God or No God?

                                                                                A

Does God exist? This is a question that has been debated for ages. One of the arguments in favour of God's existence is the cosmological argument. The argument goes this way: 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The Universe begins to exist

3. Universe has a cause

4. The cause is God. 

5. Hence, God exists. 

Explanation: 

1. This appears rather self explanatory. If I begin to exist, then I must have a cause -- my parents. If my parent begins to exist, then she must have a cause. And so on and so on. 

2. And as one pushes backward, it goes back to the beginning of the universe. Does the universe have a beginning? As of today Big Bang theory is the main cosmological theory. And one cannot go beyond the Big Bang. And it's fair to say that the moment of Big Bang is the moment of the beginning of the universe. 

3. But if the universe has a beginning, then it must have a cause. This is as stated in proposition 1. 

4. The universe that contains mind, matter and energy must be attributed to a cause for its beginning. Since the effect cannot be bigger than the cause, the cause of matter, mind, energy within time-space has to be attributed to as God. 

5. Hence, God exists. 

                                                                                 B

Now if someone does not want to accept this syllogism, there are two other options: 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 

2. The universe has a cause

3. This cause also has a cause, which again has a cause and so on. 

This position is to affirm infinite regress. 

                                                                                 C

The other position is this: 

1. The universe emerges from nothingness. 

                                                                                 D

About 'nothingness' Aristotle says something to this effect: That which rocks dream about is nothingness. What do non-living objects like rocks and stones dream about? It is nothingness. 

Infinite regress does not sound that appealing. When we talk about infinite regress, we talk about infinity. This is to mean that before we arrive at this present moment i.e now, an infinite unit of time would have elapsed. But how is this possible? Suppose now is t=2015, before arriving at t=2015, there would have to be an infinite unit of time to elapse. But if an infinite amount of time would have to elapse before arriving at t=2015, we would never ever be able to even start. We could only arrive at t=3015 if there was a point of time we could start; counting from infinity, we could never ever arrive at the present. But the fact that we have arrived at the present moment shows that there was a point of time the whole thing started. 

This brings us back to the first option. That God would have been the cause of the universe to exist. This God is a being (with Mind) and there is mystery in this Mind. The fact that He would have been the cause for Big Bang suggests that He is really outside of our understanding of time and space. And this necessitates the element of mystery in our understanding. 

I would say the first option is absurdity; the second impossibility and the third mystery. I prefer the third! 

Why Platinum Jubilee?

Jubilee comes from the Hebrew word 'yôḇēl' ( ram's horn), which when blasted signals the beginning of the Jubilee year. Leviticus 25 gives the significance of the Jubilee year. The Israelites were to count off seven sabbaths of years amounting to forty nine years, and consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty or release throughout the land. This 50^th year shall be the year of Jubilee. The concept of Jubilee is thus inseparably linked to Sabbath year – the year after the sixth year. In Old Testament terms this Jubilee year is thus to be observed every fiftieth year.

In Luke 4 when Jesus invokes the writing of Isaiah's use of the concept of Jubilee, he sets a paradigm shift about Jubilee. Jubilee is no longer going to be consecrated in a cycle of fiftieth year, but its significance is to mark the lives and character of the church everyday. In Jesus a new day is dawn – the Jubilee year is for every single day. Given this significance, Jubilee year is not really about organising a grand programme once in fifty years. The idea of organising a grand programme called Jubilee on the fiftieth birthday of the church is not quite the most appropriate way to mark the significance of Jubilee. Tagging 'Silver', 'Golden', 'Diamond' or 'Platinum' before Jubilee does seem to make it even less significant. The world has made 25^th anniversary as Silver Jubilee or the 60^th year as Diamond Jubilee. But Jubilee for the Old Testament Israel was meant for the cycle of every 50^th year. Israel then failed to practise it faithfully is a different matter – just as the church today perhaps fails to live up to the significance Jesus taught and demonstrated in his three and half years of ministry.

As given in the Leviticus, the Jubilee year must be a year when the slaves are set free. Bonded labourers, to use a modern terminology, are to be set free and be given a new beginning. The land also must be left uncultivated, and the people are to eat on what grows naturally – trusting in the Lord to provide for their needs. The land sold, say, to due economic hardship is to be returned to the original owner thus setting a pattern for a fairly egalitarian society. Jubilee year thus sets a pattern for the Israelites society to be fairly egalitarian. The New Testament pattern does not specify all the detail but the significance of the Leviticus text is embedded when Jesus pronounces the dawning of the Jubilee year as he reads the book of Isaiah.

