta. Swami Vivekananda and his teachings became the part of curriculum of the schools and colleges because of his outstanding philosophy which he has introduced to the world. He has uplifted the Indian spirituality; he made it world famous spirituality. And this has its own impact in the mission even today. Therefore, author is dealing with the Sanatana Dharma, Swami Vivekananda and evaluation of his statement which he gave in the council of world religions.      

1.      Sanatana Dharma

1.1.Introduction to Sanatana Dharma

Sanatana Dharma literally means “‘eternal religion.’ The religion of the Hindus, formulated by the rishis of the Vedas.” (Vivekananda 1998, 309) The other name of Hinduism can be considered as ‘Sanatana Dharma’. Sanatana Dharma focuses on the charity towards the people of the world and so people who follow Sanatana Dharma are more on the social work. Sanatana Dharma is meant as the legitimate teacher of spirituality from India which was the claim of the Swami Vivekananda. (Mathew 1999, 129)

1.2.Conceptual Framework of Sanatana Dharma

Sanatana Dharma can be understood as the experience of oneness according to the Vivekananda’s understanding which deals with the world principles and ideas, rather than historic personalities and cults. Sanatana dharma claims to have the principles of all religion and so conversion to dharma was not a necessary part of it, it is just a secondary aspect. According to Vivekananda’s teaching, Sanatana dharma consists of all religions and it includes all religious principles in it but ultimatum is in Sanatana dharma. Vivekananda preached to Americans that they were all Vedantins because Vedanta declares the oneness with everything and Sanatana dharma awakes human mind into a moral consciousness. (n.d.412-415)

Gandhi recognizes himself as Sanatanist, he comments that the person who follow Sanatana Dharma believes in Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avataras and rebirth. Dharma does not discourage idol-worship and not even encourage. When comes to scriptural understanding they do not believe that all scriptures are inspired but at the same accepts all religious scriptures other than Hinduism. Sanatana Dharma propagates Guruism because of the belief that it is the rare thing to find a combination of perfect purity and perfect learning. Sanatana Dharma gives more emphasis in god and his oneness in rebirth and salvation. It is an understanding that all human are born to serve god’s creation, Brahmana with knowledge. (Sharma 2004, 305-308)      

2.      Swami Vivekananda

D.S. Sarma states, “Swami Vivekananda did for the gospel of Ramakrishna something similar to what St. Paul did for the Gospel of Christ.” (Sarma 1973, 143)

2.1.Character Sketch of Swami Vivekananda

Swami Vivekananda was born in 12 January 1863 in Calcutta. His official name which his parents named is Narendranath Datta. His mother is Bhuvaneshwari Devi, called her son Vireshwara (Boon from Siva) because he was born after long offerings and prayers to Siva. Viswanath Datta, father of Vivekananda was an attorney-at-law of the High Court of Calcutta, was well verse in English and Persian literature. (Stephen 2005, 3) He belonged to the caste of Kshatriya.  At the age of seventeen as a college student, Narendranath came under the influence of Ramakrishna. He was a keen student of philosophy and poetry. He studies all the systems of western philosophy. His favorite English poets were Wordsworth and Shelley. The principal of his college, William Hastings, an English man, remarked that Narendranath was a genius and would make his mark in life. Narendranath (also called as Naren) was a member of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj before meeting Ramakrishna. But his membership of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj did not satisfy him because he was longing for a religious experience. He even questioned the religious leaders about their visibility of God and no one was able to answer him with certainty except Ramakrishna. Thus Naren became the disciple of Ramakrishna. Naren lost his father when he was appearing to B.A. and then he joined for the law but was not able to complete his studies because of his financial situation at home due to the death of his father. As a result he was searching for a job to meet his material needs but was not able to get any job and at last he ended up on Ramakrishna in asking to intercede for him to goddess or mother kali. Ramakrishna encouraged him ask by himself to mother Kali, Naren went but was not able to ask because his Brahmo Samaj[1] Influence but being with Ramakrishna he was changed. In 1888, Vivekananda started his life as a wandering monk. He went throughout India as a wandering monk initially traveler with his other monk brothers and later on alone. In these journeys he discovered India and dedicated himself for the service of the poor and needy. He realized that he has a great mission in life and when he reached Madras some of his admirers collected funds and send him to America to the first Parliament of Religious meeting in Chicago at the age of thirty. About his impression in the Parliament of Religious meeting New York Herald commented: “He is undoubtedly the greatest figure in the Parliament of Religions. After hearing him, we feel how foolish it is to send Missionaries to his learned nation”. (Zarchariah 1998, 78) His remaining lifespan he travelled throughout the world giving lectures and made many disciples worldwide. Because of his visits around the world and making disciples gave an understanding that there is no greater philosophy that Hinduism and also it impacted on Modern Hindu Renaissance which became self-conscious and adolescent. He died on July, 4^th 1902 at the age of thirty nine. (Zarchariah 1998, 79-82) Vivekananda is recognized as St. Paul for the Ramakrishna who toiled and got many converts as St. Paul had in his missionary life. (Neuner 1997, 363)          

