Equality and Reservation

Can reservation and equality go together? Does not the idea of reservation undermine equality? Why 'bend' the yardstick to accommodate some? Bending the 'yardstick' seems to go against the concept of equality. 

If 10,000 people are given 1 million each, how many will have exactly 1 million at the end of a year?  I bet none of them will have exactly the same amount. Some would have invested the money and make lot more; while some would have spent the whole amount and have even borrowed money from others. Some of those who spent the whole amount might have done it because one of their relatives fell sick;  or she met an accident herself and now needs help to continue living. So due to certain unfortunate events in their lives, some people have lost everything. There are going to be those who have lost everything because they were lazy or just got into drugs.  For those who have made more money, depending on how skilful or educated one is, different people might have made different amount of money.  Given this inequality in the way human beings are, there will be differences of earning and spending money. 

The children of these different people will then face different conditions depending on how their parents lived -- earned or spent money. The children of these children will go through these difference too. Once these differences have solidified, certain children will not be able to get out of the pithole themselves. That's when reservation system has to come in and take people out of the pithole. Not everyone who has lost everything lost it due to laziness or carelessness. There are circumstances in life which are beyond our control. Given these circumstances, there are those who genuinely need help in the form of reservation... so that a society of equals can be established -- or sought to be established. Without such reservation system in place, these people in pithole will never be able to rise up. Equality and reservation can go hand in hand; in fact, a society committed to equality has to have reservation system.

Our human history has arrived where we are today from different vantage point. In fact, we all did not start equally. Some landed in a fertile place; others in a rocky soil. Some in hot place, and others in cold place. Not only are humans gifted differently; even our environments are different. And these differences will reinforce our differences even more as time goes. Those who are more fortunate should not forget those who are less fortunate. To be human is to be different from others; yet to be a good human is to care for those who are less fortunate. 

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapters 12-17

The link to the previous chapter is here.

These chapters argue about how rights are not grounded and how they are grounded. Chapter 12 argues that rights are not grounded on duties that one has towards another person. The following chapter argues that rights are grounded on the worth of a person. An individual has different sort of rights that come about through different ways. But the most elementary form of right is the inherent right of a person. This sort of right emerges because the individual person has worth/dignity inherently. To deny this sort of right to the person is to treat the person as less than what his or her worth is. 

Nick underscores that this inherent right of a person that gives rise to the worth of the person cannot emerge from some sort of capacity that an individual possesses or can do. For example, if it's the capacity to reason, then the problem emerges with respect to those who are not able to reason. So capacity to reason is not the appropriate category that should serve as the ground that gives rise to the worth of  a person. Nick argues that this way, secular grounding of the worth of a person fails. Here he illustrates how, for example, Kantian way of grounding rights fails. He then argues that only a theistic grounding -- God's love (love as attachment) -- is the only sort that can ground the worth of a person for which the person possesses inherent right. Given this inherent right and other sorts of rights, a right theorist approach to justice can only provide a theory of justice. 

Increase Spending on Road Connectivity

If the state government employs more people, more money would be utilised to pay salary to the employees. With less number of employees, the government would have more money to spend in other areas. Since public good like roadways and sewerage system are essential to sustainable development, with more money available government can increase spending in these areas. Given this simple arithmetic, government should not employ more than what it requires to run the administration.

One of the twists to the arguments is that those who are responsible to run the administration benefit privately when more people are employed as government servants. Such overcrowding in government departments harm the people in general, yet those responsible for the recruitment get far richer than they used to be. The income of the officials through bribery runs in terms of several millions for many of the recruitment programmes into government service. The rate is 'fixed' for a constable or for a Sub Inspector for the police department and even for a primary teacher or for a graduate teacher in schools. Since private companies hardly invest in the state, and government employment is the considered the only source of stable and decent income, educated unemployed are coerced into paying bribes to get employed. Given the massive amount of money involved in such day-light robbery', those in responsible position are tempted to recruit more than the required number. (This is day-light robbery because it is taking what ought not to be taken during the day as opposed to robbers taking what ought not to be taken during the night.) But this overcrowding of government departments results in harming the larger community. This is a practice that should come to an immediate halt.

Government employment is not the answer to solving the economic bottleneck facing the state. A government employee can at the most sustain his or her family. Since government will never be in a position to provide each individual in a family a job in its different departments, it has to expand its vision beyond providing jobs in the tertiary sector or the service sector. Even when private companies come in, white collar job will never be sufficiently available nor can tertiary sector alone sustains the economy.

To provide jobs in the secondary and the primary sector, and induce overall economic growth in the state, state government in the North East region, notably Manipur, has to increase spending on road connectivity. With proper roadways, those in the hills can provide agricultural produce to those in towns and city at a much cheaper rate. This will benefit both the parties – dwellers in the rural area as well as dwellers in the urban areas. Healthcare providers and teachers will find it much easier to provide services to far flung villages when road connectivity is in place. Inefficient service sector plaguing the rural area is largely due to bad roads. As of today, most cases of medical emergency require dashing off to the state capital. When a patient from a village has to be carried on bamboo stretcher specially during rainy season till pucca road, which for certain villages will be for half a day's walk, it may be too late. To think that a corrupt politician is responsible for the death of such patients every year is haunting! For states like Manipur, Nagaland or Mizoram which is largely composed of rugged hilly terrain, unless government spends in massive amount for road connectivity, much of the hilly terrain will remain cut off from the outside world. Thus, ensuring development and healthcare largely rest with government machinery. This spending can come only from the government; no private individuals will have money big enough to effect change in this respect unlike one can do so in education and healthcare.

A democratic state exists on certain moral principles. And it is a moral obligation of the state that public good such as proper road connectivity is provided to all the villages in the state. More important than employment in the public sector is road connectivity to ensure overall development in the state. For too long government has failed to live up to its moral obligation. To fulfilling this moral obligation, it is high time that government increases its spending on roadway programmes. 

( The Hornbill Express, 29th December, 2014) 

Christmas and Its Significance

It has been well established today that the four Gospels were written to record the life and story of Jesus Christ as biographies. The Gospels fit into the pattern 'bios' of the Greco-Roman civilisation within which the larger Jewish culture of the day was embedded. Scholars like Richard Bauckham, David Aune and Richard Burridge have made significant contribution to this inquiry in recent times. Yet this has been the traditionally accepted position of the church. Besides, the biographies locate the narrative of Jesus birth in the larger scheme of God's work in history in which the birth is presented as the culmination of the salvation plan that God has been orchestrating for the whole world – the living as well as the non-living world. The birth of Jesus Christ inaugurates a new world order!

The birth of Jesus was not taken well by the power structure of the day. The immediate implication of the arrival of the eagerly awaited Messiah is that the wicked and despotic power structure will face judgement; that which is unjust and ugly will be set right. No wonder Herod the Great tried hard to murder Jesus at birth. Herod had massive building projects finished and even served as the President of the Olympic Games in his last days. He was a philanthropic too! However, he was also a murderer so much so that the slaughter of the infants of a small town like Bethlehem was too insignificant to find its place outside of the Gospel records.

Luke records that Mary envisions a new world order – a society where the proud are humbled and the hungry fed. Luke further records John the Baptist's father Zechariah say that the days of holiness and righteousness are at hand. The birth of Jesus raises hope that justice and peace will eventually triumph over sin and death.

When confronted by a just person, unjust rulers and leaders cringe. Wicked rulers are afraid of justice. Jesus did not occupy any political office in his thirty three years of life on earth. However, his speech and actions were often politically and culturally subversive. He confronted the corrupt political and religious leaders of the day. He uses strong words to denounce hypocrisy of the rich and the powerful, yet to the self-confessed sinners and the out-caste, he showed love and mercy. The lost ones were sought and the ostracised given recognition. Those who have been marginalised were taken in as members of his kingdom. His life, death and resurrection usher in a new order!