Given this theological significance, what kind of envisioning and implementation takes place when a grand programme on Jubilee is being organised by a church in our society? Do we see those who are into drugs and alcohols being released from the bondage to freedom? This is highly unlikely because addiction of this sort generally requires treatment longer than a three-four days of grand Conference. But do we see people being set free from greed and selfishness that often are responsible for oppression of the poor and the helpless? Or to put it differently, do we see through such Jubilee programme the poor and the helpless being set free from their misery? Do we see the sick being healed and cared for as an outcome of a grand event called Jubilee? What kind of changes do we observe in the lives of the people and the larger society through massive spending on an event called Jubilee except for the fact that the particular church hosting the programme is now much poorer? Unless the programme triggers renewal in the lives of the church members, organising Platinum Jubilee appears to be a waste of resources.

The more important point, however, is that Jubilee should not really be about an event; the message of a Jubilee year must become part of our lives. As an individual and as a corporate body – the church – the message of the Jubilee year that releases people from all sorts of bondages – greed, hatred, poverty, sickness, pride etc. – must be practised and be observed in our living. Thus the significance of a Jubilee year is not in organising an event, but in being a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. The resources are worth spent on an event called Jubilee if it helps the people enlarge their understanding of who Yahweh is and become ethically better. The growth in understanding is to enable the person live more beautifully, ethically correct. To that end if an event to remind the people of the significance of the Jubilee year is organised once in fifty years, it makes sense; otherwise, it makes no sense. It makes no sense all the more if an event called Platinum Jubilee is organised 25 years after the last Jubilee without taking into consideration the purpose of Jubilee as taught and showed to us by Jesus Christ.

( This article appears  @ Hornbill Express on 26th January, 2015) 

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) 

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!

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.

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. 

 

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. 

Reflections of Death: Can the Dead Ones Really Come Back to Life? Part 4

It's a basic fact that the dead ones remain dead. This is a fact that ancient people knew as much as we know know. We don't need modern science to tell us that the dead ones remain dead. But  when we ask the dead ones about afterlife, they don't really answer. So is there any way one can know anything about afterlife?

Jesus Christ lived and died in the first century.  He was crucified on a cross like a Roman criminal, and buried on a tomb. His disciples thought then that all was gone. It was usual then that a movement withered away into obscurity once the leader died or was put to death. Since Jesus was put to death after a criminal trial, his disciples ran for their life.

Few days later, the disciples claimed to have seen their Lord and Master having come to life. They received new zeal and fresh boldness to continue the work their teacher had initiated. And so the church or rather Christianity came to be in the history of human civilization. This rise of the church is attributed to the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and that he is vindicated to be the Lord and Master of  the world. And this man who is raised from the dead says that there is life beyond death; and this event also gives sufficient evidence that the dead ones do not have to remain dead.

The Bible says that those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God will be raised to life for an ever fullest life. So, can the dead ones really come back to life? Well, look at Jesus Christ for the answer; it is an event that has happened in this time and space.

Reflections of Death: Can a Dead Man's Spirit Become a Bad Spirit...? Part 3

Can a dead man's spirit become a bad spirit and terrorise/frighten people? 

The post put up yesterday advanced ideas that say that righteous dead and unrighteous dead go to different realm. And that they remain where they are supposed to be till Jesus would raise them in future and assign them where they are to remain till the end. Now if they are to remain dead, then what do we make out of this story that says that a particular place/location is haunted. 

Dead people will remain dead. Their spirit cannot frighten us. But the evil spirit is active. And the one desire of the evil spirit is to harm us. And so it is possible that the evil spirit takes on the form of a dead person, and tries to harm people or frighten others. In villages we hear of stories of dead people scaring away people from visiting certain location. Well, the dead people remains dead. It would have to be the evil spirit that wants to harm the good name of a dead man or to harm those who are still alive. So whether it's a house that is known to be haunted or a place considered haunted it's not the business of the dead people to disturb those who are still alive. 

Do we have to call the spirit to come along when a man dies in a foreign land? 

