Archives: Book Chapters

Poverty in Asia

The most disturbing aspect of the condition of a majority of people in Asia is that they not only continue to be poor but have become poorer even after considerable developmental activities. The pattern of economic growth in all the countries in Asia favours the rich and creates imbalances in the relationships between different sections of people.

The bulk of capital investment is concentrated in the industrial or advanced sector in the belief that rapid industrialisation would create conditions for wider utilisation of the abundant labour available and reduce inequalities in income distribution. But what has really happened is that the advanced sector has achieved considerably more expansion and led to the impoverishment of the traditional sector. The gap between two sectors had widened. In other words, the majority of the population are left outside the development process.

Poverty thus is not merely an economic problem. There is a system that produces it and perpetuates it. Broadly defined, such a system is one in which the decision-making process and control are concentrated in the hands of persons or groups whose interests are so fundamentally inimical to the well-being of life as a whole. Not only do they keep the masses away form the centres of power but also fail to solve the basic problems of mass poverty glaring inequalities, growing unemployment and rising prices. When there arises any organized effort by the masses to redress their grievances it is brutally suppressed. Imposition of authoritarian and repressive regimes, denial of human rights and excessive dependence of foreign elite. “A culture of silence is imposed upon the people, thus choking their cries for dignity, self-respect, right to life and right to food.”

Poverty disrupts the very fabric of human relationships. It brings new forms of cultural enslavement. M.M. Thomas points out, “While technological advance, agricultural and industrial development and modernisation of social structures are necessary they accentuate the pathological exploitative characteristics of traditional society by destroying their traditional humanising aspects, if traditional power-structures and the social institutions in which they are embodied remain unchanged.” In this way the problem of poverty is social and cultural as well as economic and political. Careful analysis of seemingly concealed working of the forces and consequences of it is highly essential. The fundamental concern is the quality of life, the life in all its fullness. What is the good news of Jesus Christ to this situation?

Biblical Perspectives

Let us look at some of the biblical insights that are relevant for our consideration of the relation between the rich and the poor.

1. The Hebrew word Shalom which suggests a vision of the Hebrew people, of good life is translated inadequately as “peace”. But it refers to a social reality which brings the whole common life to a new fruition. When the Hebrew says that God wills Shalom, he visualises a life which encompasses prosperity of the earth and people and their happiness, even at times victors over enemies.

If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, then I will give you rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase and the tress of the field shall yield fruit. And your threshing shall last to the time of vintage; and the vintage shall last to the time of sowing; and you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land securely... and you shall chase your enemies and they shall fall before you by the sword. (Leviticus 26:3-7)

Or again, another passage:

For the lord your God is bringing you in to a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing forth in valleys and hills, a land of wheat and barley, of vines, and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey, a land in which you will eat bread without scarcity in which you will lack nothing, a land whose stones are iron and out of whose hills you can dig copper. And you shall eat and be full, and you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land he has given you. (Deut. 8:7-10)

2. The old Testament is quite unashamed of material abundance; in fact it is taken as a mark of God’s blessings. But it is not an unconditional blessing. The good life (Shalom) is dependent upon Israel remaining faithful to the covenant relationship, and this requires living sensitively with both God and the neighbour. Always Israel reminded that material abundance is a gift from God in nature and history. At the same time, those gifts are not given for us to do what we like. They are to be used responsibly for the neighbour’s good.

If there is among you a poor man, one of your brethren, in any of your towns within your land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him, and shall lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be (Deut. 15:7).

3. As Israel grows in its covenant relationship with God, so also is this sensitivity to the responsibility to the neighbour extended beyond their own kinsmen. A body of legislations to prevent exploitation of all has been build up. Gustavo Gutierrez points out:

The Bible speaks of positive and concrete measures to prevent poverty from becoming established among the people of God. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there is very detailed legislation designed to prevent the accumulation of wealth and the consequent exploitation. It is said, for example, that what remains in the fields after the harvest and the gatherings of olives and grapes should not be collected, it is for the alien, the orphan, and the widow (Deut. 24:19-21; Lev. 19:9-10). Even more, the fields should not be harvested to the very edge so that something remains for the poor and the aliens (Lev. 23:2). The Sabbath, the day of the Lord, has a social significance; it is a day of rest for the slave and the aliens (Exod. 23:12; Deut. 5:14). The triennial tithe is not to be carried to the temple, rather it is for the alien, the orphan, and the widow (Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12). Interest on loans is forbidden (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:35-37; Deut. 23:20). Other important measures include the Sabbath year and the Jubilee year. Every seven years, the fields will he left to lie fallow “to provide food for the poor of your people (Exod. 23:11; Lev. 25:2-7). Although it is recognised that this duty is not always fulfilled (Lev. 26:34-35). After seven years, the slaves were to regain their freedom (Exod. 21:2-6) and debts were to be pardoned (Deut. 15:1-18). This is also the meaning of the Jubilee year of Lev.25:10ff. It was...a general emancipation...of all the inhabitants of the land. The fields lay fallow; every man reentered his ancestral property, that is the fields and houses which had been alienated returned to their original owners.¹

4. But in the writings of the prophets one’s neighbourly responsibilities is crystalised. They affirmed that without the inclusion of the powerless in the promise of the covenant, without a movement of justice that redirects the riches of the prosperous toward the needs of the poor, the people are at war with their God.

It is as though the righteous God of Israel were showing a curious bias towards all who are weak and oppressed, towards the down-and-out who cannot help themselves, the fatherless and the widow the deaf and the blind, the stranger and the poor. Consequently when Israel is called to imitate this righteous God, it too shall care for those who cannot take care of themselves; it shall not “ trample the head of the poor... and turn aside the way of the afflicted” (Amos 2:7); it shall not oppress its slaves nor its hired servants, be they fellow citizens or foreigners.

The ringing challenge of the shepherd from Tekoa; Amos, reverberates through all history as a passionate plea for justice for the poor.

Let justice roll down like water and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.

The prophets were not against prosperity but they were concerned about the irresponsible ways in which riches were being misused, and that is the denial of Shalom.

5. It is in this line that at the very beginning of his ministry, Jesus is said to have received the scroll of Isaiah (a prophet) in the Synagogue and to have applied to himself to words of (Isa. 61:1-2).

The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has appointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of Sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19).

Jesus’ proclamation includes the full dimensions of a truly human life -- physical and mental healing, bringing new life to the poor; a new stewardship of all resources of the earth and the gifts of the grace of God for the flowering of human life, and to enable the principalities and powers on earth or in the air to perform their true political function.

But there is a difference between Israel’s understanding of the working of God’s power and Jesus’ ministry Formerly God’s power was completely allied to the political structures of Israel’s life, now instead the link is with the ministry of the suffering servant which has been embodied in Christ and which should be continued in the Church. Those who follow Jesus will have to take this ministry seriously since this is the ministry of a suffering servant. Its strategy is not based on the concepts of prosperity and power of the surrounding society, but rather it views the present age in the light shed upon it by the power of the coming Kingdom. It is in keeping with this that we find in the Gospel of John, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you “(John 14:27).

6. Three aspects of the Kingdom of God which Jesus preached are : a new consciousness, a new set of values and a new relationship. All these are inter-related.

Consciousness is a leaded word. What I have in mind by this is Jesus’ unconditional commitment to God the Father and his constant awareness that his life and ministry is God’s gracious gift. The sources of Jesus’ freedom is in his child-like trust in the gracious father. This ultimate trust releases him from all fears and false securities that are characteristic of our human existence. It is certainly not following a set of codes or laws but in the realisation of what one is by the gift of God. That is why I call this consciousness or awareness. Jesus’ life-style is being sensitised and/have continuously been transformed by this consciousness.

After all it is not difficult to understand the value of gift dimension for people who know the growing experience, for example of a child. It grows in the awareness of being loved, or having received the love of those who care for him. Without this awareness he is less human.

What Jesus therefore knew about God was that not only is He free and sovereign but he acts in love. Omnipotence is often described as a limitless power and might. Certainly there is all aspect of it in our consciousness of God. But it is equally if not more important for us to realise how Jesus’ God is limitless in his compassion. The limit sets to all acts of mercy are broken by Gods rule. The signs of the Kingdom therefore are “the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised, and the poor have good news preached to them” (Matt.11:5).

The fundamental values this consciousness brings are freedom and justice and love. All these are not mere abstractions or a matter of balancing interests between persons or groups. They are manifested in relationships. Therefore we cannot speak of our commitment to God and our adherence to values and the building up of new relationships in separate terms.

Kingdom of God enters into the lives of men by transforming human relations. In this process all institutions and structures are included. The controlling principle of this change is the radical demand of love. The disciples had to abandon all their goods (Mark 1:18-20; Matt 1:20-22) all that they had (Luke 5:11). The rich man who wanted to follow Jesus was asked to sell all he had (Mark. 10:21). In response to Peter’s comment: “Lo, we have left everything and followed you” Jesus replied with a promise which widens the horizon. It is addressed to everyone who for his sake, has abandoned his home, brothers, sisters, mother, father, children or possessions (Mark 10:28-29). In other passages Jesus had made the absolute demand: whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it (Matt. 16:25; Mark 8:35).

The purpose of these sayings is not to idealise poverty. In the New Testament poverty is considered neither a virtue nor an ideal. Disciples are asked to renounce all material possessions for the poor as a mark of their readiness to participate totally in the life of the community of those who hope only in the manifestation of the love and justice of God. The emphasis is on One’s unconditional openness to serve others in love.