Christmas brings a hope of a new order in my individual life and also with those I relate. Christ Jesus restores those who are neck-deep in immoral activities and conceited heart if one is willing to come to him. The invitation to be part of the this new order is open to anyone. And this new order is for the whole world. The significance of Christmas is political as much as it is spiritual and social. The politicians, traders, bureaucrats, doctors, students etc. are all invited to come to him, giving up their ungodly ways; and unless their ungodly ways are given up and choose the new order and life offered, destruction is what awaits them. For Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God who is the creator of all. Thus no power or hell can withstand his sovereignty. This monotheistic feature that Jesus is the Lord of all results in Christians attempting to share or sharing the love and lordship of Jesus to every human individual; every domain of human enterprise – economics, astronomy, art, medicine etc. – to be under the authority of the crucified yet risen Jesus Christ. There is no force involved – or ought to involve for anyone to come to Christ; it must all be voluntary. At the most the messenger invites is through persuasion.

St. Francis of Assisi ( 1181-1126) popularises the famous nativity scene where the young and tender Jesus lay in the manger. But the tender baby in the manger is also the Aslan, the lion, of C S Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series. If the baby in the manger is vulnerable and tender, Aslan is untamed and powerful. Let this Christmas season remind each one that no forces of the evil one or the Herod or the emperor Tiberius will prevail over the One that is untamed and powerful, the source of all which is good, true and beautiful. The Lord's kingdom is inaugurated, and in his return every knee shall bow! 

( This article appears in The Hornbill Express on 22 December, 2014) 

Religions and Politics in Indian Sub-Continent

One of the repeated calls of Saffron Parivar – RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal etc. – against Christianity and Islam is that they are foreign religion. The objectionable remark made by Food Processing Minister Niranjan Jyoti in Delhi where she tried to polarise the citizens as followers of Ram or bastards (Ramzadon ya haramzadon) points to this. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat statement that all Indians are Hindus, thereby implying that Indians who are not Hindus are foreigners offers another glaring example. The state also perhaps unwittingly reinforces this idea when those from Scheduled Caste lose their entitlements to certain benefit, say, reservation in state/Central scheme, once they convert of Islam or Christianity. Conversion to Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism etc. do not merit losing the reservation benefit. The Scheduled Tribes are exempted from this implication though.

From time to time one hears the rhetoric that the religious majority in India is not allowed to exercise its religiosity openly; that the religion is under siege. This is also the kind of rhetoric emerging from the Buddhist Sinhala community in Sri Lanka. The solution to get out this siege then is to pedestal the religion of the majority above the rest. The proposal by Union Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj to declare Bhagavat Gita as the national holy book of India has to be interpreted as a call for such measure. On the flip side, by associating nationalism with religion, the rhetorical device becomes a perfect political tool to subdue the religious minority and hound them into a ghetto. Religion of the minorities are labelled as foreign and unpatriotic, if not traitorous. In Sri Lanka, Muslims and Christians become the victim of such scheme in the hand of Sinhala Buddhist nationalists. Even in India, during Vajpayee's tenure, religious minority received battering in significant measure specially in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. In Myanmar and Nepal too, such voices emerge from time to time, sending messages of intimidation to certain religious minorities.

With widespread use of modern technology, information of any kind now quickly spreads to different corner of the globe. The demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 at Ayodhya, UP, by the volunteers of Sangh Parivars brought about religious riots between Hindu and Muslims across different Indian cities. The effect was felt in Pakistan and Bangladesh too, resulting in Islamic hardliners destroying hundreds of temples and homes. A Danish political cartoon on prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) evokes sharp response even in Indian subcontinent as well. Nearer home, Christians and Muslims are not in minority in all the states in India. Sangh Parivar violent mischief can backfire in states where these communities are in majority. Given this volatile and complex environment, it is the responsibility of every religious and institutional leader to uphold and instil democratic values. To that end, forceful conversion or attempt to convert others through inducement should be restrained. Those in the government must also ensure that non-Hindus are not pushed to second class citizens of the country.

On the other hand it is important to take note that Christianity in the sub-continent is almost 2000 years old. If one is to insist that Christianity is of foreign origin because Jesus Christ was born in present day Israel, one must also insist that Guru Nanak of Sikhism was born in present day Pakistan, and Gautama Buddha in present day Nepal; and Parsis came from Iran. Besides, the tribals in the North East have never been exposed to Hinduism. There was no point in Indian history when every individual followed Hinduism. Any attempt to rewrite history that India has always belonged to the Hindus will be based on concoction of history. Christians must resist religious bully with pen and truth.

It is high time that everyone realises that Christianity is here to stay. Jesus Christ was born in a hostile political environment. The Roman empire, however, could not keep him buried in the tomb; the tomb lies empty. Tertullian in the third century says that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. History has proved the words right. Whether it is the might of the state or the jaw of the lion, the church is the kind that does not crack under persecution. The church means no harm to anyone; the church prays and works for truth and peace to prevail!

(This article appears in The Hornbill Express on 15th December, 2015)

Conversion and GharWapsi

I am not against GharWapsi ( homecoming) programme per se. If those Hindus who have converted to Christianity at some point of time want to 'return home', I would respect their decision. And I would have no objection to Christians converting to Buddhism or Islam or Sikhism. Each individual must be given the freedom to choose whatever religion she wants to follow. The problem with 'homecoming' programme of the kind that Saffron brigades undertook in Agra recently involved bully and allurement. Had the Saffron brigades used persuasion to convince the Agra Muslims that Hinduism is the better religion, there would be no reason to make hue and cry about the episode. However, possibly to create hype that there is a 'homecoming wave',  the Saffron brigades had invited the media, and eventually the truth beneath the surface emerged. Conversion or reconversion in a fair and transparent manner must be allowed in a democratic setting. 

I am not quite happy with the terminology 'Gharwapsi' (homecoming). Not every present Indian were Hindus in the past. The people of the community (Nagas) I come from were never Hindus. Today one third of the Nagas are in Burma, and two third in India. Animism, Buddhism and Christianity are the main religions among the Nagas today. And Animism and Buddhism are not equivalent to Hinduism despite the Saffron Brigades claiming otherwise. The assertion that everybody in the world was at one point of time Hindu is nonsense. It is as nonsensical as the assertions that plastic surgery, missiles, cloning etc were all practised in India's ancient past. 

In the entire controversy, one can notice well meaning scholars sometime not just getting Christianity right. It is fine for a person to reject Christianity as much as it is fine for one to reject Marxism. However, it is important to correctly understand what Christianity is. One will not learn about Christianity by reading Da Vinci Code. To learn about Christianity one would have to engage with the writings of C S Lewis, Dostoyevsky, Locke, Calvin, Aquinas, Augustine  et al.; and most importantly the Bible. From the Indian sub-continent one writer to engage with, to know Christianity, would be Sri Lankan thinker Vinoth Ramachandra.  A religion that has thrived for 2000 requires a least that much of respect. After all there is something worth engaging with that it captured the heart and mind of over two billion people today. 

Is Christianity Foreign Born?

Traditionally it is believed that Christianity came to India in the first century. Thomas, a disciple of Jesus Christ, is believed to have arrived in Kerala in 52 AD and spread the message of Jesus Christ, resulting in certain native of Kerala and Tamil Nadu eventually becoming Christians. This makes Christianity 2,000 years old in the Indian subcontinent. Given that it is such an old religion, it is surprising that the Hindutva brigades still consider it foreign born. 

If Christianity is foreign to India, similar logic implies that Hinduism is foreign to Nepal or Sri Lanka. Buddhism has to be considered foreign because Buddha was born in Nepal; Sikhism too has to be considered foreign because Guru Nanak was born in Pakistan. But would Russian consider Hinduism or Christianity foreign because these religions were not born there? Would Americans or Australia try to wipe out Christianity because it came from Asia? Such thought would be bizarre. Sane people would not answer the questions in affirmative! The Hindutva brigades have bizarre ideas! 