In certain religious tradition, it is said that a man should call his spirit to return along when he visits a strange land. It could happen that if the spirit is not called to return along, then the man could find his spirit missing when he is home; and the spirit would be wandering somewhere. Similarly, when a man dies in a foreign land, it is important to call the spirit home so that it does not wander around here and there. 

In Christian belief there is no such thing. Dead people go where they are supposed to go. The spirit wandering here and there if not called to return 'home' (where the dead body is buried) does not make sense, according to Christian belief. Dying at one's home or in hospital or in the open sea does make any difference where one goes after death. 

Reflections on Death: Where do the Dead Ones Go? Part 2

2 Peter 2:9 says, " ... then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to hold the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment". This passage can be understood to mean that the unrighteous goes through punishment even while they are on earth, and continues till the day of judgment in future. But it can also be understood to mean that the unrighteous ones go through punishment in Hades, while they continue to wait for the final judgement. The second interpretation goes well with the story of Lazurus and the rich man. In this story, the rich man continues to go through suffering while Lazarus was not. But this is not the final state. Along with the righteous, the unrighteous too will be raised on the last day. But the unrighteous will be raised to shame; to face punishment. 

Jesus told one of the thieves on the cross, "today you will be with me in Paradise". In Philipians 1.23-24 Pauls writes, "... I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." These passages tell us that the righteous dead go to be with Jesus. Paradise is more like a garden, and not a permanent resting place. Jesus used to refer to death as 'sleep'. So in one sense being in Paradise is not really a vibrant and full of life kind of a place. But definitely they are resting in the Lord. This is not the final state; it is rather like an intermediate state. At some point in the future, they will be raised with the unrighteous ones as well to face the Lord. And the righteous ones will be in the new heaven and new earth with the Lord forever. This is the final state. This is the state of being resurrected. They will be embodied in this state; yet space and time that constraint us now will no longer apply here. It's a body that will never see decay and death again.

Reflections of Death: Must Christians Always Bury the Dead? Part 1

On first of March, a close relative of mine passed away after battling coma for ten and half months. It was on 15th September, 2012 that a speeding car hit him, resulting in head injury and limb fractures. Since then family members took turn to care for him hoping that he would eventually get out of coma and live though he may not really be able to walk and function as before. But God has a different plan! This event made me reflect on few things about death; and I thought of putting them in words. And the following few posts will be about my reflections on death and related matters. 

Traditionally Christians bury the dead. From the dust we came, and upon burial we eventually become dust. So it's in a way natural that the dead ones are buried. But it's not just those who are buried that become dust eventually; even animals and plants that die and decay eventually become dust. A frog that gets preyed upon a snake who is in turn eaten by an eagle that finally ends up in the frying pan of a farmer too becomes dust. Everything that decays finally becomes part of the earth! So to say that only that which is buried becomes dust, and therefore Christians should always be buried will not be right. 

There have been Christians in the past who had been thrown into lions den. And they got eaten by the lions. There were also Christians who had been burnt to ashes or who got drowned in the sea who did get buried. Whatever form of dead a person would have faced, eventually the body decays and merges with the dust. Being buried is just one way of becoming dust. There is no theological ground, therefore, to insist that Christians should necessarily bury the dead ones. If there is cultural tradition to bury the dead, fine. But if due to space constraint, people choose to cremate or be placed on electric chair, I think it's okay. God can surely raise the dead, whichever way one decays and merges with the dust, to face him on the Last Day. The one eaten by the lions or burnt as torch by king Nero or burnt in electric chair will get no more or no less special treatment than those who got buried. The bottom line is, in my view, follow the cultural norm of the day!

Church, State and Public Justice

Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views

Edited By: P.C.Kemeny

Authentic Books

Page 254

The book presents the viewpoint of five schools on how matters of Church, State and Public Justice should be dealt with. It has the position of the Catholics, Anabaptist, Principled Pluralist, Classical Separation perspective and Social Justice perspective. After each position is explained, the rest of the schools provide comments and thus readers are given good materials to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each school.