In this connection it is useful to refer to the life of the early Christians who heard the call of discipleship. Their life is described in the Acts of the Apostles in these verses:

All whose faith had drawn them together held every thing in common: they would sell their property and possessions and make a general distribution on the need of each required. (Acts. 4:32)

This is often referred to as the early Christian “Communism”. But this is not correct. Obviously, it is not a political,... in fact, it has nothing whatever to do with the production of economic wealth. Indeed, its failure to provide for this has been seen as the cause of its later breakdown. It was a spontaneous expression of Christian love and fellowship - a deep sense of responsibility for one another.

As Gutierrez says, Jesus does not assume the condition of poverty and its tremendous consequences with the purpose of idealising it, but because of “love for and solidarity with men who suffer in it. It is to redeem them from their sins and to enrich them with his poverty. It is to struggle against human selfishness and everything that divides men and causes them to be rich and poor; possessors and dis-possessed, oppressors and oppressed.... If the ultimate cause of Man’s exploitation and alienation is selfishness, the deepest reason for voluntary poverty is love of neighbour.”

Thus Christian love expressed in solidarity with the poor, by the acceptance of poverty is a protest against poverty. The rejection of riches, and brotherly love for one’s neighbour in need is the sign of the total acceptance of Jesus and openness to the Kingdom which is to come.

The point I want to emphasise is that the interiority and exteriority of the Kingdom can not be separated. We express the interiority of the Kingdom as we grapple with the issues of our daily social existence. Conversion means changing our modes of thinking and ordering our priorities in accordance with the will of God. It is conversion to God and his Kingdom and therefore to his brother and the world. “It is a choice for total change of life from self-concern to love of neighbour; from getting and accumulating to giving, from exploitation to mercy, from love of dominating power to service, from pride to humility; from injustice to justice; from seeing the world as man’s to get the most out of it, to living in it as God’s world, destined by him for total human liberation in the life of the person and in human community”.

Jesus’ Response: Conflict, Solidarity and Suffering

The concern for the Kingdom is concretely expressed m the life and ministry of Jesus. Three dimensions of it are: conflict, solidarity and suffering. The social situation of the first century Palestine was unusually complex. Power and wealth were in the hands of a religious aristocracy comprising of the families of priests and a secular aristocracy which included the merchant princes and land-owners in Jerusalem. There were also artisans; small peasants and others who formed the middle class. A large number became unemployed and economically marginalised. The cultural dominance of the pure Israelites over those of mixed ancestry (Samaritans and Gentiles) created caste conflict. Jesus’ response to such a situation of economic exploitation and social oppression as part of his good news is important for us. They provide direction for our mission. We will briefly look at those three dimensions.

The demands of the Kingdom of God create conflict. “I have not come” said Jesus, “to bring peace but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34). When the structures of society have come to dominate and explicit human beings the action of God creates.

In the Old Testament as we have seen, God confronts the people with his Sword of Judgement. The faithfulness of Israel is tested by whether the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger are cared for and God makes their cause the basis of his condemnation. The same is true about the New Testament. The disciples are being continuously challenged to re-order this life and relationships to the extent of creating a virtual break from the traditional securities of family and religion.

As Prof. West observes:

This is still the dynamic of divine peace-making. It uncovers violence that hides beneath the structures of earthly peace, espouses the cause of the poor and oppressed -- but at the same time transforms their revolutionary messianism by the power of suffering service -- and undercuts the security of the comfortable, the powerful and the rich. Its pattern is the surrender of self for others, the acceptance of suffering and death because resurrection and new creation are in Christ, the world’s reality.²

The second dimension is Jesus’ Solidarity with the people, especially the poor and the oppressed. He proclaimed good news to the poor, calling them blessed. All four Gospel records reflect the profound concern for the poor. His compassion for the harassed and helpless cannot be discussed. The Gospel certainly is not neutral.

His table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners vividly expresses his solidarity with the victims of established powers. Eating is a symbol of fellowship. Jesus got into trouble for eating with social outcasts because for the Jews, meal is also a symbol of fellowship with God. This is why Jesus used the meal as a picture of the Kingdom.

He had compassion for the hapless victims. This compassion was not a mere feeling of charity, or made him work for some reform. Rather it led him to a ministry for their release as part of a larger vision for the transformation of man and society in a process of total liberation.

Harvey Perkins, formerly .... of the Christian Conference of Asia has given us an interesting Bible study with the theme of “Yoke”. He shows how the conflict and solidarity motifs are characteristically present in the Gospel. In Mathew’s gospel the dominant theme is the conflict with the powers that be and in Luke we have a picture of Jesus on the side of the poor and other marginalised groups. He analyses the birth narratives in each of these Gospels to illustrate his points.

The Kingdom is in conflict with the dominant consciousness and power structures; Kingdom in solidarity with the poor; the Kingdom is also of the Messiah, the suffering servant.

The very concept of Kingdom is closely related to the messianic Kingdom which Jesus had been expectantly waiting for. Has Jesus shared their vision? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that Jesus identified with the aspirations of people for a new age, but his strategy was different from the political messianism of his day There is a difference between Jesus’ messianism or messianic servanthood and the ruler-messianism or the political messianism.

Jesus has given a radical reorientation to the concept of messianism. Often messiahs are those rulers or heroes who crusade for domination and suppression of people. But the crucified messiah identifies himself with the suffering people. Jesus the messiah became a servant of the people, died for them and rose from the dead that we may rise from the power of death, even in this world.

People who rise with him historically are the messianic people, a sign of the Kingdom of God. Gutierrez says this people make known the kingdom through what has been called the “messianic inversion”. This is explained as follows:

The messianic inversion finds expression in, for example, the statement of the gospel that “the last shall be first” (Mt. 20:16). Such an assertion contradicts the value system of this world, in which the poor and the little folk do not count. The ecclesial community, the messianic people, show forth the gratuitousness of God’s love precisely in the measure that they promote in history the creative presence of the poor. The freely given and unmerited love of God is proclaimed by speaking of the poor and their needs, their rights and dignity, their culture, and, above all, of the God who wants to place them at the center of the history of the church.³

His identification with the powerless was total as it is revealed in the Cross. All who cry from the depths of suffering and despair from the freedom find an ally in him.

According to the Gospels, Jesus willingly surrendered himself to the will of God and even in the darkness of death he trusted him. Easter faith proclaims that. God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead, thus declaring him to be the expression of God’s own life and Kingdom.

Mission Our Response

The mission is our response to God’s liberating action in the world. “The mission which is conscious of the Kingdom will be concerned for liberation, not oppression; justice, not exploitation; fullness, not deprivation; freedom, not slavery; health, not disease; life, not death; No matter how the poor may be identified, this mission is for them.” Some of the implication of this for our task may be mentioned here:

1. The Mission is Radical Involvement.

This may be saying the obvious. But one or two dimensions of jt should be reiterated. Any radical involvement that is directed towards changing the structures of injustice becomes political. In this sense mission is another name for political action. Conflict is inevitable. One may not consciously advocate violence, but disruption and disorder surround any process of restructuring of society. Very often, emphasis on reconciliation has in effect meant a way of maintaining the status quo against necessary radical changes. Many of the action groups feel, for this reason, that they should speak more of conflict and less of reconciliation. We should not ignore the criticism implied in this position. The message of reconciliation that does not take seriously the nature of differences and also see the positive value of conflict for social change will not be meaningful for the struggle of different groups for justice. It is now widely recognised that legislation, public opinion and other apparatuses of democratic machinery alone cannot bring about the desired social justice for the weaker sections in India. They should be strengthened by the militant, organised struggle of the poor.

On the other hand, it is true that we cannot absolutise conflict. That will, end up in creating a self-righteous and de-humanising order as was shown in the history of revolutions. How to keep the conflict in any struggle for social justice and for giving love in creative tension?

2. Cultural Resources

Jesus knew that his people were being crushed under the weight of a heavy yoke of social and political oppression. He was also conscious of their cultural enslavement. Therefore his attention was turned to unveiling their cultural propensities for liberation. He spoke of the lilies of the field, the birds of the air, salt of the earth, the light of the world and so on. All symbols are taken from their life situation. The elemental realities thus drawn are all life-affirming. This closeness to one’s roots and soil is expressed in one’s culture. In Asia our religions are integrally related to our cultures. Therefore, in proclaiming the Kingdom of God in our context should mean taking seriously the cultural and religious symbols and traditions which embody their vision of life and wholeness.

The EATWOT, a fellowship of theologians of the Third World who are heavily influenced by the liberation theology of Latin America, met in Delhi in 1981. They were compelled to take a positive look at the liberative potentialities of Asian religious tradition. The final statement has given a pointed expression to this:

To be committed to the people’s struggle for social justice and to contemplate God within this involvement, both form the essential matrix or theology. Without this prayerful contemplation, God’s face is only partially seen and God’s Word only partially heard within the participation in God’s liberating and fulfilling action in history.⁴

Of course, we are aware of the ambiguous nature of our cultural and religious heritage. We are not romanticising the ancient religious and accepting them uncritically

Seers and saints of our land have made important contributions to the heightened awareness of man about himself and the world. But we have also seen the worst of these religions. They were used for exploiting masses, for protecting the vested interests of the high and mighty. The very idea of contemplation and silence was used to suppress the masses and they were made to accept passively their suffering making other -- worldly flights from realities.

There were positive elements in them. Sometimes they are prominently expressed in the protest movements and traditions within the dominant religions, in myths, stories and legends. We need to rediscover the dynamic heritage of ours. The heart of Asian religious tradition should be found in its response to human pain and suffering. The genius of Buddha for example is in that he provided a new perspective on the creative meaning of suffering. Great saints and gurus were on with the people in their anguish. Theirs is not a spirituality of manipulative power and strength, although there is a lot of it in Asian tradition as it is present in every other religious tradition. But, they knew that the power of the Ultimate is expressed in the strength of the people, in their sacrifice, love and truth.