But are the Hindutva brigades willing to say that Hindus in Nepal, Sri Lanka, US, UK, New Zealand etc. should leave Hinduism because Hinduism was not the religion of their ancestors and Hinduism is a foreign religion there? If they insist that ISKCON should be allowed to propagate Hinduism to these people, then they should allow Christianity to prevail here in India. To insist that Christians are second class citizens in India because Christianity is foreign born, while insisting that Hindus in the West must be accorded first class citizens though it was born elsewhere, is bigotry. 

Against Anti-Conversion Law

Is BJP's suggestion to introduce anti-conversion bill in the Parliament a good idea? Well, I don't think so. Here is one of the reasons. Suppose, a person from India goes to Cambridge University and receives the finest education available. He then realises that her religion, say, Christianity is not a good religion. He renounces it and becomes an atheist. Well, because anti-conversion bill is in place, there seems to me two options available before him: live as an adherent of this religion which he now believes is bad till his last breathe or go to jail and rot there. 

Or, say, an atheist from India after having done proper study of the matter in Cambridge University realises that Christianity is true and right. Should he convert or still live with the belief that he now considers is mistaken? Well, it would be a bad law if he is not allowed to exercise his freedom of conscience and so freedom of religious belief. Why imprisoned a person in the religious belief that he is born with? Why not let people explore and exercise their choice? If the religious belief is good and right, it will eventually prevail; it has nothing to be afraid of. 

What needs curbing is forceful conversion or conversion through allurement. Let the right to propagate one's religion and so the right to choose religion remain as it is. 

Chapter 18: The Lost World of Genesis One

This is the last chapter of the book and it is titled 'Public Science Education Should Be Neutral Regarding Purpose". In this chapter there are two important terminologies that require proper understanding. The first is the metaphysical naturalism; and the second, methodological naturalism. 

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy that excludes 'God' in its perception, understanding and explanation of the world.  Methodological naturalism is a methodology that is used is Science or Social Science in order to explain an event without invoking metaphysical hand in the event. This does not deny God's existence nor God's work, but this also does not affirm God's existence nor God's work; it just tries to explain an event using naturalistic explanation. 

In writing about evolution, certain people have this tendency to insert a philosophical category that says that evolutionary process is purposeless. If one is a metaphysical naturalist, she may never see God's hand guiding the process because her philosophy has already removed this element. However, if one is a theist, the process is not really purposeless. She will God's design/hand in the process. However, whether the process is purposeless or otherwise is informed by the philosophy one has already carried along as part of his/her baggage. Evolutionary theory does not inform her whether it is purposeless or purposeful. Given this neutral nature of the theory, scientific inquiry should rather be left metaphysically neutral. Those who want to see the event through atheistic lens, let them; those who want to see the event through theistic lens, let them. But the scientific theory should be left neutral. 

Revisiting AFSPA: A Moral Inquiry

Despite Irom Sharmila's silent protest for over fourteen years, the Okram Ibobi Singh governmnet has once again extended Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) for another year in the state. Since its introduction in 1958 to deal with the armed Naga nationalists, the Act has continued to remain controversial because of the kind of power given to the army personnel to even shoot to kill. Shooting to kill an armed combatant that threatens the serenity and political order of the day is different from shooting to kill an unarmed civilian. The Act would not have been considered draconian had every single case of misuse of the Act been investigated and erring personnel been taken to task. Unfortunately, until the judgement of the Court martial proceeding of the army personnel came out on November 13, 2014, for the fake encounter killing of three Kashmiri youths who were lured to work as porters for the military personnel in Macchil, Jammu and Kashmir in 2010, virtually every army personnel who have raped women or killed innocent villagers have been given immunity by the AFSPA. And in a state like Manipur or Nagaland, where there is no vibrant international exposure, army excesses will continue to remain unnoticed and unattended.

Given that AFSPA has been legislated by the state, even if the army personnel kill unarmed civilians with impunity, the act is legally right. However, just because an action is legally right and justifiable that does not necessarily translate the action into a morally justifiable action. There are so many cases in human history where actions have been considered legally right, yet morally unjustifiable and obnoxious. For example, Hitler's Germany banned the Jews from using parks, restaurants and swimming pools. From the legal point of view, any German citizen ejecting a person of Jewish origin from such places would be doing something that is legally right. However, discrimination of such sort based on race is not morally justifiable. So though the act is legally right; morally it is wrong.

The AFSPA has been notoriously devised to include the license to kill even a suspect. 'Suspect' is a highly subjective term. The army personnel can shoot to kill anyone he likes to kill and attribute it to 'suspect'. One does not need a verifiable evidence to justify shooting; mere suspicion is sufficient to shoot. The burden to prove innocence thus lies with the victim, not the one doing the shooting. Given the way civilians have been killed, and the army personnel provided 100% legal protection from any sort of prosecution, AFSPA can legitimately be termed as an oppressive law – a law that should not find a place in a modern liberal political community.

Another notorious feature of the AFSPA is to protect army personnel who commit rape on male or female. The Act nowhere provides legal protection to those who commit rape. However, practically even those who commit rape are given legal protection.

If the AFSPA does not result in civilian casualty, there is no reason to complain against it. The army personnel engaging in a battle with the armed militant or sub-nationalist groups is a fair fight. The fight becomes unfair when unarmed civilians are dragged into the battle and killed and reported as part of the collateral damage. The massive number of civilians tortured, raped and killed for decades is morally not unacceptable. The state may have given legal protection in the name of AFSPA and allowed massive human right violation – even given protection when army personnel acted beyond the authorised limit. However, this does not entail moral immunity. The erring army personnel and the political leadership that authorised such human right violation are morally blameworthy.

The kind of non-violent protest initiated by Irom Sharmila to demand repealing of AFSPA deserves support from the civil society. Not everyone could undertake the kind of challenging task that she has begun. However, understanding the moral nature of AFSPA and expressing solidarity with her in whichever democratic way one could raise voice against the Act is the minimum thing that is required from the political community. Unless the members of civil society continues to raise voice against the Act till it is repealed, a significant number of casualty will continue to be fom the civil society.

(This article is to appear on the Hornbill Express on 8th December, 2014) 

Chapter 17: The Lord World of Genesis One

What kind of theological implications are there for interpreting Genesis 1 as the author did? Few things stand out. But before that for the sake of clarity., it must be reiterated that whatever duration God takes or whatever form he uses to make the world, God is the author. This chapter is titled ' Resulting Theology in This View of Genesis 1 is Stronger, Not Weaker'. Being so it argues for few theological implications.

That the world is not really natural; it is rather sacred. It is the dwelling place of the divine one. The world is not divine nor is it natural. Since it is not divine, it is not to be worshipped. And since it is not natural, it is not to be exploited. Humans are rather stewards.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 11

I have been trying to provide a summary of the book Justice: Right and Wrong by Nicholas Wolterstorff. The wide ranging issues he covers in the book is amazing. As much as he developed this theory, so much so he fended off objections from his critic. The link of the previous chapter is here.

In Chapter 11, Nick picks up theoretical matter once again. The chapter is titled 'Accounting for Rights'. This chapter is important because this one explains what right really means. And he argues that rights are about social relationships. It is something you have a claim against me and I have a claim against you by virtue of being a social being. And when this kind of claims are adequately respected by members of the society, there is justice in the society and society flourishes. Without such respect of claims, there is a violation of justice.

For example, I have a right claim against you to your not holding me back from speaking my native tongue. If you hold me back from speaking my native tongue just because you are the police officer, you wrong me by not allowing me to enjoy my right. I have been deprived of a good I have a claim against you. Just as I have a right claim against you for your doing or not doing certain thing towards me, you have an obligation of duty towards me for doing or not doing certain things towards me. Similarly, you have a right claim against me for doing or not doing certain thing towards you, and I have an obligation of duty to not doing  or doing certain things towards. And respecting this right claim-obligation duty relation is the key component in a just society. If this relation collapses, injustice will prevail.