2.2. Influence of Ramakrishna in the understanding of Swami Vivekananda

Ramakrishna had a major impact on the life of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda was the favorite disciple of Ramakrishna. Ramakrishna did not write any books but through the writings of Vivekananda and other disciples his teachings are known to the world. It is said that Ramakrishna as the guru of Vivekananda initiated Vivekananda into religious experience through the placing of his right foot on his body. Ramakrishna considered Narendra (i.e. Swami Vivekananda) as his spiritual son and heir and trained him for his great mission of life. Swami Vivekananda adopted his teachings and preached around the world and extended the mission of Ramakrishna. Thus, Ramakrishna Mission was founded. (Zarchariah 1998, 74-76)

In the first interview of Vivekananda with Ramakrishna has impressed him a lot and it is said that his illumination began. His second interview with Ramakrishna has made him to perceive very vividly the spiritual powers of the saints. Vivekananda (Narendranath) stated about this experience,

“Muttering something to himself, with his eyes fixed on me, he slowly drew near me. I thought he might so something queer as on the preceding occasion. But in the twinkling of an eye he placed his right foot on my body. The touch at once gave rise to a novel experience within me. With my eyes open I saw that the walls and everything in the room whirled rapidly and vanished into nought, and the whole universe, together with my individuality, was about to merge in an all compassing mysterious- void! I was terribly frightened and thought that I was facing death, for the loss of individuality meant nothing short of that. Unable to control myself, I cried out, ‘What is this you are doing to me? I have my parents at home!’ he laughed aloud at this and, striking my chest, said, ‘All right, let it rest now. Everything will come in time.’ The wonder of it was that no sooner had he said this than that strange experience of mine vanished. I was myself again and found everything, within and without the room, as it has been before. All this happened in less time than it takes me to narrate it, but it revolutionized my mind.”   (Sarma 1973, 147)

This mystic touch ultimately changed Narendranath, a college youth into Swami Vivekananda, a world famous monk. Narendra continuous his visit to Ramakrishna, which lead him to grow in his illumination till his master looking upon him as his spiritual heir. Ramakrishna was so capable that he was even able to transmit his spirituality to others by the touch. At the death of Ramakrishna he formally handed over his spiritual wealth to Narendranath.  (Sarma 1973, 148)       

2.3.Teachings of Swami Vivekananda

Swami Vivekananda basically taught ‘Vedanta’ or ‘Vedas’. He taught the practical aspect of Vedanta. Swami Vivekananda taught that fullest of divinity indwells man. He teaches service of man because of the presence of Reality in man i.e. Atman which is not different from Brahman. He is of the opinion that the best way to reach god is by the service of man i.e. in other words can be said that all mankind are gods. He practiced karma yoga and even taught karma yoga as it is taught in Bhagavad-Gita. He emphasized more on action and hence Ramakrishna mission was focused on Philanthropic, charitable, religious and educational missionary activities. (Zarchariah 1998, 82-83)

Vivekananda wrote a book named ‘Vedanta: Voice of Freedom’ where he has put all his teachings. He is of the opinion that Vedanta is the culmination of Vedas which has no beginning and end. He further said that there are many facets of the truth but religion is all about the realization. When spoken about god he said that god is impersonal and at the same time personal because he is everything. When comes to opinion about human the major teachings comes in that human are gods and when looked into the perspective of god, there can be made many changes in the structure of the society at the same time there will not be any fight or hatred among the mankind which he named it as practical Vedanta. He is of the opinion that the ultimate consciousness of self that is god is the attainment of Moksha. Man dies, atman emerges with Brahman.  (Vivekananda 1998, 1-270)

3.      Evaluation: “Hinduism is the Crown of all religions and that all religions lead to one great truth that is found in Hinduism: The Sanatana Dharma.”

Vivekananda is saying that Hinduism is the crown of all religion i.e. he meant that he recognizes Hinduism as superior to all religions of the world. He puts it has the king or the queen of all religion. He further continues the statement saying that all religion lead to one great truth. This can be understood as the typical Hindu mindset. He claims that Hinduism is the queen of all religion but at the same time accepts other religions also. He gives mere respect to other religions also. Further he says that truth is found in Hinduism. He is of the opinion that all religions have the truth but the ultimate truth is in Hinduism that is in other words can be said that all religion or all truths of all religion lead to one truth and that truth is in Hinduism. It simply means many truths leads to one truth that is Hinduism. Vivekananda is conveying the greatness of India as the custodian of spirituality. This statement can be understood in the sense of Atheism that is in Vivekananda’s understanding, India is the Mother Goddess. Anybody who attains divinity is a god and this can be called as Atheism.