C.S. Song of Taiwan has given expression to this concern in his theological interpretation of Chinese folk tale called  “The faithful Lady Ming” and ends his reflections with these poignant words “Our political theology is located in the spaces created by the spiritual power of Asian people in suffering. And our power ethic is the ethic that believes in the ultimate victory of God who lives with people and gives them the power of true love, and justice. If this is God’s it should be ours also.”⁵

3. A New Spirituality

Most of us have been nurtured in the pietistic tradition and our understanding of Christian life is influenced by it. This tradition has been negative in its influence to the formation of any meaningful relationship with the concerns of society. Its reduction of the meaning of Salvation to the relationship of the individual soul with God and its refusal to open itself to the liberative act of God outside the familiar work are problematic. Even in circles which are open to the new evangelical thrust for social action, there has been no critical look at this theological framework. What emerges from this action is a style of engagement that is directed towards converting individuals to become “good men and women”. Social involvement becomes a matter of giving moral advice to people with the hope that moral men will lead immoral societies.

We need a spirituality that provides a basis for meaningful involvement in society and the struggles of people. It should guide us and sustain us. We may agree with Migliorie when he says:

We need a spirituality that is inclusive rather than exclusive, active as well as receptive, oriented to the coming of God’s Kingdom of righteousness and freedom throughout the world. We need a spirituality of liberation that will open us increasingly to a life of solidarity with others, especially with the poor.

M.M. Thomas in one of his early essays, when he was responding to the challenge of Gandhian spirituality speaks of the need for a “spiritual aristocracy” that accepts prophetic vocation as their communal style.

The practices of traditional spirituality -- Bible reading, prayer meditation, fellowship around the Word and Sacrament, service of the neighbour -- are all still valid provided they have a new orientation and new meanings. They will be linked with the “praxis of Christian freedom in solidarity with the poor”.

One of the important points about the new spirituality is how to read the biblical materials in terms of a dominant concern of our times namely the removal of present oppressive structures. Biblical symbols, stories and narratives are peculiarly relevant struggles in concrete situations. They describe the agonies and joys of the people, they articulate people’s questions and answers. Today this “people character” of the Bible is made obscure by professionals. There should be a process by which the Bible should be reappropriated by people to be used by them for their faith articulation.

Not only the way we read the Bible but also the practice of our prayer should be considered in the light of new challenges. People are taught to mechanically repeat the Lord’s Prayer and the prayer has become a way of asking favours from God. But the prayer should be a recalling to ourselves God’s concern for righteousness and his solidarity with the oppressed. Is this not the real meaning of the model prayer which our Lord has taught us? We pray for his Kingdom his will to be done and His name he hallowed. Of course within that framework we place before God our needs and the needs of others. But primarily it is a way of entering into the liberative action of God which he is accomplishing through Jesus Christ. It is a form of protest against all forces that thwart the purposes of God and his kingdom. That become the primary focus and not something that is tagged on to our prayer by way of vague intercessions for the needs of the world.

This prayer can be a passionate encounter. When we involve in a situation of oppression we are baffled and frustrated by the force of opposition. The landlord who is a pious Christian becomes the enemy if you are on the side of the landless labourer. The upper caste Christians despise you if you move closely with the Harijans; you will be harassed by the police and government machinery when you try to express your solidarity with the victims  of violence. In that situation, prayer, the recalling to yourselves of the presence of God who listens to the cry of the crushed will be reassuring.

Seen in this way the other elements of spirituality meditation, participation in sacraments, worship -- all become a source of strength for the liberative experiences. Eucharist is an anticipation of the new humanity which God creates. The table Fellowship transcends all man-made barriers. In love and sharing a divided humanity is made one.

It is important to realise the material context from which the eucharist has evolved. St. Paul gives the words of institution after a critical appraisal of some of the discriminatory practices on the basis of economic status that prevailed in the church. It is then as a great symbol of sharing, the practice and meaning of eucharist was endorsed. Of course the material context and the human universal reality which it embodies are seen to be forgotten. Instead, like other rituals, it has become a cultic act which reinforces a narrow communal solidarity.

A spirituality of liberation of course, cannot be a theoretical construct. It has to be evolved in mutual practice of solidarity with the poor. A new openness to the cries and aspirations of the marginalised groups alone is the basis of it.

The mission is God’s work as well as our responsibility. What God is offering is fullness of life and our responsibility is the defence of that fullness. Such defence entails conflict and suffering. In our struggles, Jesus is present always beckoning us to the New

Notes:

1. Gustave Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation (Mary Knoll: Orbis Books, 1973) P. 366

2. Charles C. West, “Reconciliation and World Peace”, in Reconciliation in Today’s World, Ed. By Allen O. Miller (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969) P. 109

3. Gustavo Gutierrez, The God of Life (Orbis New York 1991), P 208

4. Melbourne Conference Report,  Section I (Document No. G. 09. WCC)

5. C. S. Song, the Tears of Lady Ming (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1981), PP 65,66

I shall begin by reflecting on my Christmas vacation in Kerala. In December we frequently encounter groups of pilgrims on their way to Sabarimal for their darshan of Lord Ayappa. Devotees come from all South Indian states and they travel in small groups intermittently chanting “Lord Ayappa Sarnam”. It is reported that every year the number of devotees is higher than that of the previous year. The devotees undertake this pilgrimage after a long period of preparation which includes growing a beard, wearing beads and a special dress, observing certain dietary restrictions, fasting and prayer. Many of them undertake this long journey by bus but at the foot of the hill they start climbing hundreds of steps to the temple for the final darshan of Lord Ayappa. For most of them this pilgrimage is a way to fulfil the vow they would have made for favours received. But they are inspired by a sense of power of the divine. Peace is inner tranquility achieved by rigorous discipline and ardent devotion to Lord Ayappa.

In some sense this pilgrim’s view of peace is not uncommon among religious people. The emphasis of this spirituality is on the interior life, or the motive of the actor. There is no spiritual significance or necessity for effecting any change in the social structure. The external situation becomes complex and one may retreat to the safe haven of the inner soul for peace.

Kerala has witnessed another popular celebration. Marxist volunteers in thousands from all over Kerala marched into Trivandrum to participate in the concluding celebrations of thc National Congress of the Marxist Party. Clad in red clothes and caps they rent the air with their slogans. One of the dailies described the final rally as “Red Sea Roaring”. The Marxist movement, as we know, represents a way of realising peace by the struggle of the workers for justice. For them economic justice alone will ensure peace. There are other marginalised groups -- Dalits, tribals, unorganized workers and Women -- who also approach peace through the road of justice. Marxists have no use for religion in their search of peace. For them all religious spirituality is other-worldly and narrowly communal. It is significant that the National Congress of the Marxist Party expressed its commitment to fostering the unity of all secular forces and rejecting any alliance with so called religious/communal forces.

These two approaches to peace -- one found in the recesses of our inner life and the other in the concrete historical struggle -- are very much present in our context. We need to discuss the perspectives on peace and justice against this background. However one of the main assumptions of this paper is that Christian faith advocates a unitary perception of different aspects of peace -- personal/social, spiritual/material, internal/external, and there is an integral relation between peace and justice in our concrete areas of relationships and action. Let us examine some of the biblical insights on peace and justice.

Biblical Insights

1. The biblical view of peace, Shalom, is a vision of wholeness that is being translated into concrete relationships and actions.

The Hebrew word, Shalom, inadequately translated as peace, is not just an inner feeling but a dynamic reality that is expressed in human relationships and actions. The abundance of harvest, physical and mental healing, harmonious relationships between humans and beasts and a new stewardship of all resources of earth (Lev. 26:3-7, Isa. 35:1-10) are all part of Shalom experience. The harmonious growth that is indicated by Shalom makes no dichotomy between so-called spiritual and material realms, and it embraces all aspects of life. The vision of a new heaven and a new earth is a utopia, of a perfect order where all people live as a single family. The relationships between human and nature enhance the quality of life and that becomes the primary focus of God’s transforming activity When there is a rupture or distortion in this relationship, there peace is denied.

2. Peace and Justice are integrally related to each other

Shalom is a political community based on justice. There is no Shalom if there is economic inequality, judicial perversion and political exclusiveness. This is the message of prophets in the Old Testament. There is no peace without justice. (Jer. 7:5-7, Mich. 2:1-12, Amos. 4:1 and Psalm 34:14).

In the Hebrew faith; Yahweh appears as the God the defender of the vulnerable groups from whom all rights are forcefully taken away -- the widow, orphans, aliens and the poor. God is the “near relative”, the protector and avenger of Israel. This is affirmed in an agreement which God has entered into with his people (Covenant). The clear expression of that relationship is justice. To know God is to enter into a covenant with God. A covenant that is justice-oriented relationship. So for the prophets “to know God is to do justice” (Jer. 22:13-16). To worship God is to “seek justice” correct oppression, defend the fatherless and plead for the widow (Isa. 1:17).

Justice is not an abstract concept, but the perspective from which to judge the total system and structure of political and social relationship-the perspective of the poor and the weak. The prophets have a wide range of concerns : commercial exploitation (Hos. 12:8, Isa. 3:14, Amos 8:3, Jer. 5:7, Mic. 6:10-11); hoarding of land (Micah. 2:1-3, Eze. 22:29); dishonest courts (Amos: 5:7, Mic. 3:5-11, Isa. 5:23); violence of the ruling classes (II Kings 33:30, Micah 3:1-12, Amos 4:1); slavery (Amos 2:6); unjust taxes (Amos 4:11, 5:11-12); unjust functionaries (Amos 5:7, Jer.5:28). How contemporary they all sound! We cannot leave out any aspect of human relationships. In recent years we have become concerned about eco-justice, that is the just way in which we use natural resources and the environment. Here too how can we allow a section of society to consume a majority of resources when many have no access to it.