Social Myth and Social Exclusion

Few years back my wife and I were in a village in Senapati district as usual. My wife being a paediatrician was giving free medical consultation to the local population then whenever required. One afternoon a couple brought their child to my wife for consultation. The child was indeed ill. The parents narrated that a spell was cast on their child by a person with an 'evil-eye'. Upon careful examination the child appeared to have chest congestion due to pneumonia. Further examination revealed that it was a case of pneumonia, and the illness had nothing to do with 'evil-eye'.

It is a common belief in our society that if a person from such a family of 'evil-eye' casts a spell in the form of a compliment or something of that sort, the person upon whom the cast is spelled would fall sick. And in certain cases the so-called victim would even die. One of my elder brothers was considered to have been 'attacked' when he was 2 by a person with such 'accursed power' that he remained physically and mentally challenged till his death at 32. If there was such a thing as 'evil-eye' I have a valid reason to consider such people as social nuisance for bringing such hardship and suffering in the life of my parents and their children specially my brother who was the 'victim'.

There is a slight variation between different communities about how 'evil-eye' works; how it is transmitted across generations and how to do away the so-called spell. In the community I come from, it is believed that the 'power' is transmitted from parents to children. And suppose a 'clean' person marries such 'unclean' people, then both of them eventually become 'unclean', and their children will also become 'unclean'. The implication of such belief is that 'clean' people avoid marrying such 'unclean' people. And eventually a kind of caste system prevails in the community. One group is considered clean and the other unclean. This continues to the next generation, and the next and so on thus erecting a wall of social exclusion in term of inter-marriage across different sections of the people.

I have now come to believe that this story that some people possess power to cast spell on others is a myth. If a word or a speech can cast a spell that could make another person sick, how could that power be transmitted from the DNA of the parents to that of the children? This makes no sense at all. But if it is transferred from parents to children like sickle-cell anaemia or HIV is transferred how could it possibly then give power to a person to cast a spell on another person? This too does not make sense scientifically. Someone would counter saying that it is the power of the evil spirit that make such things possible. However, if it is the evil spirit that works then how could the evil spirit possibly be transferred from parents to children? Evil spirit is not in a 'thing' that could be passed on through gene from the parents to the children nor could the power of the evil spirit or any such 'supra-natural' power be transferred from parents' DNA to children's DNA. This belief about the natural transmission of evil spirit from one person to another person is both scientifically and theologically untrue. However, if anyone invites the evil spirit and asks power from the evil one, then of course the issue is altogether different! Otherwise, one can rest assured that a person who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ do not have such power from the evil spirit to cast spell on other people. In Christ there is no ancestral descent that is unclean; all are clean. One does not have to be morally perfect to be pronounced genealogically clean; it is rather the other way round – that once one is cleansed, Christ tells a person to live a morally upright life. And this spiritual journey to be morally upright in His sight continues till death calls a person home. Considering a family lineage unclean – possessing a power to cast spell on others – is scientifically absurd and theologically incorrect.

I believe the traditional story has been passed on from one generation to another. And even today the same story continues about those people about whom the story has been told. And because we typecast such people, we find incidents where it appears that people about whom society tell stories for generations cast a spell on certain people. And in a close knit societies like ours where interaction between members of the community is extremely frequent such 'unclean' people interacting with other members is bound to happen, and when some sickness occurs we just attribute it to such 'unclean' people. And so this story continues in the neighbourhood. However, given that the God of the Bible cleanses all people when anyone calls on the name of Jesus Christ and also the kind of understanding provided by scientific enterprise makes it unintelligible, one can confidently bury such belief about 'evil-eye' as social myth that no longer makes sense in this generation. 

NB: This article appears on The Hornbill Express on 1st December, 2014.  

Chapter 16: The Lost World of Genesis One

Chapter 16 is titled 'Scientific Explanation of Origins Can Be Viewed in Light of Purpose, and If So, Are Objectionable'. In this chapter, one particular lesson one can draw is that the theological idea of the Fall is not undermined by endorsing the theory of evolution. In the process, one may raise a question why there has to be such a huge debris of death before human eventually emerged at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Well, if one could go back to the Scripture there are various events where one does not really know the reasons why things happened this way instead of that way. Yet those who were situated in that particular stage of history did not fully understand God's way of working. However, they trusted God's plan. Similarly, even about death in the evolutionary process, one may not really know the theological reason why it was so; however, the fact that death was there does not really undermine any other theological idea -- whether it's about the Fall or about the fact that God is in control or that God is the creator. In the end the fact is that whether it's this way or that way, God is the creator.

On AFSPA

There are those hardcore Indian nationalists who have defended Armed Forces Special Powers Act. In the name of national security, criticism of the Act has even been prevented. Those who criticise the Act are portrayed as compromising their love for the motherland, and only those who defend the Act are protective of the country. Thankfully, P. Chidambaram has been vocal about the untenability maintaining the Act as it stands today. He has once again raised the matter, which can be read here. He has done that in the past too as a Home Minister but could not alter the status of the Act due to Army folks putting their foot down to any proposal to get the Act amended.

Two comments. First, the Act would not have generated such controversy had the army personnel acted strictly within the guidelines provided by the Act. However, the matter is such that the army personnel would rape or kill through fake encounter again and again and again and again and again...and then get away with all of these by invoking the Act. The Act does not provide immunity for rape or torture or fake encounter killing. However, as it happens in the ground, the army personnel would go about doing anything and then get away with it. The Act has been misused! But if there is the understanding within the army and the government that the Act virtually contain allows the army anything to do and get away with it, then let it be spelled out explicitly. But this cannot happen! A state will never admit that the it gives the army personnel to commit such crime against the civilians, deliberately and systematically for over fifty years! But if it is not willing to be transparent, why continue to maintain the Act as it is? 

Second, the army cannot defend its action publicly. The covert acts that have been deliberately and systematically committed on civilians, and invoking AFSPA whenever dragged to Court, cannot be allowed to continue. How can crimes against humanity be allowed to continue in the name of AFSPA? The debates at the level of ideas and the way democratic form of governance, which includes defending human rights or right to liberty of any individual, are sustained and needs to progress, are not the job of army personnel; this domain lies with the civil authority. To let the army put its foot down against the wishes of the civil government and let the Act continue as it stands is not a healthy way of governing the state. Every body contributes to sustain the state, and each one has its role. The army must perform role to sustain the state, and so must the civil authority. There is even this rumour in the North East that the army deliberately create low intensity warfare to receive high funding. Given this rumour and its history of being a victim of army excesses, allowing the army to have final say in policy matter is unhealthy.

This draconian Act should not continue as it stands today.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapters 8-10

I would say chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 require very careful reading. In chapter 7, Nick gives a lengthy description of political emotions of the eudaimonists. I have avoided giving the explanation of the finer points then and just give the final bid of his argument. In chapter 8, Nick argues why Augustine broke away from the eudaimonist tradition. The chapter is titled 'Augustine's Break With Eudaimonism'. And chapter 9 is titled 'Moral Vision of Scripture in Antiquity, and chapter 10 'Characterizing Life-and History-Goods'. And again a lengthy discussion on political emotions is laid out. The discussions in fact bring out the rigor of Nick's scholarship! This post combines chapter 8, 9 and 10.

The Stoics held that tranquility is necessary to lead a eudaimon life, a life that is well lived. However, the Stoics also believed that since the tranquility can be disturbed by external factors or those outside of me, one should value only those that are within one's control. Be virtuous and be happy! That would be a Stoic.