Vivekananda says that he did not meant in external great thoughts of religion that are clad when he speaks about religions; he did not mean about different buildings, languages, rituals, books etc. that employ in various religions but what he meant is the internal soul of every religion. He further says that every religion has a soul behind it and that soul may differ from another soul in another religion. Here, in this statement of Swami Vivekananda, he is trying to bring together the whole religion of the world. He is of the belief that no religion contradicts but supplementary with each other. Each religion takes up the one great part of the universal truth. (Vivekananda 1998, 275) It is the same light which is coming through different colors. Vivekananda stated that the Lord has declared to the Hindu in the his incarnation as Krishna that he is there is in every religion as the thread through a string of people and wherever the extraordinary holiness and extraordinary power raising and purifying humanity, know that it is Krishna there. (n.d.46) This simply means that Krishna is there in every religion and so all religion speaks about the same truth which is there in Hinduism. If it is so then the major question to be asked is that if in religion there is the presence of Krishna then Jesus would not have contradicted to Krishna because God cannot contradict with himself in his teachings or even in the way he provides salvation.      

The major thing to be remembered is that when Vivekananda was shouting for the greatness of Indian Spirituality, the condition of India was that Brahmins were swelling their pot-bellies at the expense of the sweat of millions of hungry, skeletal miserables who were to toil and moil the fields for producing food materials. They without food to eat, cloth to wear, huts to lay their heads, were to feed the spiritual vedabtiins. The admirers of Vivekananda never knew of the utter darkness that was rampant in India. Thousands of god-men walked in India enjoying all types of worldly pleasures without engaging in any productive activity, without shedding even a drop of sweat. These spiritual beings did not even feel pity upon the poor fold who died of hunger and thirst. Instead they squeezed them and forced them down more and more. They attributed the misery of the poor folk as the misdeeds of their previous births. The highly spiritual godmen of India never felt pity for these wretched detestable. Unfortunately these was no intelligent person in the World Parliament of Religions to test the veracity of the statement of Vivekananda by visiting India to see the godmen of India enjoying heaven upon earth amidst the millions of skeletal suffering mlechas[2] hellish life. India was and still is heaven for a small minority and hell for the large majority. (Mathew, M.G. 2002, 306-307)          

Mathew states that Vivekananda was lying when he was praising Aryanism. There was not even a shadow of truth in his portray of India. He should have been bold enough to tell the truth that India was a land of mlechas, miserables, in utter poverty, ignorance, illiteracy and ill-health. These godmen will neither help the poor nor will they allow others to help them. In Hindu spirituality, there is only selfishness, self-love and self-elation. There is no touch of love or mercy. If a Shudra or low caste learns to read and write, Hindu Vedas say that he should be killed. By birth he is banned from learning letters. A poor man should suffer misery for he is born to suffer the wages of his sins he committed in his previous life. Therefore, any religion which teaches love and mercy is abhorrent to Hindutva. Christianity holds love as supreme quality and hence Hindutva holds Christianity most detestable. (Mathew, M.G. 2002, 307)   

When looked into another side of same coin that is philosophical aspect. The statement speaks about many truths but there cannot be many truths, there can be only one truth. For instance, all the trains which leave from Chennai Central do not go to Delhi but goes to different places in India. There can be only one train which goes to Delhi at time. That is there can be one truth, it cannot be possible there should be many truths which leads to one main truth.     

Vivekananda in his book Vedanta: the voice of freedom denounced Christianity saying that it has no philosophy. But what is philosophy? More often than not, philosophy is the effort of cunning intellectuals to present their ideas as truths to the world. To present a plain truth, there is no need of philosophy. The bible lacks philosophy because the bible presents ‘The Truth’ to the world. Take the statement ‘God is love’. This is a plain truth and hence no philosophy is required to prove the same. But take the statement ‘Man can attain godhead.’ This is a lie. To make the lei acceptable to at least some people, a long narration of philosophy statements are required. To prove the biblical statement there is no need of philosophical support. It simply means that the statement of Swami Vivekananda is just a play of words. (Mathew, M.G. 2002, 308) Swami Vivekananda, in one way trying to make harmony among world religions but his try to harmonize the religion was in his philosophy of practical Vedanta which he taught around the world and even made disciples. He tried to give freedom through his philosophy. (Shah 2002, 176)   

When it comes to the practical aspect, Swami’s statement that all religions are same simply seems to be an illogical statement. If it is so how would we able to distinguish the essence of a religion from its supposed non-essentials? What principle we use? Presumably we would make our judgment that on the grounds that some elements in a religion are better than others. But from what vantage point shall we decide which is better than others. And the whole question of truth get bypassed and swept under the carpet by throwing them all into a saucepan, boiling them up and straining off the essence. What if a religion gives a fuller expression of religion than other? What if the absolute really has come in our midst, and God Almighty has actually visited His people?  One thing is certain on man can claim that all religions are the same or all religion holds the same truth. Because Christianity stand different from any other religion in this world and there is no comparison which can be made on the basis of logic when compared with any other religion. (Green 2002, 17-18)

---

[1] Founder of Brahmo Samaj is Raja Ram Mohan Roy and they despise idol worship.