3. Shalom experience of a person is to live a caring, sharing and just life in community.

We have already pointed out how Shalom is linked to a political and even a cosmic (nature) reality based on justice. But it is experienced as our personal responsibility to the wholesomeness of Gods community. So, covetousness is a self-seeking act that destroys Shalom.

Isa. : 57:17, 19-21 may be quoted here:

“Because of the inequality of his covetousness I was angry, I smote him, I hid my face and was angry. Shalom, to the far and near, says the Lord and I will heal him. But the wicked are like the tossing sea, for it cannot rest and its waters toss up mire and dirt. There is no Shalom, says my God, for the wicked.”

Selfishness becomes the root of evil that disrupts our relationships. In society it becomes organized in a large scale and we need to fight them on the structural level, but we need to counter them on a personal level -- the question of life-style, attitude, irrational prejudices against others and other areas. More positively we need to be “sensitive” to values that, helps enter into the struggles of mothers. “The biblical vision of Shalom functions always on a firm rejection of values and life­styles that seek security and well-being in manipulative ways at the expense of another part of creation, another part of community, or brother or Sister” (Brueggemann). I hope it will be possible for us to give serious thought to a life-style appropriate to our commitment to peace and justice. However we should avoid the danger of setting the personal responsibility in the area our struggle for peace against structural and corporate dimensions of it. Both are necessary and there are situations where one is emphasised more than the other.

4. Jesus is the embodiment of Shalom.

The heart of Jesus’ preaching is the proclamation of the Kingdom of God -- a reality that is present in the world but whose fulfillment is yet to come. The sighs of the Kingdom are the same as the experience of Shalom in the Old Testament -- the life in all its fullness, the concern for community based on equality and mutual acceptance and freedom from self-seeking security. John the Baptist, the elder cousin of Jesus who had initiated Jesus into public ministry sends messengers to ascertain whether Jesus is the Messiah or not. The reply is poignantly relevant to our discussion (Matt. 11:2-5) “Go and tell John what you hear and see; the blind receive their sights and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them”. These are all indications that Jesus adopted a new scale of values, that was different from the value system of the dominant society in which he lived. He valued persons over systems (Sabbath is for man, not man for Sabbath), he affirmed the value of persons over things (His concern for children, women); he rejected any custom or system that marginalised people (entered into solidarity with the poor and the weak); he was harshly critical against the self-seeking leaders (Pharisees) and excessive dependence on mammon -- the commodity mentality -- was abhorrent to him. His own uncompromising commitment to the values of the Kingdom and his solidarity with the victims of society made himself an enemy of the powers that be. Conflict was very much part of Jesus ministry of Shalom. That seems to be the experience of people who follow Jesus. They are at odds with the inhuman and unjust value and structures of dominant society Jesus was able to bear up the conflict not by retreating himself into a Spirituality that is preoccupied with his own security (Gethsemane) but by committing himself totally to a God who is present in the midst of his people for their liberation. In this sense Jesus knew that peace is a gift of God. It is also a task. Justice gives concrete Orientation to our task but every struggle for justice can only be an approximation and there is an ever expanding horizon to our task in the coherence of justice and faith.

5. The struggle for peace and justice generates creative instability

If our concept of peace is integrated with justice then an uncritical acceptance of status quo is not tantamount to achieving peace. We need to change the system in accordance with the demand of justice of the poor. This inevitably means instability and disorder. As S.L. Parmar has pointed out, disorder in itself is not bad, but if it is not directed towards the struggle for justice, it can be destructive. Traditionally Christian thinking has favoured order over justice and hence we are unable to relate meaningfully to the situation of change. But as we have seen God of the Bible is a God of justice and to believe in God of Bible necessarily means accepting a preference for justice over order. This will generate conflict. In such a situation the basic question is not whether we support conflict or not, but how the conflict, disorder can be directed towards peace.

There is a slogan that became popular in SCM circles at one time. In situations of conflict we are called to be peace makers, but in a situation of false peace we are called to create conflict. As young people we raise questions to the patterns, and systems of our society for the sake of better equality and justice and that is our Christian vocation.

6. In a pluralism situation the struggle for peace and justice should be a cooperative effort of the liberative elements in all religions.

Commitment to peace and justice is the essence of religious faith -- this is a conviction shared by many people in all religions -- not Christianity alone.

An EATWOT consultation on “Religion and Liberation” states that all religions, Christianity included, “are in various ways and to various degrees both oppressive and liberative. They are oppressive because they legitimate unjust social systems like apartheid, and caste, and because they create their own special forms of religious unfreedom... But history shows us that religions can be liberative too. They have inspired powerful movements of social protest (like Hebrew prophetism in monarchical Israel, or the bhakti movements in medieval India) which have attacked both the oppressive rigidity of the religious systems themselves, as well as of the unjust socio-economic and political structures of the societies in which these religions flourished” (Voices from the Third World, p. 153)

It is further stated that in the Third World where all religions together face the challenges on enslaving social and cultural systems and the need to struggle for justice, religions should meet each other, exploring and sharing their liberative elements. It calls for the development of a “liberative ecumenism, that is a form of inter-religious dialogue which is concerned not so much with doctrinal insights or spiritual experience that different religions can offer one another, as with the contribution to human liberation that each can make” (Ibid. p. 168).

Here I would like to mention the experience of a contemporary Hindu Swami, Swami Agnivesh. I heard him narrating his search for a dynamic form of spirituality that is meaningful for involvement with the untouchables. He started his work among the poor who had become Christians with a view to reconvert them. Let Swami speak:

As we started working with the people we saw elements of exploitation. In poor farmers houses there was not enough to eat and we would ask ourselves what happened? He is producing all the food, the milk and honey and his children are eating coarse food and the milk is being sold in the market. They produce cotton and not enough clothes on the bodies of their women and children. So this simple question started working on our minds.

But when I came to Haryana and started asking these questions and in the same vein a simple question again came up that we want to fight against Christian missionaries who were among the tribals, untouchables, landless labourers. Why are they forced to accept Christianity and then we knew that the whole society is up against the poor, they are at the bottom of the whole structure of this exploitation and unless and until this exploitation is removed there is conversion into Christianity. And so why nor strike at the root? Unless and until untouchability, disparity, exploitation are wiped out we will not be able to fight.

We analysed religion, here is a religion, where the idols are washed in milk and there is no milk for the children to drink, the rich being overfed and the poor starving and yet the religious leaders have no feelings, why are these big temples empty, why cannot poor people take shelter in these temples. This was the whole system of religion and we hit at the fundamental principle of Hinduism -- that is the karma theory of Hinduism. We are born into this life as we had worked in our previous lives. According to the fruits of our karma. Poor people as you see them poor yes, but they have done very bad things in their previous life and that is why almighty God has given them birth in such a place. That is why you cannot do anything. It is their karma, written on their forehead which we cannot wipe out. If it was written on fingertips or toes it would have been wiped out but it was on their forehead and nothing could be done. So everything is neatly planned and set. We started questioning where is it written?

We had to trace the entire vedic literature and find out who was the enemy of the Arya? It was never a Christian, Hindu, Muslim or a Sikh battle. Struggle is always between Arya on the one hand and Dasyu on the other. What is Dasyu? One who does not toil and lives on the wealth of others is Dasyu or robber and now the lines are drawn. And on the one hand are those Hindus, Muslims or Christians and who do not subscribe to any religion or God but are toiling and on the other those who are exploiting the battle has to be between Arya and Dasyu and not between Hindu, Christian, etc. So this was a clear case of class struggle. (From an unpublished statement).

Similar testimonies and efforts at reinterpretation are found among Muslims, Buddhists and tribal religion. We need to encourage cooperative action for peace and justice what is emerging today is a non-communal face of religious faith which is liberative. As youth, we need to cross over action for peace and justice.

Issues Faced Today

In the light of the perspective on peace and justice outlined above, we need to discuss some of the concrete affirmations.

a) No to Communal Rights but Yes to Human Rights

An exclusive emphasis on minority rights is a denial of our vision of Shalom, the wholeness. We are committed to human rights, the right of the poor and oppressed everywhere and not to communal rights.

When we fight for religious freedom, it is not for the right of Christians alone, but the right of everyone to follow and practise his or her religion. The plight of Christians from Scheduled Castes has assumed a special place in the Church’s agenda now. There is injustice done to them and we need to build up pressure on the government to reconsider its policy. But if we fail to take up the cause of the struggle of all the Scheduled Castes for basic justice, then we appear communal. In a situation where inter-group rivalries are intense, and the entire body politic is considered as a balancing of communal power, it is difficult to keep this perspective alive. But there seems to be no other way by which we can live true to our Christian vision.

b) A Pluralistic, Secular Framework 

The traditional culture in India has been a religious culture in which there was an unbroken unity between society, politics and region. In fact, religion provided the integrating principle and the social structure and political authority were legitimised by it. The break-up of this traditional integration has been the significant aspect of modern awakening of people to the ideas of justice and freedom and technological rationality, the foundation of a secular framework.

Two types of reaction to this are evident. One is the so-called traditionalist approach. It is characterised by a refusal to accept this break-up of traditional integration and the relative autonomy of society and politics and a desperate effort to bring them again under the tutelage of religion. The RSS and other communal ideologies are following this line. This kind of revivalism fails to see the personalistic and dynamic elements of the emerging situation and very often ends up as a struggle to preserve the interests of the elite which had traditionally enjoyed all the privileges.

The other extreme mode of approach is from the modernists. They find the emerging secular society as absolute and reject the past totally. Often it equates modernisation with radical Westernisation. The effort is made to accept uncritically the Western technology, Western politics and Western style of life. From our experience we realise how inadequate and unrealistic this approach is. No people can forget their cultural past.