But the Parepatetics would say that there are external factors or those outside that are helpful for me in me becoming a virtuous person. So a Parepatetics may value an external good or those outside. However, the purpose for loving this good or those outside of me is so that I may become a more virtuous person. And if I lose this good or those outside, I grieve! Aristotle's eudaimonia is a sort of egoism.  Augustine goes further. Augustine thinks that one is to love one's neighbour as one loves oneself (just as his master Jesus Christ taught). So to value an external good or those outside is not just to help me become more virtuous, but because it/he/she is love-worthy. And if I lose this person, I grieve not just because I lose someone I prize or value because this person would help me to become more virtuous, but because I have compassion for the person. My life thus is then not going well if I grieve because I lose someone close. 

For the eudaimonists, the two way relational traffic with others is not really the emphasis; it's one way. For Augustine, it's a two-way traffic; it's about social relationship! Since rights are about social relationship, this way of looking about life can only account for a theory of rights. An account of life that takes into consideration the interest of the individual self alone cannot account for a theory of right. Augustine's conception of life is thus unlike Aristotle's well-lived life that concerns only with how well I live my individual life; Augustine's conception of life is about well-going life; or rather flourishing life, that takes into consideration the surrounding conditions. 

Chapter 15: The Lost World of Genesis One

This chapter is titled ' Current Debate About Intelligent Design Ultimately Concerns Purpose'. The previous chapter is here. In this chapter the author examines Intelligent Design (ID) -- or rather what the proponents say about it. The author argues that the proponents of ID critiques Theory of Evolution (TE), yet fails to give an alternative theory for the effect that we observe today. Saying that a theory is bad is one thing, but giving an alternative model is another thing. And unless an alternative model could be provided, one gets stuck. 

The other argument the author made is that ID boils down to using 'god of the gap' argument. 'God of the gap' argument is the sort of argument where natural explanation of an event is not possible possibly due to our present ignorance, divine hand is invoked to explain the cause; but when the later generation through a more developed scientific knowledge explains the cause in a natural way, the divine hand is removed from the scene. Thus, over a period of time, the space that the divine one operates in is reduced considerably. Though the proponents of ID argue that their is not a 'god of the gap' argument, it boils down to such argument, argues the author. The author thus finds ID unsatisfactory. 

When the book first came out, ID was an adversary to TE. But today as it stands five years later, I think it's fair to say that ID is no longer an attractive option for the Christians. Those working at Biologos or Faraday Institute for Science and Religion have made ID redundant -- or close to that!

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 7

This chapter discusses the idea why Eudaimonism cannot account for a theory of right. The chapter is titled 'Why Eudaimonism Cannot Serve as Framework for a Theory of Right'. The previous chapter is here. The chapter discusses about the viewpoint of the Stoics and the Parepatitics. There are differences between the two. But for the purpose of arguing for the point Nick attempts to make, the distinction is not so crucial. However,  the same points that Nick raises create a hole or seems to create a hole in the philosophical skin of the eudaimonists of both strands.

A eudaimonist believes that virtuous activities are essential to living a life well. 'Eudaimonia' is translated 'happy', but it is not happiness in the sense of living a fun filled live. A happy life is about living a virtuous life doing the sort of things that a good person is supposed to be doing. So the function of the man is important besides the point that it is in accordance with having acquired a good habit. Even if you are doing the right thing, say, fighting a war instead of running away from the battle like a coward, if you are fighting the war because the king tells you that running from war without fighting will mean killing you and your family members, you are not really doing the 'good thing' out of having acquired the virtue of courage; you are just doing the right thing out of fear for your life or the lives of your beloved ones. For a eudaimonist, this is not living a life well. To live a life your life, cultivating courage is important, and also fighting the just war. 

Now Nick argues. If someone speaks ill of you behind your back, and your living well is not harmed at all, your right is violated, yet your living well is not harmed. This sort of example demonstrates that right theory cannot go along with the eudaimonist concept of living well. To have a a theory of life and a theory of right go together, one must move beyond the concept of a happy life as espoused by the eudaimonist.

Chapter 14: The Lost World of Genesis One

This chapter is titled 'God's Roles as Creator and Sustainer Are Less Different Than We Have Thought'. Chapter 13 is here. In this chapter, the author argues that Christians should avoid two extreme viewpoints. The first point is that Christians should not think like a deist. A deist is one who thinks that God exists but is not really involved in running the affairs of the world. Rather God left the world to run on the mechanism that has been 'wounded' into its system; so that it's the gravitational force, the law of motion etc that pull the universe along. The author argues that when the Scripture speaks of God as the creator in six days, he is talking about God's intimate involvement in the creation process. The other extreme is to insist that God is a micro-manager for the affairs even today. This is not so because creation process has ceased; in the sense that creation process is not going to be an everlasting process. Creation process has a beginning and an end. There is a teleological purpose of God for the created order. Well, the author argues that God is more of a sustainer after the first six days of creation.

The author's point is well taken. There is not so much of a controversy in this regard among the Bible believing Christians!

On Prof. Romila Thapar

Here is a piece of news item from The Hindu. 

Historian Romila Thapar asked a full house of Delhi’s intelligentsia on Sunday why changes in syllabi and objections to books were not being challenged. 

Prof. Thapar was delivering the third Nikhil Chakravartty Memorial Lecture here on Sunday, titled ‘To Question or not to Question: That is the Question.” 

“There are more academics in existence than ever before but most prefer not to confront authority even if it debars the path of free thinking. Is this because they wish to pursue knowledge undisturbed or because they are ready to discard knowledge, should authority require them to do so,” the eminent historian asked. 

... When it comes to religious identities and their politics, we witness hate campaigns based on absurd fantasies about specific religions and we no longer confront them frontally. Such questioning means being critical of organisations and institutions that claim a religious intention but use their authority for non-religious purposes,” she said. 

Prof. Thapar rued the fact that not only were public intellectuals missing from the front lines of defending liberal values, but also alleged a deliberate conspiracy to enforce what she termed a “Lowest Common Denominator” education. 

“It is not that we are bereft of people who can think autonomously and ask relevant questions. But frequently where there should be voices, there is silence. Are we all being co-opted too easily by the comforts of conforming,” she asked. 

Her audio lecture is available here. 

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 6

Chapter 6 is titled ' Locating That to Which We Have Rights'. The previous post on chapter 5 is here. This chapter 6 is a shift from the biblical trajectory that was there in the previous chapters. This brings the concept of right back to theoretical discourse. In this chapter and the following few chapters, Nick is going to argue that given this idea about right that everybody, so to speak, acknowledges, there are certain theories that cannot accommodate this concept of right. Since these theories cannot accommodate this concept of right, we have to discard these theories. (Nick does not really put it like this though!) 

We all  have certain sorts of right -- not necessarily legal right. Sonya has a right not to be captured with a hidden camera while she takes bath. Sunny has a right to his son not being run over by a speeding bus while going to school. If Sonya is spied on, her right is violated even if the one who spied on her keeps the picture all to himself and no one else, including Sonya, never comes to know about this. If Sunny's son is run over by a speeding son, his right is violated. This right is a condition and/or event in a person's life; it's a life-good of a person. Moreover, even on her funeral day, Kim has a right not be demeaned for what she did not do. This means to say that even a dead person possesses certain sort of right. Can we also say that future generation -- not yet born now -- have a right to clean air, such that cutting down all the trees now would amount to violating the right of the future generation? Anyway, the point is that there are certain sort of rights a person can claim for his life and history (something that happens even after her death); the sort of right that will contribute to her well-being.