[2] A Malayalam word used by Mr. M.G. Mathew for dirty or ugly or unattractive.

True Spirituality Leads to Right Action

Scripture portion: Luke: 23:34a “Father, Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing…..”

Introduction

Background

The gospel of Luke is written by a physician or a Historian, Luke, which is mentioned in Colossians 4:14. He was a Greek and a Gentile Christian. He is the only known Gentile author in NT. He wrote this letter about 60 A.D. and the purpose of this gospel is to affirm the humanity and the divinity of Jesus, proving that Jesus is Son of God at the same time Son of Man. He wrote this letter to Theophilus and the churches around.

When comes to the setting of this passage, the preceding passages talks about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - Chapter 22 speaks about the Jewish Religious leaders plotting against Jesus. By chapter 23, Jesus stood trail before the Pilate, by chapter 23: 32, Jesus is placed on the cross with the two thieves on the both sides. When Jesus said this statement he was crucified and here is the situation where Jesus is going through pain- he is beaten up, dragged to Golgotha, mocked and scorned. When Jesus hung on the cross he said few statements which are commonly known as the seven sayings of Christ and first statement on the cross is Luke 23:34, “Father, Forgive these people, because they know not what they doing.”  

He said, “Father, Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing…..”

vs. 34a. The first word he said is “Father”- we can see Jesus has used the word Father many times in his prayers. We can see in Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6 where he says ‘Our Heavenly Father’ and in John 17:1 where he prays for himself for His glorification, in Matthew 26: 39 the prayer of Gethsemane and in Mark 14:36 he starts His prayer as ‘Abba Father’. When compared to the Old Testament, Jesus is the first person who introduces Father to the world or He was the first person who introduced a heavenly Father to the mankind. In OT understanding, Jews never had an understanding of Father but they had an understanding the God as King. So they even feared to pronounce the name of the God. In that context Jesus introduces the God as Father. Whenever Jesus used the term Father in His prayers; He portrayed the relationship of the heavenly Father and the Son which is unique in its understanding and essence. We can see in that the relationship was so deep that in the life of Jesus there was no time that Father left Jesus or turned out His face from Him except when Jesus was on the cross where he says the Father, Father, Why have you forsaken me. Even there I believe that it was not the will of God that he turns his face but as Jesus was bearing the sin of the mankind, God cannot see sin, He turned his face from Jesus.

To understand this relationship, we have to understand the characteristic of God and Jesus Christ. God the Father is Holy at the same Time God, the Son is also Holy. God, the Father is Just and the same time God the Son is also Just, and God, the Father is Love and at the same time God, the son is also love. So the characteristic of Father is clearly seen in the life of Son, that is why Jesus said, whoever has seen me has seen the Father. The unity and uniqueness in that relationship is seen very clear.

In one way Jesus was teaching or helping the mankind to understand the deepness of the relationship which is expected by Creator for human. Jesus whenever used the term the Father, He was genuine in its sense and in his usage. He was honest and sincere in his call towards the Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane we can see the deepness of that relationship. He said, “not my will but your will be done.” It makes us to understand the willingness of Jesus to do anything what his Heavenly Father wants Him to do, whatever may be experience or consequence. He was ready to do any thing for the sake of Father that means Father’s will is same as the Son’s will. The extremeness to do anything can be understood in the life of Jesus which is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. That is the relationship which they have with each other.

When comes into our own life, our whole system of Christianity have minimized the relationship with God the Father by spending time in prayers and reading Bible. I am not against reading Bible and prayer, it also the part of spirituality, but I feel Jesus went above our conception of spirituality. For us spirituality is just spend time in prayer and reading Bible. We have prayer and bible reading but we have missed the mark of spirituality which Jesus meant, in the sense that there is no pragmatic aspect or the practical aspect of our sense of spirituality, which is not what God meant in having relationship with Him. The relationship comes into existence when there is a practical aspect of what we read and pray. But Jesus did that He not only spent time in prayer but also practiced what he taught.

Secondly Jesus said in vs. 34b is “Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing…..”