What we need is a dynamic reinterpretation of the past, taking seriously the new elements of change. The religions should see the relevance of the new secular framework that is emerging. It is based on certain values which they all together can affirm -- the values of justice, equality and participation. Of course, what is sometimes dangerous is a kind of secular attitude that is closed to religion. Any absolutising elements in politics can be termed inhuman and oppressive. A pluralistic outlook is necessary as a viable form of relating one religion to another on the basis of shared values and goals. “We work not for Christian culture but for an open, secular, pluralistic culture informed by and open to the insights of many faiths, including Christian faith.”

Christians have a special role to play. Whatever be the interpretation of the modern change, it cannot be denied that the presence of the Gospel has awakened the humanistic elements of modern secular movements and ideologies. That presence should continue even for the preservation of their integrity.

December 6, 1992, rightly described as a black day” for India is still fresh in our memory. The wild religious frenzy displayed on that day has no parallel in our history except perhaps at the time of partition. The total destruction of a structure associated with a minority religious group and the communal carnage and bloodshed that followed it have inflicted a deep wound in our national psyche. It cannot be healed easily

The incidents that happened on December 6th should not be taken in isolation. There is a fundamentalist upsurge in all religions which threatens the very fabric of our social and collective life. A fundamentalist ideology in any religion generates hatred, suspicion and fears, in the minds of its votaries, towards other religions. At the slightest provocation of hurt to the religious sentiments of a given group, violent conflicts arise, causing untold destruction of lives and property as we have witnessed in the recent riots in Bombay

Organised in a militant way, the fundamentalist groups are determined to capture political power. This has vitiated and distorted our political process. When, blind, religious passion rules the people, they cast aside all norms of justice and the rule of law Politicians of all parties dabble with communal forces and succumbing to their pressures deviate from the path of secular politics. The virtual collapse of the very foundation of our political life caused by fundamentalist forces and the politics of opportunism creates a serious situation which inevitably raises fresh challenges to the churches in India.

Reflecting on the present situation it is now evident that there is a striking link between the marginalisation of the weaker sections and the rampant forms of communalism. It is not surprising that the slums in our cities, where there is an intense struggle for basic necessities, have become scenes of violent conflict, M.N. Srinivas, the eminent sociologist, observes “The richest soil for communal frenzy to build on is poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and slum -- like conditions -- all of which are m plenty in urban India” (India Today, January 16-31, 1993). While speaking to a group of Muslim families who had lost all that they had in recent riots in Bangalore, they told us that the fault was not that they were Muslims or Hindus but they were born poor. The poor in our society are always vulnerable. Violence committed on them is on the increase. They are looted, their women are raped and their hovels are burned.

We have taken many things for granted, especially the idea of Hindu tolerance and the Indian peoples predilection for harmony and non-violence. All these notions are shattered. We are a violent nation; we have become callous to the cry of the weak and defenseless. Rajani Kothari’s incisive analysis of the changes taking place today is worth nothing. He speaks of the threat to the composite culture that India has always been, its community life-style, the whole Indian identity which was the basis of a very decentralized notion of living together, working together, having respect for each other’s diversity, not have a sense of anything being alien. It is that which is under threat. He further states there is the threat to the Indian personality.

“I think the Indian personality is a very fine balance between the aggressive component of human endeavour and the more feminine, soft and cultured conception which tends to integrate various dimensions rather than push along one dimension. That I think is again going to be very difficult.”¹

In this situation of worsening communal disturbances, increasing violence and marginalisation of the weaker section and disintegration of Indian culture and personality, we try to reflect on the tradition of our faith. I believe that the search for a meaningful form of witness to the gospel of reconciliation is of paramount importance for the Church’s mission. Recently, speaking to the new graduates of Sermpore College, Dr. K. Rajaratnam in his Master’s address affirmed, “moments of history of this kind have great opportunities for the Church to witness to her faith in Jesus Christ the Reconciler and his concern for the nation.” I should like to reflect with you on different dimensions of this faith tradition and its relevance to the difficult situation we are facing in the life of the nation.

The Church, A Reconciling Community

The word “reconcile” has come to mean, “to make peace.” Literally it means to restore, to bring back to friendship or union. In accordance with the root of the Greek word Katallaso, it means “to make other” or renew Reconciliation is more than justification: it makes us friends instead of enemies, new human beings. ² “To be reconciled” means to appear sinless before God’s judgement (Col. 1:22), to live in peace (Col. 2:20, Eph. 2:15) a new human being (Eph. 2:15),a new creation (II Cor. 5:17), finally in Col. 1:20 even the reconciliation of the heavenly beings with God. It envisages a totally new relationship that transcends personal and corporate structures of hostilities.

St. Paul in all his letters develops this theme. N.T scholars agree that reconciliation is an interpretative key to Paul’s theology “If we are pressed to suggest a simple term that summarizes his (Paul’s) message, the word reconciliation will be the “chief theme” or centre of his missionary and pastoral thought and practise.” T.N. Manson writes, “The driving force behind the Gospel is the love of God”. The modus operandi is reconciliation.” ³

Reflecting on this theme in Paul, I am struck by his intense awareness of the many conflicts, and problems of divisions and fragmentations, that prevailed in his time, and his conviction that they can be overcome by the message of reconciliation of God in Christ. The conflicts are many and varied but there is a contemporary ring to them: irrational prejudices, ethnic tension, cultural crisis, social discrimination and economic domination were all present in all the conflicts of the time. Jewish Gentile relationship is the immediate context within which Paul reflects on his faith. It was fraught with these conflicts. The “wall of partition” in Ephesians stands for the whole system of Jewish piety and legal observances which constituted a barrier to fellowship between Jew and Gentile. This impregnable fortress was supported by Jewish self-righteousness, or religious fundamentalism.

We cannot attempt an exhaustive study of the concept of reconciliation. But permit me to mention some of the salient points which are particularly relevant for our discussion:

i) Reconciliation is the power that transforms all aspects of human relationships. Although Paul addresses himself to the Jewish Gentile conflict, he places the reality of reconciliation in the larger setting of God’s purposes for a cosmic renewal. This includes the defeat of demonic principalities and powers; breaking the barriers of separation that divided the ancient society -- Jewish-Gentile; slave-free; and male -female and the well-being or healing of persons who are afflicted by inner conflicts.

Paul’s concept of reconciliation should be seen against the background of a broad biblical vision of God’s reconciling and peace making mission. This vision is best expressed by the beautiful Hebrew word, Shalom. It is the vision of a new heaven and a new earth, the eschatological projection of perfect order where all people live as a single family. The relationship among humans and between humans and nature enhance the quality of life and it becomes the primary focus of God’s transforming activity. When there is a rupture or distortion in this web of relationship, then peace is denied. I believe that the centre of our faith is this vision which was made a concrete reality in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To live by this vision and to affirm its dynamic relevance in this conflict ridden situation should be the starting point of our reflection.

ii) Reconciliation is a process of reversal and subversion. It is not a “patching up” of differences between people. Unless there is a radical change in the mode and the logic of existing relationship, there cannot be reconciliation. Relationship based on patronising or even tolerating the other is not reconciliation. It should come about by an active engagement between peoples and groups. Paul is clear on this, when he argues against imposing Jewish ceremonial laws as a condition on the Gentiles for becoming Christians. That would have meant one community accepting the dominance of another. But he was convinced that God’s reconciliation invalidates the logic of the system that maintains division and separation. Paul knew very well that human proneness for self-justification is what maintains them. Like Jesus, he too saw the sin of self-righteousness as that which keeps us far from God’s mercy and love. It is self-righteousness that breeds fundamentalist ideologies and makes religious groups impervious to change. A new relationship based on a new logic of faith alone can bring about the necessary change. It is m this sense that we talk about subversion and reversal.

iii) The affirmation that the ground of peace in this world is God’s reconciliation of the world in Jesus Christ. He is our peace (Eph. 2:14). God in solidarity with all humanity is the source of renewal. There is a sense in which this reconciliation precedes all our consciousness of it. The power of Christ is greater than our sin. The new reality is already offered to us in his calling. It is precisely this new reality which makes us aware of our division and of the false pretensions of the system of peace we have established. Only when we have confronted our neighbour no longer within a framework which lets us explain him away, but in all of God’s promises for his peace even when they conflict with what we think is ours, and in all his claims on us, does reconciliation gain its proper urgency “Now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of two, so making peace” (Eph. 2: 13-15).

iv) Jesus, the Universal peace-maker; is inaugurating a new humanity. The dividing wall set up by enmity is broken down and the divided community is made one through reconciliation with each other. This reconciliation is only possible through the love which Christ showed on the cross.

The reconciled community is again set within the larger framework of God’s work of peace-making.

Some scholars see Eph. 2:14-16 as part of a Christian hymn whose first two strophes have been preserved in Colossians 1:15-17 and 18-20

Strophe I  The unity of all things in creation Col. 2:15-17

Strophe II The unity of all things in redemption Col. 1:18-20

Strophe III The unity of the races in the church Eph. 2:14-16

The new community is the “paradigmatic instrument in the unification and pacification of the world”. Breaking down the walls of division has reference to the conflict between the Jews and the nations, but it could apply to all the groups in society. When a communal clash arose between Hindus and Muslims in Kerala in 1947, Mahatma Gandhi sent a cable to people who mediated saying: “Pray Muslims show a Christian attitude to Hindus”. What a mix up of terms! But Gandhi understood the essence of the Christian Gospel. In Christ we can no longer define ourselves in terms of our opposing interests, our communities that exclude each other, our caste securities and the like, but only in relation to one another and as members of the household of God.