There are three concepts of a good life, says Nick. First, experientially satisfying life (hedonistic kind of life).  Second, Happy life... the eudaimon life (of Aristotelian kind). Third, flourishing life. Nick argues that an experientially satisfying life cannot serve as a framework for the kind of right we possess. Meaning, an experientially satisfying life kind of a concept of life cannot account for the different kinds of rights that a human possesses. Suppose, someone speaks ill of you behind your back, and you never get to know about it nor does that alter your condition of life at all; you remain experientially satisfied as you have been without this particular episode. Or suppose, someone accuses you of having siphoned of a huge sum of money ten years after your death just to malign your reputation. On both these counts, your experientifally satisfying life is not harmed at all. Yet, on both the counts, your right is being violated. Thus, an experientially satisfying life as a theory for a good life cannot really take into account the kinds of rights an individual possesses. We have to search an alternative theory for a good life that can take into account  the right that an individual possesses. 

Amos 4

God chastises Israel by sending diseases that will strike down both humans and non-human world. He did not give them enough water to drink and food to eat. All because He wanted Israel to return to him. Yet Israel refuses to return. The people would go to worship centres, like Bethel and Gilgal, and performed the rituals; they offered tithes, sacrifices and offerings and then brag about them.  Their worship is superficial, not genuine. They love to show-off! So God said that destruction is at hand. The people of Israel will be carried away as captives.

Here God was particularly not happy with the religiosity of the people. Going to the church, singing choruses with guitar, giving money in terms of thousands, attending Convention/Fellowship/Conferences, Church dedication and various programmes and then bragging and make a boastful pose is what God is not pleased with. The Israelites giving tithes and then bragging is like our present day Christians giving tithes to be considered as a highest giver by the church and his name being read out in public. God hates it! Is the church perpetrating such practice, eliciting a kind of competition among church members so that maximum fund comes about for the church? God hates it! For such hypocrisy and oppression of the needy, God charges Israel in this chapter, and tells them that He, the creator of the world, is coming to bring judgment on the people.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 5

Here is chapter 4, where Nick gives a preliminary response to those who argue that justice is virtually absent in the New Testament. In this chapter, Nick argues from the New Testament to demonstrate that justice is very much part of what Jesus teaches and demonstrates; and thus leaves behind a legacy, a command, for his disciples to continue.

But first a brief remark about terminology. In Greek literature, say, Plato's The Republic the Greek term 'dikaiosune' would be consistently translated into English as justice. However, in the Bible it is not consistently translated like that. In the New Testament, which is originally written in common Greek,  the same word 'dikaiosune' is not always translated as 'justice'; it is more often translated as 'righteousness'. For example, as in Matthew 5 & 6 -- Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for dikaiosune (v.6); and Blessed are those who are persecuted for dikaiosune (v.10); Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his dikaiosune (6.33). All these verses have dikaiosune translated as 'righteousness' instead of 'justice'. Why such a difference between New Testament and The Republic, which are both Greek literature? The Septuagint, which is a Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament, which possibly was translated in the second century BC translates the Hebrew word tsedaqa as dikaiosune and  mishpat as krisis which is more of a legal terminology.  Thus Tsedaqa becomes dikaiosune in Greek and righteousness in English; while mishpat becomes krisis in Greek and justice in English. However, it has to be said that this translation is not 100% accurate, and whether the verse has to be translated as righteousness or justice has to depend on context too. Nick would thus hold that Mat 5.10 should have 'justice' instead of 'righteousness', provided we assume that 'righteousness' is more about moral status of the individual and 'justice' as denoting inter-personal relationship. 

Nick uses NT scholar Richard Hays' commentary to argue for his case. Nick argues that Mary's song in Luke 1 is about anticipation of justice that the Messiah would usher in. Luke 4 where Jesus reads out Isaiah's text and declares the arrival of the promise then and there is about justice -- justice for the poor, the weak and the prisoners. Furthermore, Nick argues that Jesus' ministry includes those who are left out of the society -- the deaf, dumb, blind, paralytics etc. -- besides lifting up those who were at the bottom-- the poor, widows, orphans, aliens, imprisoned. Jesus remakes a society that is inclusive, and this is about justice. 

Does Jesus consider human being to have worth? He does, argues Nick. 'How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep?' asks Jesus, indicating that humans have worth. Furthermore, Jesus says that human is worth more than a sparrow! Nick opines that it seems fair to conclude that Jesus' belief in equal human worth is the reason for showing no partiality between  thosewho are ritually clean and unclean or between those who are rich and poor.

As is the case with any good thinker, to fend off criticism, Nick does hair splitting of his arguments at various points. I am not going into the detail in these posts. Any objection to his arguments should be held back before reading his book. 

Amos 3

Through Amos, God continues to speak words of destruction that will descend upon Israel. He reminds Israel of how she was brought out of slavery from Egypt, and yet not do the right thing now. Instead her people store riches in their fortresses... The rich ones have summer house and winter house, adorned with highly decorated pieces like ivory. And from the previous chapter, we learnt that such wealth often than not comes at the expense of the poor. But here we need pause and ask if there is any problem with being rich. Why did God say that the mansions will be destroyed?

God was not against a person being rich. But then there are two things we should remember about riches. First, how does one become rich? God is not pleased when a person becomes rich using unfair and wrong means. He does not want that a person gathers riches through exploitation, cheating, robbing etc.; he does not want that riches come through bribery or corruption. Second, what does one do with the wealth one has? God does not want the wealth to be used for luxurious and extravagant lifestyle. I think we can make a difference between living a simple, comfortable and beautiful life and luxurious, extravagant and wasteful life. He wants us to use wealth to help those in need. This may take the form of investing in ways to create jobs, for example; not using wealth in ways that will make the needy dependent and parasitic, but lifting them to stand on their own feet. 

God's judgement on Israel came true in 721 BC when she was conquered by the Assyrian empire and her people taken as captive to foreign land. Within a span of 20-30 years of Amos' prophecy, God's judgment came on Israel.

Chapter 13: The Lost World of Genesis One

The thirteenth chapter is titled as 'The Difference Between Origin Accounts in Science and Scripture is Metaphysical in Nature'. Chapter 12 is here. Chapter 13 argues that Science as an academic discipline does not deal with certain category as much as Scripture, at least as it is in Genesis 1, does not deal with certain topics. For example, scientific inquiry is about the world or the nature that can be observed and can be verified or falsified. Scientific inquiry does not ask question like 'what is the purpose of human existence?' This sort of question lies outside of the domain of scientific inquiry. Likeness, at least in Genesis 1, the author is not really interested in dealing with the question of the material origins of different objects/living organisms; the author is rather concerned with something else. Thus, whether evolutionary theory is correct or incorrect, the author is not really concerned with such ideas. The Bible does say that God is the author of all, yet it does not really say how God authored it. His handiwork is thus not really opposed to the way scientific process describes it. 

I think it's fair to put it this way: God is the author of the world and the Word, and the two are not going to be contradictory.

Amos 2

In the first chapter of Amos, God speaks to the neighboring nations of Israel/Judah. In the second chapter, God speaks to Judah and Israel though there is small passage that is addressed to Moab. To Moab, God expresses his anger and judgment because of what she did to the remains of Edom's king. The bone of Edom's king, not the dead body as such, was burnt by Maob. Since it was a sign of extreme hatred and cruelty, God promises that Moab will be punished. 

To Judah, the kingdom of Amos comes from, God says that he will send fire to destroy the fortress because the people rejected God's law...because they refused to keep God's command. 

To Israel, God has different issues. Israel was morally corrupt. The poor people were oppressed and taken advantaged of. God had reminded them again and again that widow, orphan and the aliens were to be cared for because they were vulnerable. Instead the people of Israel oppressed them, and God was not please with it. They would take garment from the poor as a pledge for the money borrowed and yet used the same garment during their immoral activities. God had told them as a nation that the poor man's garment cannot be kept with the lender at night because the poor man needs it to cover himself; yet by keeping the poor man's garment with the money lender, the poor remained in cold throughout the night. This is oppression of the poor people. In spite of having done so much for the people of Israel, even those dedicated to serve the Lord were abused and dishonoured. Thus God says that he will crush the people and there won't be none to rescue them! 