I picked up this book because I wanted some clarification, and I would say I was provided sufficient information. As a student of theology my interest has been primarily on political theology and eschatology. I am quite aware of the already-and-not-yet tension when it comes to the idea of the kingdom of God. My question was when I pray "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" how much do I let the aspect of 'already' come into play specially in the domain of political thought. When I read the Anabaptist position in the book, presented by the well-known theologian Ron Sider, I could very well identify myself with him at many point. I thought that used to be me! But even before I came to chapter 4 of Ron Sider, I would say I have found my answer through the writing of Clarke E. Cochran, who outlined the Catholic perspective. One commentator pointed out that Ron Sider's position has a weak concept of the State. I agree. At least for me my understanding of Church-State relationship was at some point fuzzy because I had a weak understanding of the theory of a State. After having read more on Moral and Political Philosophy, I began to wonder how Political Philosophy and Political Theology should relate to one another. And I found that the position outlined by the Catholic position provides the most robust and thought through framework on how a Christian church need to relate with the State. This does not mean that I agree with all the detail in the chapter. In fact Dr. Cochran himself says that not all the Catholics have a uniform position on the finer details. 

Dr. Cochran outlines that Catholic church has four features on how Church and State can relate with regard to matters of public justice: 

Cooperation: This refers to the way the church works together with the government on matters regarding fighting poverty, providing international relief etc. 

Challenge: This takes the form of challenging government policy through agitation, lobby etc.  For example, Catholic Americans  may challenge the policy of the US government to invade Iraq. 

Transcendence: This is about seeking to propagate one's religious belief. This sort of thing transcends the mission of the state, but is part and parcel of being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Competition: This is when Catholic run institution like College compete with government funded institution.

The book would be useful for any Christian student of ethics, political science or political theology. In fact, if people of other religious traditions wish to know the kind of thing that Christians believe, and how the beliefs are applied in political institutions this book may shed light.But non-Americans can skip Chapter 2 which basically is an interpretation of how the framers of US Constitution intended to maintain separation between state and the church.

Is it ever Justifiable to Steal?

I believe that the God revealed in the Bible is the creator of the world. And he has created the world in such a way that the material goods will be distributed without anyone having to starve. We human, however, distort and corrupt this plan of God through our greed and hate repeatedly. And so when some powerful people gather riches leaving the widows and orphans starving and naked, this is against the will of God. When even the basic needs of some people are not met, it is normally because the material goods have not been shared appropriately as some people refuse to follow God's plan of distributive justice. If the rich follows God's word, the hungry and the naked would no longer remain in that condition.

Listen to what some older Christians said. In his book Justice: Right and Wrong, Nicholas Wolterstorff made this quote of Basil of Caesarea (329-379) "that bread which you keep, belongs to the hungry; that coat which you preserve in your wardrobe, to the naked; those shoes which are rotting in your possession, to the shoeless; that gold which you have hidden in the ground, to the needy. Wherefore, as often as you were able to help others, and refused, so often did you do them wrongs" ¹ In the same page, Wolterstorff quoted Bishop Ambrose of Milan (339-397) “Not from you own do you bestow upon the poor man, but you make return from what is his”. Vinoth Ramachandra, in his book Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatary and Christian Mission, writes quoting John Chrysostom ( 347-407) “ This also is theft, not to share one's possession... For his own goods are not his own, but belong to his own fellow servants...I beg you remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.” ² This lines are clear that when some rich people store riches, and left, say, the widows and orphans starving and naked the rich are actually keeping which don't belong to themselves. And this is the way Christians of old understood with respect to the way material goods are to be distributed.

Vinoth Ramachandra continues in the same book “ It is morally permissible for an extremely impoverished person to take what he or she needs for sustenance from a person who has plenty. If I have food in my house which you need for our survival, but which is not indispensable for mine, then it rightfully belongs to you, it would not be an act of charity on it. If I offered it to you, it would not be an act of charity on my part as much as granting you your own rights under God.” Then Vinoth goes on to quote Thomas Aquinas ( 1225-1274), the great medieval theologian, “ In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common... Now according to the natural order established by Divine providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succouring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law to the purpose of succouring the poor."  Vinoth continued “ Reasoning from the principle of stewardship whereby material things are seen as held in trust for the common welfare, Aquinas continued: ' Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succour his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft nor robbery' ”. ³

I need not add further word. But from the explanation given above I believe it is justifiable that there is a certain kind of situation when it is morally permissible to take what belongs to others or rather what actually belongs to me but in others' custody.

The moral of the point is that the rich people owe so much to the poor.

1. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (2008). Justice: Rights and Wrongs, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 62
2. Ramachandra, Vinoth ( 1996). Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatary and Christian Mission, Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, p. 45
3. Ibid., p. 46

What is Justice?