The Church Witnessing to Reconciliation

The Church is called to participate in the mission of divine peace making. But, by and large, our churches are mere spectators incapable of responding to the situations of violence and communal tension. Many of them are divided among themselves and preoccupied with narrow communal or group interests. We have lost our moral credibility to be peacemakers in God’s world. How can we be inspired by a new vision for peacemaking? How do we find means or patterns of Christian life and practice that are faithful to the call for peacemaking in an increasingly violent and divided situation?

I do not pretend to have answers to all these. But I want to mention some of the models of peacemaking that emerged in the Church and commend some broad direction for our corporate action.

Service as the Ministry of Reconciliation

Inspired by the love of Christ, the Church has moved into situation of need, providing service to the victims of society. The service institutions and programmes of charity of the church have been and continue to be a source of comfort and succour to the needy regardless of caste or religion. As we have noted in the first chapter, in times of communal clashes, between Hindus and Muslims the church took care of refugees from both sides.

It is not surprising that Mother Teresa is being loved and respected throughout India by all sections of people. She speaks the language of love and compassion and her act of love is not motivated by selfish gain. If we accept the love of Christ as the basis of reconciliation, then the expression of it through charitable and service programmes are important form of reconciling mission.

We are today called upon to be in solidarity with many other groups who are made helpless in modern society The needs of the handicapped should receive serious attention. Children with multiple handicaps are now about 2% of the population and in the slum the proportion is higher. With special training some of them can be helped. But the mentally disabled most often have to be cared for. One of the problems created by urbanisation is the care of the aged. Institutional care of the aged and handicapped is the model that has come from the West. But they need to be modified and the participation of communities is essential.

Reconciliation and people’s movements

In service the church is committed to the care for the victims of society, but the church has the responsibility of creating just structures that are necessary to reduce many forms of suffering -- especially the suffering that is caused by deprivation, inhumanity and violence.

We need to be aware of the structures and forces that shape our attitudes to and relationships with one another. Poverty, for example is not an accident, nor the result of fate, laziness or drunkenness. There are structural causes -- faulty economic developments, political decisions, and policies that favour the rich and a cultural system that excludes the poor. Only with an awareness of such factors can we think of meaningful strategies of change. The movements that focus their attention on such structural questions have helped us to redefine our mission priorities. The marginalised Dalits, tribals and women -- and their struggle for dignity and justice have raised the question of power that influences our relationships with different groups who control power whether it is economic, political or cultural. Which are the groups that have been excluded from power?

These questions are necessary for bringing about a just relationship. Without justice, reconciliation can be a temporary truce. A systemic change is envisioned by these movements. In this they stand in the tradition of the prophets. Walter Brueggemann notes,

The prophet Amos is known for his strictures against the distortion of justice. We usually have not understood that Amos concerns are not with incidental acts of injustice, but with the systematic economic distortion in which the royal-urban managers participate.⁴

A question is often raised about the relation between reconciliation and the struggle for justice, especially since the latter generates conflicts. The struggle for justice creates conflicts with the powers of establishment that are against change. We need change in accordance with the demand of justice. This inevitably means instability and disorder. As S.L. Parmar has pointed out, disorder in itself is not bad, but if it is not directed towards the struggle for justice, it can be destructive. Traditionally Christian thinking has favoured order over justice and hence we are unable to relate meaningfully to situation of change. But faith in the God of the Bible necessarily means accepting a preference for justice over order. This will generate conflict. In such a situation the basic question is not whether we support conflict or not but how the conflict, disorder can be directed towards peace with justice.

Conflict was very much part of Jesus’ ministry of Shalom. That seems to be the experience of people who follow Jesus. They are at odds with the inhuman and unjust values and structures of dominant society. Jesus was able to bear up the conflict not by retreating into a spirituality that is preoccupied with his own security but by committing himself totally to a God who is present in the midst of his people for their liberation. In this sense Jesus knows that peace is a gift of God. It is also a task. Justice gives concrete orientation to our task but every struggle for justice can only be an approximation and there is an ever expanding horizon to our task in the coherence of justice and faith.

iii) Liberative Solidarity: While we affirm the centrality of the struggle for justice for our mission we need to be sensitive about a danger to which the movements for justice are exposed. To gain more justice the powerless should have power. But if the structure and Orientation of newly gained power follow the same pattern as that of the dominant groups, then today’s oppressed will turn into tomorrows oppressors. History bears this out. I believe that reconciliation is Jesus’ way to avoid this.

Jesus identified with the aspirations of the people for a new age, but his strategy was different from the political messianism of his day There is a difference between Jesus’ messianism or messianic servanthood and ruler-messianism or political messianism.

Both the terms, “messianism” and messiah often indicate a certain “fanaticism” and describe a hero or elitist cult. Such kind of messianism is present in all histories. But the true messianism emerges from the suffering people and identifies with the sufferings of the people. The crucified messiah is on the side of the people, posing a radical challenge to all forms of political, royal and power messianism. Hence all powers must be under the rule of Jesus, the messiah, who came to be a servant of the people, who died for them, and who rose from the dead that we may rise from the power of death historically and not just at the end of time.

It was hard even for his own disciples to understand his concept of servant messianism. They shared with others the expectation of a political messianism which can be achieved by striking an alliance with political rulers or by a head-on dash with them. Jesus seems to have rejected both these options. He thus differed with the Zealots on the nature of the Kingdom and the power by which it comes. “Jesus chose the power of God’s weakness over against the ultimate weakness of coercive human power. He chose sacrificial love over revolutionary violence not because he was anti-revolutionary but because the revolution of God which he represented was radical and total.”⁵

His identification with the powerless was total as it is revealed on the cross. All who cry from the depths of suffering and despair find an ally in him.

According to the gospel, Jesus willingly surrendered himself to the will of God and even in the darkness of death he trusted God. Easter faith proclaims that God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead, thus declaring him to be the expression of God’s own life and Kingdom.

The meaning of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus for our understanding of God is this: God was not a distant spectator but was decisively present, speaking, acting and suffering in all that Jesus did and in all that happened to him. In Jesus’ acts of solidarity with the poor and lowly, God acts. In the suffering of Jesus, God suffers. The full force of human alienation, hostility and injustice are experienced by God in the passion and death of Jesus.

This is the liberative solidarity that reorients our value system and power constellations and ushers in a new order. It is possible only if we enter into the life of others, especially the suffering with openness and compassions. For the spiritual resources for a new orientation should emerge from the collective experience of the poor and the marginalised. Liberative solidarity is the channel of those resources. This is the only option left to us in this difficult situation of conflict and blind fury of religious passion.

The emphasis on the poor is not new. But often they are the object of charity or they are being managed and manipulated by social engineers. In liberative solidarity model, the poor become subjects. Values embedded in their collective life and in their struggle for survival will be decisive for shaping a new order.

This model comes with poignancy when we try to respond to the ecological crisis. In order to evolve an alternate form of development which is wholistic and more humane we need to listen to the experiences of the indigenous and tribal people -- their communitarian life and their bond with the earth. They are for science and technology, but not for a neutral kind of scientism that willingly allows itself to be used by the elite for producing armaments. They are for industry but not industry that destroys the ecological balance and causes pollution. In short, they are asking for a system that accepts the interest of the poor as the central concern. For this we need to question and reject the accepted policies and the logic of the present economic order. That requires tremendous moral and spiritual courage. But then the Jesus who rejected the dominative power in solidarity with the poor beckons us to do it. Our task is critical, as well as pointing to new directions.

Conclusion Personal Testimony

In keeping with the purpose of this lecture, I want to share with you a personal experience that helps me depend my own commitment to liberative solidarity as a mode of Christian witness.

Both my wife and I have the responsibility of caring for our brain injured child. It is difficult and demanding but the insights we gain from that experience are spiritually uplifting. One of the difficulties We face when we try to relate with brain injured children is the problem of communication. They do not follow the normal pattern of discourse and there is no use trying to make them conform to it. They have a world of their own. The only way in which we can communicate to our daughter is by finding the ‘right code’ to enter into her world. My wife is able to do it but not others. In order to communicate with our daughter we have to change. With sensitive awareness and sympathy her world becomes our world. Liberative Solidarity is a process by which we see reality as the poor see it and in togetherness build new community.

Note:

1. Rajani Kothari, Beyond Darkness, (CIEDS Collective, 1990).

2. Edward Schillebeeck, Christ, (New York: Cross Road, 1988).

3. Quoted in Ralph Martin, Reconciliation, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981).

4. Walter Brueggemann, Interpretation and Obedience (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 199), p. 273

5. David Miglior, Called to Freedom, (Philadelphia : Westminster Press) p. 55.

Today the very concept and purpose of Christian mission is called into question not only by Christians themselves but also by non-Christian thinkers who are sympathetic to the good news. A mere consideration of the problem of missionary personnel and finance or methods of missionary involvement does not settle the present crisis in mission. The crisis is partly connected with upheavals in theological thought and partly related to our fresh appreciation of the profound changes that are taking places in society at large. The Church’s understanding of its witness to the gospel of Christ as that of the crusader and the inquisitor, and the goal of its evangelistic activity as proselytisation, was admirably suited to the theology of the colonial era, and conformed to the practices of imperialist expansion of the major western powers in Asia. Today we reject this crusading model on the basis of new insights into the gospel of Jesus Christ and our growing awareness of the revolutionary upsurge of submerged peoples in Asia to affirm their humanity.

People who reject this model, however, are driven to all sorts of social action projects, development goals and humanist ideologies -- all, in the name of Christian mission. Missionaries have become project holders and mission funding agencies. This to my mind is an easy option out of a complex situation. The mission of the Church has to be rooted in Jesus Christ alone. The prime need of the church today is to continue its search for new forms of obedience to Christ in the given situation in Asia.