The idea of taking advantage of the poor and creating life difficult for them is now no longer the way it used to be in Amos' era. Our social and economic context has changed a lot. The poor does not give his garment as a pledge for the money borrowed; it is now his field or house or something of that sort. God did allow taking of a pledge so that the poor man remains responsible for the loan taken. But God did not allow making his life miserable by keeping the garment with the money lender. When do we make the life of the poor man miserable when his house/field has been kept as a pledge? I think when the interest rate is so high so that instead of being able to pay back the loan, he is driven to sell the pledge to pay back the loan, it amounts to making his life miserable. What God is upset about is making the life of the poor man miserable. This may work out in different ways in different context. But in certain context, high interest rate is that which makes the life of the poor ones miserable. This is oppression of the poor men, and the Spirit of God is not pleased!

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 4

This is chapter 4 and it is titled 'On De-justicizing the New Testament'. Chapter 3 is here. This chapter is more of a polemic, in that Nick challenges what he understood as an attempt by certain thinkers to undermine the idea of justice in the Bible. Nick is not yet advancing the idea that justice is a key theme in the New Testament. Nick is kind to those thinkers he disagrees with. But still he will argue for the point that justice is a central idea in the Bible in the next chapter.

Stanley Haurwas says that justice is a bad idea for Christians. What Nick understood Stanley as saying is that justice has been misused and abused by the larger society and it is beyond redemption. So even if Christians care for the oppressed, the language of justice should not be employed; let it be something else. Nick disagrees!

Another challenge comes from Anders Nygren. Nygren argues that the central idea of the Bible is love; not justice. It is this love of God that results in sending his son Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of human sinfulness. This love, however, is not any other kind of love but gratuitous benevolence or rather agape. Agape is different from other kind of love like eros. Eros kind of love is to enhance one's own well-being; whereas agape kind of love is to enhance the well-being of the other. And this agape is the kind of love found in the Bible. God's forgiveness of human sin is not because he has to demonstrate justice, but because he loves human being. Where love abounds, justice is obsolete. Is Nygren correct in his understanding of the Bible?

Nick answers this question in the next chapter. But in this chapter he takes Nygren's own idea to argue that the idea is not coherent. Nick argues that forgiveness can come about 'only if you have wronged me, and only for the wrong you have done me'. I cannot forgive Godse for what he did to Gandhi. I can forgive for the wrong done to me only. The idea of forgiveness emerges only when one is wronged – when justice is violated. If the concept of justice is not there at all, there can't be anyone who is wronged and there can't be forgiveness. When God forgives me, it is because I have sinned against him; or rather because I have wronged against him, say, by breaking the covenant between he and me. And because I broke the covenant, I need his forgiveness to restore the covenant. Thus, Nygren cannot really speak of love and forgiveness by abolishing the idea of justice. Justice comes as a part and partial of love and forgiveness. The attempt to erase justice from Christian theological enterprise will fail.That's the central idea of Nick in this chapter. 

 

Amos 1

In the first chapter, the word of God came to Amos concerning Israel's neighbouring nations. God's thunderous judgment through Amos came on Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom and Ammon. And these were the reasons why God was pouring out his judgment on different nations. Damascus was so cruel that she 'threshed Gilead with sledges having iron teeth' (v.3). Gaza and Tyre were merciless, engaging in selling people who they conqured to other nation. They were not selling just the soldiers who fought them but the 'whole community', which would include women, children and the aged. Edom is Esau's descendants and are related to Jacob's descendant Israel/Judah by blood. Discounting this relation, Edom stifled compassion and pursued his brother... For this the Lord will send fire and consume her cities and fortresses. To extend its territory, Ammon ripped open pregnant women and committed heinous crime. On all these nations, the Lord is giving his judgment and for the sins they committed He will pour out his wrath and thus kings and cities will face stormy days ahead. 

One common feature different nations committed here was war crime. War was not uncommon then. Yet God expects fair conduct in war. The issue whether war is ever just or not is not the point here. War takes place; that God acknowledges. What God takes issue with each nation here is army excesses. And for the war crime the nations committed, God pours out his punishment!

The concept of war crime then and now, as acknowledged by international bodies, are different. The modern version of war crime is more refined and broader. For example, use of chemical agent to target civilians would be considered war crime today. Chemical agent was not there in the past. God's anger today would include gassing civilians, not just tear open pregnant women's bellies. God's command not to murder remains unchanged throughout centuries ( killing is different from murder; murder is not justifiable by definition, killing can be justifiable), yet in certain areas God's expectation changes-- as in war crimes that nation-states are to abstain from. 

Amos: Introduction

Amos comes from Tekoa, a small town not so far from Bethlehem. He makes his living by taking care of sheep and sycamore-fig tree.  He comes not from a royal family or priestly class, but God calls him to speak forth primarily to the people of Israel, and also to Judah. He speaks forth God's word during the time of Uzziah of Judah (792-740 BC) and Jeroboam II of Israel ( 793-753 BC). 

During the days Amos speaks forth God's word, Israel's religious life do not please God. People lead a lifestyle far away from that which would please God. Amos speaks forth God's fury against corrupt lifestyle. God words through Amos is relevant even today for people who profess to believe in Yahweh. But how do we conduct our lives now in ways that God hates? Reading through the book of Amos will bring out similarities between their corrupt lives then and our corrupt lives now.

Chapter 12: The Lost World

Chapter 12 is titled 'Other Theories of Genesis 1 Either Go Too Far or Not Far Enough'. Those who want to refer to chapter 11 can do so here. This chapter briefly discusses about other theories like Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Framework Hypothesis etc. 

What's the problem with Young Earth Creationism? YEC proponents argue that the universe is created somewhere between 6,000-20,000 years. Not everyone holds the same view, but compared to the current scientific understanding, YEC's view of the age of the earth is very young. They want to read the Scripture at face-value, yet their face-value reading is not really face-value reading. How do they reconcile current scientific finding with their interpretation of the Scripture? For example, current scientific understanding would say that the stars are millions of years old... after all the light from the star to reach the earth would have taken million of years, and this means that the existence of the stars would at least be millions of years. One solution for the YEC is to say that in reality God made the stars only recently yet HE made the stars look really old to the observers. John does not get into this much! But if we apply similar reasoning to other areas, the result would be devastating: God made our scientific enterprise fail to arrive at a correct understanding! If that is so, what kind of God are worshiping? A God who deceives human being? YEC's concept leads to a demon; not the God the of Bible! 

Old Earth Creationism like the view proposed by Hugh Ross too reads too much into the text. Framework Hypothesis is fine, provided it adds the component of 'functional reading' of the creation narrative into their view. Gap theory too has a flaw.

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 3

This is Chapter 3, titled as 'Justice in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible'. The previous chapter is here. This chapter argues about the concept justice found in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (I shall use only 'Bible'). The next chapter will argue from the New Testament.

Nick begins by stating the two positions as: justice as right order vis-a-vis justice as inherent right. In these posts, I am going to refer the proponents of the two positions as right order theorists and right theorists respectively. Right order theorists can endorse natural right; and one can say that this sort of right is conferred by God. But, Nick continues, right order theorists are not happy with the idea of inherent right or the idea that human right in an inherent right. So his attempt is to do an inquiry if the idea of inherent human right is found the Bible or it's not there. At the end of the chapter, he argues that one can fairly draw out the idea of inherent human right from the Scripture. But before he goes on to do that, he takes on Oliver Donovan and gives a counter-explanation from the Scripture about the nature of justice found in the Bible. This is how he goes about doing it. 