Treating the neighbour justly is a classic case of loving the neighbour. The third century Roman jurist defines justice as steady and enduring will to render to each his or her ius. Society is just insofar as its members are rendered the ius that they possess, the ius that is theirs. One may possess some ius without enjoying that ius; so it is important to note that justice is rendering to each his or her right or deserts (what he or she deserves).

Example: When you are deprived of your ius, your right, to a seat in a train, you are not enjoying your right; here justice is not rendered to you. One may call this ius as primary justice. When a murderer is let scot free without any punishment, we don't speak of punishment as something the murderer has a right to but as something he deserves. Here punishment is the murderer's just deserts, the ius. One may call this ius as corrective justice. Thus justice is rendering each one his or her right or deserts, ius.

Right-talk is to be located only in a social context, not in a vacuum. I have a right to be treated in a certain way by you or vice versa. This social bonds of rights are foundational to human community and human flourishing. To fail to treat a person as she has a right to my treating her is to wrong her. To fail to treat a society as it has a right to my treating her is to wrong it. Conversely, to fail to treat me as I have a right to be treated is to wrong me.

Women and ministry 3

For the Christians Easter Sunday is extremely important. Christianity stands or fall with Easter Sunday. Because if Jesus is not risen from the dead, Christians may as well identify with what Paul says: eat and drink for tomorrow we die. To undermine Jesus Christ and in effect Christianity critics have tried to explain away the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The Bible says that through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, God has begun his new creation. God is not yet done with it, but it will ultimately be complete. The Bible also says that those who believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and God are new creation. God’s work of new creation has begun in their life. In Colossians 3 and Galatians 2 Paul underscores that those who are in Christ are then to follow to a new set of ethical norm. The old relationship between Jews and non-Jews, rich and poor, male and female etc are re-evaluated in the light the this new world order i.e the new creation.

God in his creation made both male and female in his own image and likeness. This ‘image and likeness’ does not mean that we humans are like God’s statue; rather it means that we bear attributes that resemble God. Being image bearer of God, both male and female are given the mandate to take care of the world and live in it. Our ancestors somehow failed to honour God’s wish, and therefore the beginning of all wars, hatred, hunger etc.

It was God’s purpose that we human be made ‘healthy’ again—in term of our relationship with God, with ourselves, with nature etc. and that includes the repair of relationship between male and female. The dead and resurrection of Jesus is that through which the ‘healthy’ relationships begin once again, never ever to rupture again.

Is it not because of seeing through this lens that early Christians were open for women’s participation in the ministry? It is high time the reality of the dawn of new creation is visible in our individual life and our ministries.

Women and Ministry 2

1. Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews, who were in prison with me. They are highly respected among the apostles and became followers of Christ before I did. Romans 16:7.

* Junia was a female, and an outstanding apostle. Commenting on Romans 16:7 John Chrysostom (347-407) writes, “ how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.” Earlier commentators like Origen (185-253) and Jerome (340-419) also understood Junia to be female.

2. But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. 1 Corinthians 11:5.

* The context is about head covering. Whether head covering applies today or not is the point for now. The point is that woman then prayed or prophesied. And Paul was writing that if she prays or prophesies she should cover her head. And there is no reason why “prophesying” here cannot be interpreted as “speaking forth God’s message” or “preaching”.

3. I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. Romans 16:1.

* Being a deacon was not only for men. It was a position held by woman too, and sister Phoebe being one.

To be contd.

Women and Ministry 1

The debate is not whether women can do ministry. The debate is in what capacity can women participate in ministry. Can she be a pastor of a church? Or can she teach only in Sunday school or something like that?

One may like to argue that those individuals who are putting forth a case for opening door wide open for women to minister have been influenced by secular feminist. However, one can reply to the argument by saying that those who opposed have been influenced by their patriarchal tradition. This way of arguing rather ends in a draw, with neither position delivering a knock out punch.

One may also argue that this kind of arguing for women’s right is the reason why divorce and such related cases have increased in number. But this point can be countered by saying that male domination is the reason why there is so much of domestic violence and related crimes. Thus, this way of arguing again ends in a draw.

The right approach then is to go into the biblical text and learn what the Bible really says. As one does that one will notice some biblical texts explicitly teaching women not to teach. One will also come across biblical texts where women taught and were in leadership. Taking these various texts and weaving them together will give a sound interpretation of Scripture for a particular way of understanding women and ministry.

To be contd.