In this paper I want to suggest that serious attention should be paid to a life-style that is appropriate to the Gospel for developing a relevant form of Christian witness. I would further suggest that the life-style we develop should be the life-style of a community that is open to the power of its Lord and Master. John R. Mott once asked Gandhi about his views on Christian mission. Gandhi replied, “you can only preach through your life. The rose does not say, ‘come and smell me’. There is no truer or other evangelism than life’.’

It is more important for the church to realise that the true basis and form of its witness in society is God’s transforming work in Christ, which has cosmic and social significance. Biblical faith also affirms that the witness to this reality is a community endeavour or a people’s movement, true to its origin m a covenant relation. Of course, the dynamic of the movement is not of our making, generated and released from within ourselves, but the transforming power of Christ himself. Our witness is a response to this. Its form and style are that of the Suffering Servant, the self emptying love of Christ. The Church’s witness is to conform to this style of life in the given context

A Theological Interpretation

In modern time it is Bonhoeffer who has forced upon theological thinking the question about life-style. A consideration of the main thrust of his views will be helpful. It is basic to a right understanding of Bonhoeffer to realise that this radical interpretation of the Christian gospel in secular terms, non-religious language, is only half of the Church’s task in the modem world. The other, and more difficult half, is “the raising up of Christians who witness to their Lord in the midst of the world through an appropriate style of life.”²

Bonhoeffer has given serious thought to this. John Godsey, in his interpretation of Bonhoeffer’s thought, has stated this clearly The whole question of man’s language and its ability to express meaning -- the hermeneutical question has been raised in a decisive way, and for the Church it has become acute with respect to the translation of the meaning of the biblical language into the language of the twentieth century Many consider this an altogether academic problem. But for Bonhoeffer, it was not merely the question of finding the proper language, although obviously it is important when one wants to express oneself non-religiously that is without making religion the precondition of faith. The more basic question for Bonhoeffer was whether our lives authenticate or belie our words.³

The radical character of Christian life as envisaged by Bonhoeffer can be brought out by a consideration of his concept of conformation. In his Ethics he sets forth the idea of conformation and there he advances it as the key to a genuinely Christological ethics. ‘The way in which the form of Jesus Christ takes form in the world “is the central concern of his ethics:

The Holy Scriptures speak of formation in a sense which is at first entirely unfamiliar to us. Their primary concern is not with the forming of a world by means of plans and programmes. Whenever they speak of forming, they are concerned only with the one form which has overcome the world, the form of Jesus Christ....Formation comes only by being drawn into the form of Jesus Christ. It comes only as formation in His likeness, as conformation which the unique form of him who was made man, was crucified, and rose again.⁴

The form of Christ is not a “religious” pattern; rather it is the pattern of true manhood, the man for others.

To be conformed with the Incarnate -- that is to be a real man. It is man’s right and duty that he should be man. The quest for superman, the endeavour to outgrow the man within the man, the pursuit of the heroic, the cult of the demigod, all this is not the proper concern of man, for it is untrue...

...To be conformed with the Incarnate is to have the right to be the man one really is. Now there is no more pretense, no more hypocrisy or self-violence, no more compulsion to be something other, better and more ideal than what one is. God loves the real man. God became a real man.⁵

To be conformed to Christ is also “participation in the sufferings of God in the secular life.”⁶ The participation in suffering is not the self mortification of an ascetic. It is metanoia.

Again, Bonhoeffer rejects a religious definition of metanoia: “That is metanoia: not in the first place thinking about one’s own needs, problems, sins, and fears, but allowing oneself to be caught up in the way of Jesus Christ, into the messianic event.” Christ in the messianic event is the Suffering Servant who fulfills Isaiah 53. Bonhoeffer lists examples of a variety of people in the New Testament who were caught up into the messianic suffering. They were not “sinners” in the conventional sense: the call to discipleship, Jesus’ table-fellowship with sinners, the “conversion” of Zaccheus; the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:36-50): Jesus’ healing of the sick: Jesus’ acceptance of children, the shepherds, and the wise men who were present at Jesus’ birth; the centurion of Capemaum; the rich young ruler; the Eunuch (Acts 8), and Cornelius; Nathaniel, Joseph of Arimathea and the women at the tomb. “The only thing that is common to all these is their sharing in the suffering of God in Christ; that is their faith”.⁷

That faith is described thus:

We throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world -- watching with Christ in Gethsemane. That, I think, is faith, that is metanoia; and that is how one becomes a man and a Christian (cf. Jer. 45). How can success make us arrogant, or failure lead us astray, when we share in God’s sufferings, through a life of this kind? ⁸

This is metanoia, the life that participates in the sufferings of God or the mode of existence of the servant. It is a life that is freed from the false securities of individual as well as collective life. No more does the burden of the past weigh down on the person who is in this life. Accepting “vicarious action”⁹ as the controlling principle, it eschews an absolutising of one’s own ego or of the other person, either of which would deny its origin, essence, and goal of responsible life in Jesus Christ.¹⁰

Moltmann calls this style of Christian life a “messianic life-style”.

The Christian life-style is characterised and shaped by the Gospel. ‘Let the manner of your life be worthy of the Gospel of Christ’, says Paul in Philippians 1:27. The life of the Christian is messianically qualified by the Gospel, for the Gospel is the call into the freedom of the messianic time.¹¹

Freedom is characteristic of this life-style. It is not determined by prohibitions and restraints and the desire to “be someone other than who we really are”. A life in conformity with the Gospel “liberates us to be ourselves and fills us with the power of the Spirit”.¹²

Messianic life-style is marked by tension as it assumes the responsibility for the world and enters into its conflicts. Moltmann points out that Bonhoeffer rejected easy alternatives in regard to a Christian’s orientation to the world. On the one hand he rejected “the world-denying piety” and on the other he also resisted a “banal secularity”.

The orientation of the beyond which wants to have God without his Kingdom and the salvation of the soul without the new earth, ends up basically only in establishing an orientation to this world which builds its Kingdom without God and wants to have the new earth without a new heaven. The worldless, God of the one and the Godless world of the other, the faith without hope of the one and the hope without faith of the other, mutually confirm each other.¹³

Church as People’s Movement

The messianic life-style or the form of the servant is the life-style of a community. That has been the assumption all along. Bonhoeffer says “The Church is... Christ himself who has taken form among us”.¹⁴ So the form of the Servant in a real way characterises the life and witness of the Church. Concretely it is the life and witness of a local community --the congregation.

The Church in a real sense is a people’s movement and the Christian witness becomes a community endeavour, through its origin in a covenant relation -- with this difference: that the dynamic is not of our making, generated and released from within ourselves. “Christian life-style is created by the Spirit when we personally and in community bind our life with the life of Christ and understand our life-history as a small part of God’s great history of the liberating world.”¹⁵

The Church in Asia should consider seriously the implications of the idea that the Church is a people’s movement for developing this life-style. Moltmann has made a useful distinction between “the Church for the people” and “the Church of the people”.¹⁶ This is helpful for our discussion. Underlying much of the programmes, administrative structures and even the mission of our churches is the view that we are the Church for the people. “The church wants of course to do something for the people. But precisely in doing this it proves that it does not belong to the people.”¹⁷

The messianic life-style, however, is different. Jesus was a man of the people. Moltmann asks, “Did Jesus become.... the saviour for the people or the Messiah of the people?” Jesus moved with the disqualified ochlos and he saw himself in this people. They were not objects of his love, but subjects of his messianic Kingdom. That gives the direction to the life and witness of the Church.

Where is the true Church? The true Church is where Christ is. Christ is present in the mission of the believers and the suffering of the “least of these”. His community is therefore the brotherhood of the believers and the poor, the losers and the imprisoned, the hopers and the sick. The apostolate says what the Church is; “the least of these” say where the Church belongs. Only if the Church realises in itself this double brotherhood of Christ does it really live in the presence of the crucified and exalted Christ.¹⁸

This new perspective of the Church of the people takes the Church along the messianic path, and the Church in Asia, the congregation, should reorder its life and witness in this style, truly becoming a Church of the people. That is the crux of its social witness.

As an example of this way of witness, a concrete experience of a congregation may be mentioned here. St. Marks Cathedral (Church of South India), Bangalore, started a programme of social action in one of the slums in the city. The slum had all the usual problems -- poverty, unemployment, poor housing and lack of sanitation. Besides these, the community was divided along caste groupings, and clashes between them were a daily occurrence. At first, the work was carried out by trained social workers and other paid workers. Soon it was obvious that as a result of the church’s work, a group was being created which was dependent on a richer institution. The emergence of this new group was only adding fuel to social and communal antagonism. The people were the objects of charity and there was little or no effect on the overall development towards a new community After some time it was discovered that there was a small Christian congregation in the area. The presence of the congregation created a problem as well as an opportunity for a meaningful witness. Their life-style caused embarrassment as it was not different from that of the other sections of the community And progress which had the label “Christian was immediately associated with this congregation’s life-style, which was nothing commendable. Realizing this problem, the strategy for witness had to be changed. It was clear that an awareness by this congregation, of its loyalty to Christ and the life and action corresponding to it alone were the ways by which one could speak to the larger community The congregation was challenged to consider seriously the implications of its commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for its responsibility to the society. Then the dynamic of our involvement changed. The members of the congregation became the real actors and communicators of the Gospel. Certainly, they needed guidance support, and help in reinterpreting the meaning of the Gospel in terms of their needs. But their participation in the joys and problems and plans of their slum-mates and a style of life appropriate to their faith made a big difference.