This is the pray which he starts praying as ‘Father’ and the petition put forward is forgiveness i.e. “Forgive these people, because they do not know what they are doing.” It is prophesy which Isaiah Prophesied in 53:12, which has been fulfilled when Jesus said this prayer, which says, “Now he made intercession for transgressors.” As I said earlier Jesus here is going through the tough time he had in his earthly life. He was going through the greatest suffering which no mankind has ever seen or suffered as He did, and in the midst of that suffering he says, “Forgive these people, because they do not know what they are doing” which humanly speaking, does not make any sense to mankind because he won’t believe that a person can ever pray in this way. Here Jesus was interceding for the people who are responsible for His suffering, the people who abused him, mocked him, and insulted him. Here, Jesus was able to do it only because of His relationship with God the Father. Here, Jesus is practicing what He taught in the sermon of the mount in Matthew 5: 44, which says, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Jesus was presenting a model before us by praying this prayer. He said, ‘forgive them’ which in itself was the extremeness of His love towards his enemies. When He said love your enemies he was very much sure that without loving, one cannot pray to forgive his/her enemies or even pray for the enemies.

The next phrase is “for they do not know what they are doing…..” when looked into the context in which Jesus prayed, we can see there were two types of enemies. One, were his own people that is in the sense that they were Jews, these are the people, He called, they are His people and separated and meant to be Holy and pure, for whom he is a Messiah who will deliver them from their bondage. And the other, were the Roman soldiers who were doing their duty or showing loyalty towards Roman government from whom Jesus was given the punishment of the crucifixion. When we look in that era we can know that Roman Soldiers were very cruel in their dealings with criminals. The movie Passion of Christ is able to show some of the cruelty of Roman soldiers.  Jesus said “for they know not what they doing” the biggest question to be asked over here aren’t they knowing what they are doing? The fact is that they were knowing that they were killing an criminal according to the Roman soldier but for Jews, they were killing the person who has proclaimed blasphemer by the Pharisees but we can say that soldiers were ignorant of the fact Jesus is the Lord and creator of the earth but the Jewish were not ignorant about the fact of Messiah but was not able to recognize the fact that Jesus is that Messiah which OT prophesied, if they would have known they would have never crucified Him. Jesus knowing this fact that they were ignorant but when looked into other side of it, Jesus for Him he would have had cursed them and the result of that cursing would have been worst than anything else in this world. He didn’t do that but instead he prefers to pray or intercede for them who want Him to die.

               Humanly speaking, practically it is impossible for a person to pray in this way. If you or I would be there in that place of Jesus we would have prayed Father, consume these people for they are persecuting me. The major aspect to be remembered is that Jesus was the Son of God, when looked into the glory of Son Of God who is the controller of the whole universe. I believe that this prayer was not only for the Jews and the Roman soldiers but for each one of us. Each moment we do sin I believe even now God is interceding for us in the right side of the Father. When we are forgiven by God we have a right or the responsibility given to us to forgive others. Many times our forgiveness is conditional in its essence in the sense that we forgive for the selfish purpose,

In the same way we also forgive for the sake of selfish benefit. In this way there are selfish motive behind getting reconciling with other people this cannot be called as forgiving nature. Jesus did not forgive us in having selfish desire but He want us to be saved from the bondage of sin. I think so, people like Stephen in Acts.7:59-60 and living example of Glady Stains are the few examples for the forgiveness, their sense of forgiveness was like Jesus one, in Stephen’s case he was stoned to death in that pain he prayed, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” Same prayer which Jesus prayed on the cross of Calvary by which we can understand that Stephen practices what was taught by Jesus on the sermon on the mount and then in the case of Glady Stains, her husband and children were burned alive in Orissa but she said that she forgives them and also prayed which reflects the love for her enemies. I think this is the attitude of forgiveness which God expects from us. And in Lord’s Prayer we read, ‘forgive our sins as we forgive the sin of others,’ which means if we are not able to forgive others respective of what they are, then our sins are also not forgiven. Forgiveness is the major aspect of Christian faith and on that we stand as Christian we are expected to forgive others as we are forgiven by God. Let’s examine ourselves, do we forgive others? Or if we forgive, do our forgiveness is dependent on condition? If we had forgiveness we weren’t be divided by denomination, we weren’t divided for silly reason, we weren’t divided within our own clans. In the book of Jonah, He says that God was compassionate on the people of Nineveh and he changed his decision of their destruction. Then who are we to keep hold on to what wrong people have, it says love does not count the wrongs of the people. Then, why there is no forgiveness? Especially in our Christian set up, forgiveness is lacking, we are ready to receive forgiveness but not ready to forgive others. There is a need of change in our present day society and culture of the Christianity. We have comfortable with what we are, and do not want to come out of our comfort zone for what God has called us. 