Nick argues that Oliver O'Donovan's understanding of justice found in the Bible is incomplete. O'Donovan's understanding does not take into consideration the concept of primary justice, says Nick; only the idea of rectifying justice is present in O'Donovan's thesis. How does one explain primary justice and rectifying justice? Primary justice is about the condition of a society where justice prevails. But when a robber breaks into a house and runs away with the loot, primary justice is impaired. Now rectifying justice will have to kick in by catching the thief and returning the loot to the owner. So rectifying justice is about seeking to rectify the primary justice that has been impaired. Now when O'Donovan gives the explanation of the concept of justice found in the Bible, Nick argues that O'Donovan thinks that biblical concept of justice deals only with rectifying justice. Nick finds O'Donovan's finding inadequate. Nick says the idea of rectifying justice can be there only when the idea of primary justice is there; it makes no sense to speak of rectifying justice without taking into account the idea of primary justice. And in the Bible one can find, says Nick, the concept of primary justice as well as  rectifying justice.

Thus in the Bible, Israel is called by God to live justly in its society. God also enjoins non-Israelite nations to live justly. Living justly is required not only of Israel, but of non-Israelite too. Why so? Because God is just and holy. This holiness of God (morality purity) is not something that obtains when God observes a law imposed on him from without; but holiness is rooted in God himself. He cannot be unholy just as God cannot cease to exist. (I am reminded of Plato's Euthyphro dillemma; but if one understands God's holiness as rooted in himself as Nick and others argue, the dillemma really dissolves. But this is not really part of the what the book says.) Nick does not delve much into this area, but goes on to the text to argue that Israel considers God rightly holding the people accountable for their actions. And when people sin, they seek God's forgiveness-- or must seek forgiveness. Thus God has right to hold the people accountable and that God has right to seek our obedience. Nick argues that that was the way biblical writers understand about God and human relations. I think this is a fair conclusion from the Bible one can gather. This is a key point about rights.

Right God has over the people are understood to be grounded by Israel's writers on God's excellence. "In that assumption by Israel's writers, that God has rights grounded in God's excellence, is to be discerned a recognition of inherent natural rights". This is another  key point Nick makes! I think the idea that God has inherent right is rather a strange but indisputable point.

From this concept of God possessing inherent natural right, Nick argues that human being as little gods possesses inherent right. Human being are created little lower than angels/ human being are created bearing the image of God; so humans have inherent right. 

Chapter 11: The Lost World

Chapter 10 is available here.  Chapter 11 is titled  "Functional Cosmic Temple" Offers Face-Value Exegesis''. This chapter mainly argues about the kind of exegetical principle one should use while reading the biblical text. The author argues that in interpreting a text, it is important to understand what the author is trying to tell to the primary audience. Those in the 21st century are not the primary audience of the Genesis text, and therefore, we shall not be getting the meaning of the text right unless we plough through the historical context in which the text was first composed. Some readers try to read scientific truths in the Scripture saying that all truths is God's truth.There is a danger is doing such thing. For example, the scientific truth that we now consider is the truth may change few decades later. Moreover, such reading may be reading much more than what the author intended. Since God has spoken through human author, who is situated in a particular cultural and historical context, to read the Scripture correctly, it is essential to take this conditions into consideration while trying to get the meaing right. Concordists way of reading the text does injustice to the author's intention. (Concordists read the text such that the text will concord with the scientific finding of the day.)

Genesis text is in a way a response of the author to the prevailing religious view of the day. The general belief then was polytheistic; the Genesis author offers a monotheistic view. 

Even while reading religious text of the Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs, how important it is to try to understand as the author intended his audience to understand!

Wolterstorff's Justice: Chapter 2

This is the second chapter of the book, but the third post. The previous post is here. This second chapter is titled 'A Contest of Narratives'.

The right order theorists tell a story that says something to the effect that the idea of subjective right develops with the emergence of political liberalism. (Political liberalism is that strand of political thought that considers rights of an individual as the first virtue a state must protect.) Other writer would trace the source of the idea of subjective/natural right to the writing of Ockham. Now Ockham was a thinker belonging to the Franciscan order. After the death of St. Francis, who had voluntarily chosen a life of poverty, there was a dispute between the Pope and the Franciscan. The Pope was of the opinion that the Franciscan did have some sort of ownership of property. One of the effects of having to give up ownership of everything would mean that the church cannot own anything. Ockham and others went to make a case that it is lawful to give up right to own property, but one cannot renounce the 'natural right' to use properties that may belong to someone. Thus, argue right orders theorists, Ockham invented the idea of subjective right... Nick argues that the idea of such of kind of right goes much older than Ockham and political thinkers like Hobbes and Locke.

Nick counter-argues by saying that the right theorists narrative fail to adequately take into consideration the account of right that was already in use in the works of the jurists in the medieval period and also by the older thinkers. Nick cites research work by different modern writers to make a case that the Roman jurists were using the idea of subjective right in their work, and that those who argue that subjective/natural right emerged in Medieval period did not adequately take into consideration the different ways 'right' was employed For example, those in jurisprudence employed the idea in their work. Going beyond that, Nick also argues that when Ockham, the Medieval thinker, employed the language of right, he was not inventing the idea out of the blue; Christian thinkers (or Church Fathers) who were teaching and writing in the first 500 years were already using that sort of idea. The idea of natural right was unmistakably present in the work of John Chrysostom (347-407) , Ambrose of Milan (337-397) and Basil of Caesarea (329/330-379).

Based on the principle of correlative, a right theorist may accept that if there is natural right then it must imply that there is natural duty. But the difference between a right theorist and right order theorist goes deeper. And here is the difference: Does a person have inherent worth for which she/he possess an inherent right or is right conferred to a person by an entity/someone? Nick argues for the former, and this is something he will go on to develop in the following chapters. But if his argument stands, then the right order theorists argument that rights are conferred by state/law/contract etc, and it is not something that a person possesses as if it's an inherent property will be challenged.

I think Nick was convincing enough in his argument that the idea of subjective/natural right was already in use much before Ockham and others. Yet whether a right order theorists can still accept the idea of inherent right and remain a right order theorist is possible or not is something Nick will try to argue in the following chapters. And whether he is successful or not, the readers will have to wait.

Chapter 10: The Lost World of Genesis One

Chapter 10 seems more like a reiteration of the points made in the previous chapters. In case one wants to read the previous chapter, the link is here. This chapter is titled 'The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Materials Origins'. The chapter merely reinforces the point that text of Genesis 1 provides an account of functional origin, not of material origins. The author adds that the fact that the text speaks of functional origin does not mean that God is not the creator of the cosmos. There are evidences in the biblical text that God is the creator of cosmos. For example, New Testament writers begin to be concerned about the material origins, which the author of Genesis was not, and thus provides theological reason that God is the creator of the cosmos. 

Another point the author adds here is the point that the text does not really suggest for old earth or young earth. It does not say anything about the age of the earth. The age of the earth has to be deduced from scientific findings, not from the biblical text. However, once it is granted that the scientific findings about the age of the earth is correct, it raises a theological point whether death was there even before sin entered the world. The author argues that death of human enters through sin. But death as such, say, of plants or animals would have been there even before sin enters the world though Adam and Eve. The growth of plant which was created on day 3 requires death of at least cell. And Adam would have death skin (epidermis). It is not possible to imagine deathless life.

Chapter 9: The Seven Days of Genesis 1...

Chapter 9 is titled 'The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Related to the Cosmic Inauguration'. This chapter develops further the argument made in Chapter 7 and chapter 8. This chapter specifically tells about the significance of the temple inauguration.

God resides in a temple. But to settle down in a temple, there is a process. And the process involves construction and inauguration of the temple. Exodus records about Moses making the Tent of Meeting. And when all the preparation about the Tent of Meeting is done, the tabernacle is inaugurated. This process of inauguration is also the process of creation of the tabernacle... because unless the tabernacle is inaugurated, it just remains a constructed tent. The constructed tent becomes a tabernacle after it was inaugurated. And inauguration is completed by the glory of the Lord filling it! This duration about the inauguration is not quite certain but it does take time... 

Genesis 1 gives the description of the inauguration of the cosmic temple. And it says that here the duration for the inauguration of the cosmic temple is done over 7 days.