Comments from God

Comments by God

Young men and women always like to be called as beautiful or handsome or a good person or something else, and so they do whatever they can to get a good impression in schools, colleges or even working places. As Bible is of the opinion that God looks into the hearts of the people than the physical appearance of the people and on that basis He comments about his creations. Unsurprisingly, it is amazing to say that God comments. Hence, YAHWEH not only created everything in and around the world but also commented about His creation. Without forgetting we have to put into consideration that it is God who introduced Himself as ‘I am who I am’ which describes eternal power, unchanging character and absolute over everything. Here are the few examples in the Bible where God commented about His creation.

Creation: In Gen. 1:31; “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good”. It is the first time in the bible where God commented about His creation. In the creation account God created everything by His Word, but He created man in a unique way and so when He looked at His creations and saw, He commented ‘it is very good’.     

Noah: When looked into further chapters of the Genesis it can seen in the time of Noah where God again comments about His creation, in Gen 6: 7-8, it is read that He was grieved by seeing the evil of the world. But that verse didn’t end there, it further says that but Noah found favor in the eye of God. When we see the history of Noah, there was a reason for him to find favor in the eye of God, which is mention in Gen. 6:9 “Noah was righteous, blameless among the people of his time and he walked with God”. The negative aspect of the comment is the about the people in the time of Noah, because of whom God was grieved.     

Abraham: When comes to Gen. 15:6, Abraham was credited as the righteous by seeing his faith by God. The history of Abraham shows that Abraham was the first person who can be called as a first Jew who can be understood as a person who just obeyed God without having a second thought. His faith was further mentioned as an example in NT by Paul and other authors of NT.      

David: When looked into the history of King David, he was commented as the man after God’s own heart, there is a peculiarity about King David, and he was commented before he became the king of Israel that means at his young age itself he was commented by God. When looked at the history of David he was the person who obeyed God in every circumstance.    

Job: When it comes to the life of Job, he was commented as, “there is no one like him in the earth, upright, man who fear God and shuns evil” (Job 1:8). When looked into the life of Job, he is recognized as the man of suffering, even in his suffering he did not deny God but instead left everything to the will of the God. 

John: And when looked into NT, it was John was called as the beloved disciple of Jesus. He was the disciple who was very close to the Jesus. It is said that it was John whom Jesus gave his mother to be his mother at the time of his death on cross.

Conclusion  

            There are many examples in the bible about God commenting his creation. In these above people the commonality is that they were righteous even though many of them failed in many of their situation or circumstances of their life, like King David in the episode of Bathsheba or Abraham who doubted God in the episode sleeping with Hagar. What is the comment of God about us? We are also like the Noah, Abraham, David, Job and John, called separated for His purpose, what is his comment about us? It is easy to fool man but we cannot fool God, we can show something outside and have something else inside. These people were righteous even when they had weakness and even failures in their life but they were able to rectify their failures and even certain level of their weakness. Jacob Isaac, urban youth worker says, “Life is not what you are not but what you are and God uses what you are.” When comes to the serving God or obeying His commandments human weaknesses or failures does not come into consideration because our God is above all the weaknesses and failures. What is God’s comment about you by looking your life?  

CHURCH, as the Body of Christ

Introduction

            The most famous metaphor for church is ‘the Body of Christ’. The church as the body of Christ is familiar picture in the NT. Paul used this phrase in his Epistles like Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians. The concept of church as the body of Christ is the message of all time and therefore, author is trying to deal with the brief Definition of the church and its understandings and Body of Christ with its meanings, nature and understandings of the Pauline epistles and various viewpoints and issues.    

  

1. Definition of the church

The Greek word used for Church is ‘ekklesia’, and Paul used ekklesia in his epistles. The term ekklesia is derived from the Old Testament, where the people of Israel were the ‘qahal Yahweh’ (e.g. Num.16:3, 20:4; Deut.23: 1, 8:8) or ‘qahal Israel’ (e.g. Ex.12: 6; Lev. 16:17; Num. 14:5). Paul often used the Phrase Church of God that is ‘ekklesia kyriou’ (e.g. 1 Cor.1:2, 10:32, 11:2; 2 Cor.1:1; 1 Thess: 2:14). (Schreiner, p 331) The word ekklesia also emphasized the church gathered, just as the term in Old Testament is used when Israel gathered together (Ex.12:6, Lev.16:17; Num.14:5; Deut. 31:30; Josh. 8:35; I Kings.8:14, 22, 55). So church can be defined as gathering together of the believers even when such an idea is not specifically stated. (Schreiner, 333)

2. Understandings about the Church

There is a traditional understanding of the Church which can be understood in two different aspects that is visible church and invisible church. 

            2.1. Visibility of the church

The visible church can be said as the physical or seen institution or the organization. The visible is the church which consists of all who are enrolled as church members. It is not difficult to determine who they are, for their names appear on the registers of churches. There can be born again church members but at the same time can be nominal Christians. With little effort an accurate count of them can be made. The membership of the visible church coincides with that of the invisible church. (Kuiper, 26)

            2.2. Invisibility of the church

The invisible church is the church which is a spiritual church which cannot be seen by our naked eyes. This church consists exclusively of those who by grace of the Holy Spirit have been born again or it consists of solely of regenerated persons. Together the members of the invisible church constitute the Body of Christ. (Kuiper, 27-28)    

3. Body of Christ    

3.1. Meaning of Body of Christ

            Paul has given something more than the sum of the believers in one place. He is speaking of an ‘Organic Unity’, in which Christians not only belong to the Christ and to one another within their body, they also bide in Christ and find life in Christ. (Watson, 96) The Greek word used for the Body of Christ is ‘to soma tou christou’. The equivalent expression includes ‘the body of the Lord’, ‘his body of flesh’, and ‘his glorious body’. (Hawthorne, 76)     

3.2. Nature of Body of Christ

The body of Christ concept is plainly not used allegorically in I Corinthians 12, for instance, different parts of the body do not represent different individuals or sections of the Corinthian church. The Phrase ‘body of Christ’ is used realistically, ontologically and metaphorically or symbolically or analogically. Most of the scholars like Schweitzer have a realistic understanding by consider the concept as the corporeal union with the risen Christ. J.A.T. Robinson, for whom the church is identified as literally the resurrected body of Christ, these understanding ignores Paul’s careful distinction between Christ’s resurrection and the believer’s resurrection in future. Therefore, the protestant interpretation of the Body concept is Metaphysical not literally and biologically or mystically.  (Hawthorne, 78)         

3.3. Understandings in the Pauline Epistles

            Two stages can be distinguished in Paul’s use of the body conception reference to the church. It is used as the simile in I Corinthians and Romans (Church like a body of Christ) and as a metaphor in Colossians and Ephesians (Church as the body which Christ as the Head). 

3.3.1. Romans and Corinthians 

In Romans 12:3 believers are admonished that everyone is to know his own place in the church as a whole, and this is elucidated with the figure of the body in which have many members and in which does not have the same function. In moving little more further the body mentioned in I Cor. 12:14 is to the same effect. There too is the question of one body and the function is different. The true nature of the body is expounded in its unity and diversity in the Corinthians and the Romans with continuous indirect application to the church. In these books it is beyond the mutual understanding of the unity and diversity of the church that is elucidated and commanded under the figure human body; throw necessary light on the mutual cooperation within a specific community. Paul, by saying church as the body of Christ he meant the ‘belonging to Christ’.  (Ridderbos, 369-370)        

In Romans 12 and I Corinthians 12, it is said that body has many members but all the members do not have same functioning, so also believers are one body in Christ but individually member one of another. Paul is saying here that church is not the body of Christ in its existence as community but precisely from Christ and from the bond that joins the church to him. In other words Paul in the epistle of Romans and Corinthians is trying to say that,

·         The designation of the church as the body of Christ does not intend in the first place to qualify its mutual unity and diversity, but to denote its unity in and with Christ.

·         This unity of the church with Christ thus qualifies has its real ground neither in the spiritual indwelling of Christ in church, nor in the thought that the Spirit constitutes the communion between Christ and the church, but in the church belonging to Christ in the redemptive-historical sense, in the inclusion of ‘the many in the one’.

·         In virtue of this common belonging to and inclusion of the many in Christ, individual believers are qualified as members of Christ and the church as his body.  Church is related to the communion with the blood and body of Christ exercised in the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, the concept Church as the body of Christ has figurative and metaphorical significance. However the unity and the communion with Christ are expressed thereby.

·         This communion and the unity of Christ is represented by the  sacraments  like Baptism and the Lord’s supper and so church  as the Body pf Christ can be revealed only in virtue of the gift of the Holy Spirit given by him to his body. (Ridderbos, 375-376)

3.3.2. Ephesians and Colossians

             In Ephesians and Colossians there is an advance in Paul’s thought, involving the setting forth of the relationship which the church, as the body of Christ, bears to Christ as head of the body (Eph. 5:22-33). The church as the body of Christ occupies a highly significant role in the purposes of God. This brought out particularly in Ephesians 1:23 where it is asserted that Christ’s rule over all things are for, or on behalf of, church, at Ephesians 3:10 where it is stated that through the church the wisdom of God is made known even to the cosmic powers. The headship of the Christ over the church is presented in terms of an organic relationship in which he exercise control over His people as the head of the body exercises the control over its various parts. The living relationship between the members is kept in view, while the dependence of the members on Christ for life and power, as well as his supremacy, is reiterated. The element of the body’s growth is made plain in Colossians 2:19 and even more so in Ephesians. Its upbuilding is mentioned in the context of unity in diversity; such a growth derives from Christ and leads to Christ as members are rightly related to him as the head and to one another (Eph. 4:1-16). The church as the body of Christ is described in Christ fullness. In one sense it is complete, for it is already a body just as there is already a Lord (Eph. 4:4-6). On the other hand it grows and will be completed on the final day. The body thus partakes of the tensions regularly seen in the NT between the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ between what it is and what it will be. The body of Christ is a present reality and yet it is an eschatological, that is, future, entity. (Hawthorne, 79-80)  

  

4. Various viewpoints and Issues

The qualification of the church as the body of Christ is a denotation of the special, close relationship and communion that exist between the Christ and His church. Some have been of the opinion that church as the body of Christ is of the relationship of believers to one another. When Paul in his letters mentions about the church as the body of Christ took the figure from the Greek world, as the communal in the state and the society was spoken of under the figure of the body (Watson, 96). However, most of the scholars in the opinion that Paul’s meaning is by the concept ‘Body of Christ’ but it qualifies not only the fellowship of believers, but primarily the nature of the fellowship between the church and Christ himself. There are two senses given to the Body of Christ that is the metaphysical-collective sense and the real personal sense. (Richards, 81-82)

            4.1. Metaphysical sense

The qualification of the body of Christ is a figurative representation of the vital communion of the church with Christ. There are two different interpretations of the figurative view of body. They are as follows.

In the first interpretation, it is characteristic of the protestant traditional conception that body of Christ is here exclusively understood of the pneumatic mode of existence of the church on the ground of its communion with the exalted Christ. It is the spirit who constitutes this communion. The church is the body of Christ as the fellowship in which he dwells by his spirit and which he by his spirit enlivens and fills. In this context the body of Christ is accordingly often spoken of as the invisible church and mystical union between Christ and the church. (Ridderbos, 363)

In the second interpretation Roman Catholic tradition is considered. In Roman Catholic tradition, Church as the body of Christ is not thought pneumatically but as the fruit of the union of the church with the divine- human nature of the Christ. According to the Roman Catholic understanding, church receives in the Eucharist a share of as the Body of the Lord. The church indeed united with the body of God is understood in the literal sense for e.g. in the Eucharist. (Ridderbos, 364)

Therefore, we cannot say that these two interpretations are fundamentally different interpretation of the terminology of the ‘Body’. For both interpretation are significantly collective as a designation of the organic whole of the believers in their union with Christ but the difference lies in the manner in which the nature of the union is understood.

            4.2. Real Personal Sense

In real personal sense are something which is developed in the 1967 and again there are many interpretations, and they are as follows.

Some of the church as the body of Christ is the expression of the Body of Christ on the analogy of anthropology understood in a dichotomistic sense. The church is the Body of Christ because Christ constitutes it by his Spirit and enlivens it by his indwelling. This is a representation of the relationship of Body and soul. And this opinion is entirely foreign to the Paul. There is also an another interpretation that Church as the body of Christ that as church takes the Eucharist the Christian community feeds on this body and blood (that is on the basis when Jesus says, “this is my body…..my blood,” he said thereby transmit himself that is his actual self, his life and personality), becomes the very life and personality of the risen Lord. In a way to substantiate the point’s theologians are in view that Saul met the body of the Christ (i.e. the whole Christian community) on the road of Damascus. (Ridderbos, 366)

Evaluation

            The unity of the church was the problem of the first century churches like Corinth, Rome, Ephesus and Colossi and by the concept Church as the body of Christ; Paul is trying to bring unity in the church by explaining the spiritual aspect of the church. He was very much clear in making sense to his audience by presenting this concept about the church. This message of Paul is not at all irrelevant message for the Christian church even today but is very much relevant in today’s Church which is lacking the unity and love among each other and the relation with Christ.  

Conclusion

             Watson States that church as the body of Christ is to be in subjection to the Head, experience unity with the Head, Work in glad service for the Head, and Take Direction from The Head. (Watson, 98) Therefore, author wants to conclude church as the body of Christ made the audience of the Paul easy to understand and the issue on which Paul discusses about the concept of the Body of Christ is very much relevant issue even in the 21^st century church. So, the description of Watson about the body of Christ should be made practice in the church.

Reference List

Schreiner, Thomas R., 2005, ‘Paul- Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ’, Secunderabad: OM books.

Stedman, C. Ray, 1972, ‘Body Life’, USA: A Division of G/L Publication.

MacArthur, John Jr., 1973, ‘The Church’, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Richards, Lawrence O., 1972, ‘A new Face for the church’, Michigan: Zondervam Publishing House

Ridderbos, Herman, 1975, ‘Paul- An outline of His theology’, Michigan: Eerdmans publishing company.   

Kuiper, R. B., 1967, ‘The Glorious Body of Christ’ London: The Banner of Truth Trust.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin. Daniel G. Reid, 1993, ‘Dictionary of Paul and His Letters’, England: Intervarsity Press.

Watson, David, 1978, ‘I believe in the Church’, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.