Some of the early missionaries who were sensitive to the questions of the style of life bear witness to the same experience. The young C.E Andrews, when he joined St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, as a missionary interviewed many “ leading Indian converts” and enquired of them “the special causes which had led them to become Christians...” Here is what Andrews found:

One after another omitted that cause which I should have imagined to be primary -- namely the longing for personal salvation... Many replied that it was the freedom of Christian life compared with the bondage of caste -- the attraction of the Christian brotherhood. Others stated that it was the thought of Christ uniting all the divided races and peoples of India into one -- the ideal of the Christian Church.¹⁹

The Christian fellowship was considered the basis of Christian faith. It is true that in later years the Christian Church in India got itself isolated from the larger community into “mission compounds” and denominations, and began to rust and indeed, turning into an exclusive Christian caste or closed communal group, instead of being an open, outgoing fellowship in the larger society. But the moment the Church broke this isolation it made a significant impact on society In the first chapter we have already referred to the study of J. P. Alter and H. Jai Singh on the church in Delhi. They pointed out that in providing refuge to the victims of communal dashes during the partition the Church broke its life of isolation and found a way to be in solidarity with the suffering.²⁰

The same study gives a description to the life and witness of the Church in the rural areas of the Punjab:

Evangelism as we have been using the term has referred to the formal concept, the programme of the Church, the behaviour of the organised “Ecclesia”, the programmes of district staffs, of church councils,, conferences, diocesan committees and the life. But there is another; perhaps deeper and more significant, level of evangelism and witness. This Is the level of individual and small group encounter with the world and its response at the level of Koinonia. This level of encounter is organised, informal, non-ecclesiastical. In the Punjab, the hope and despair of the organized church lie in the fact that this “Koinonia” is the active level of rural Church “mission” rather than the “Ecclesia” level.²¹

The point is that the life-style of the congregation assumes crucial significance for the Church’s encounter with a society which is ridden by casteism and other problems of community living. Already such encounters are taking place at the informal “Koinonia” level. The Church in India as a whole should be challenged to consider the significance of the life-style of its congregations for a genuine encounter with the society

We are by no means suggesting that the Church should be confined to the institutional boundaries of a particular religious organization. There are those who do not belong to the visible community but are part of the Church as the community of Gods people. But we hold that only in relation to a community that acknowledges its Lordship to Christ and lives together in fellowship can we speak of the Church, even about the invisible Church. That is why the local congregation assumes a central significance when we speak about Christian witness.

Speaking to a group of theological students in India, a layman has voiced this concern of taking the congregation seriously:

We in the secular world are learning that an organization is as strong as -- not its weakest link, but its smallest unit. Is there any reason why this should not be true about the Church as well, definitely in the sociological sense, and possibly also in the spiritual sense? If so, the renewal of the Church in India can come only in and through its thousands of local congregations. In fact, my growing conviction is that the only real Church is the parish congregation held together in common worship..... So to make the Church related to the world is to make the parish related to its locality. To develop a social concern for the Church is to sensitise the parish to the society around it? ²²

This can be done only by living among people as people, sharing in their joys and sufferings, entering into their perplexities and anxieties and understanding their achievements and failures, and also their goals and plans.

Today many of the local congregations in India have the appearance of in-grown communities, closed enclaves which bear more resemblance to “castes” than to “churches” in the real sense of the term. They often live in a ghetto-type of community, not simply because they themselves wish to live in isolation from the wider Hindu society

We assume that the servant model, the messianic life-style, with its emphasis on being with the people in all struggles, will provide a new direction to the Church in India. And this may well be true of churches in other parts of Asia.

Some Specific Concerns

We have discussed in general terms the significance of the messianic life-style for providing direction and content for our mission. Some specific concerns ought to be raised m this context Here again I can take examples only from India

(a) Mission is Solidarity with the Poor

There is no denying the fact that the overwhelming problem in many countries in Asia is poverty. Poverty, economically understood, is the deprivation of certain basic necessities of life -- chiefly food, shelter, and clothing. It has also to do with a certain minimum level of economic security --reasonable assurance that the basic necessities of life will continue to be met in the foreseeable future.

What strikes us as the most disturbing feature of the present situation is the continuance of mass poverty in spite of all the talk about socialist development. The following statement adopted by a Christian consultation is somewhat typical of the present trends in economic development in India.

An evaluation of the performance of the economy during the past quarter of a century presents a sordid picture. It is officially recognised that over 40 percent of our people, i.e., some 250 million, still live in dire poverty without having means to satisfy the basic necessities of life. It has been established also that inequalities in income have increased with the gulf between the rich and the poor becoming more pronounced. In spite of many land reform measures in the statute books, land still remains concentrated in the hands of the landlords who exert tremendous political influence in the rural area. The hold of monopoly power over economy has increased. Unemployment has been increasing and unemployment among the educated youth has reached alarming proportions. Prices have been soaring, providing high profits for a few and misery and deprivation for many. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that we have been moving in a socialist direction.²³

Such faulty developments clearly mean poverty cannot be understood purely in economic terms. The richness and poorness of man cannot be measured in terms of the quantity or variety of goods he produces or consumes. Personal and group egoism, lack of concern for the poor, failure to struggle for justice and for the freedom and dignity of all -- these are manifestations of spiritual poverty.

The struggle against poverty has thus to be gauged on both fronts simultaneously. On the economic level, all have to unite to assure a minimum standard of living to all people everywhere, so that all can meaningfully and with dignity participate in the production and distribution of goods and so that all are assured of the necessities of life. It is in the struggle for economic justice that one can begin to grow to the fullness of one’s moral and spiritual stature with freedom and dignity, created in the image of God to be creator of the good.

At another level there is need for challenging the false values that undergird much of the present-day economic development. No section of a society has the right to go on increasing its own standard of living without at the same time contributing in the measure of its economic and political strength to the establishment of a just order. This requires a change in one’s perspective and is in that sense a “spiritual” struggle.

A noted economist in India has voice the same concern m the following words:

It is essential to introduce a desirable minimum and a permissible maximum into an economic system. There is generally wide support to the need for a desirable minimum for all. But this would be incomplete unless it is linked up with a permissible, maximum... The logic of such a minimum/maximum would be a simplification of life-styles, a reduction of wants, and a dethronement of the materialism that governs economic and social decisions. That would be in consonance with, the ethics of love that tends to be articulated and affirmed in principle by Christians, but is still to become the basic determinant of a new way of life. ²⁴

It is significant that a style of life that will help give a new direction to the economic development is envisaged as the form of Christian witness in economics. This is the style of the servant.

Here it is not a question of idealising poverty, but rather of taking it on as it is -- an evil -- to protest against it and to struggle to abolish it. The Church’s tradition regards poverty voluntarily chosen for spiritual ends as a virtue. The poor in spirit have consciously detached themselves from possessions in order to be free to be available for service of others. Gutierrez has rightly stated that “Christian poverty an expression of love, is solidarity with the poor and is protest against poverty”²⁵ In fact, this is the essential character of an ethical posture of the servant. -

(b) Mission is Empowering the Powerless

Solidarity with the poor means entering into their struggle for justice. The cry of the poor is for justice and not for charity. As we have noted earlier, there is a system that produces and perpetuates poverty -- a system of exploitation which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Only when there is a radical change in this system of exploitative structures can we expect to have any justice for the poor in India. The question which assumes great significance is how to transform the exploitative structures into instruments of greater justice?

A two-fold answer can be given to this. First, this will be possible only when there is a subjective readiness on the part of the people victimised by the society at large to engage in a struggle for the removal of exploitation. Their consciousness has to be awakened to the necessity and legitimacy of such a struggle.

A concomitant concern is for the poor to have more power by organised action to exercise control over the process of decision-making in society. Speaking about modernization, M.M. Thomas has correctly observed.

While technological advance, agricultural and industrial development and modernization of social structures are necessary, they accentuate the pathological exploitative characteristics of traditional society while destroying their traditional humanizing aspects, if the traditional power structures and the social institutions in which they are embodied remain unchanged.²⁶

In other words, unless there is a change in the existing power relations in favour of the powerless, no justice will be achieved. It is essentially a sharing of power so that counter-power is built up against internal and external forces of domination.

Both these steps are directed towards a process by which the poor acquire power for justice. This may raise a question in our minds as to whether the power-acquiring process is m conformity with messianic life-style. The model of submissive suffering has often been taken as a basis for exhorting the oppressed to patience. It has less frequently been taken by those groups which are in power, including the church, that the model of suffering servant, if applied to themselves, would mean a relinquishing of power in the service of the oppressed.

Perhaps what we need is a correct perspective of power itself. In a consultation of Asian Christian leaders on development, power is defined as “energy controlled by man and utilized by him to achieve freely chosen ends”²⁷ This is a helpful definition. The sources of power are many -- economic capacity knowledge and skill, political rights and the physical, moral, and spiritual forces of people. In this sense all power can be considered as a gift from God.

But when power is used in a way that creates, supports, or promotes injustice, or tramples upon the freedom and dignity of persons, it is evil. One may agree with the findings of the Tokyo consultation on development:

Power is best used when it serves justice in the forward movement to the full liberation of man. All men have the need and the obligation to participate not only in the struggle for the liberation of man from all forms of oppression, exploitation and ignorance, but also in the positive effort to master all wisdom and power in love so that all may attain to the fullness of the liberty of the children of God.²⁸

Power should be understood as an essential ingredient of a mature, responsible life. In that sense there is no conflict with the life-style suggested. As we have seen in the discussion of Bonhoffer, the life of participating in the suffering metanoia is an existence in which power is transformed for responsible human relationship. The important point is how power, when it is acquired, is used. There should be a movement from the egoistic concentration of power to the power that is transformed for service.

(c) Mission is Subversive

The foreignness of the missionary enterprise has been a source of embarrassment to the churches in Asia. Being sensitive to this, the churches endeavour to be more indigenous in their worship, structure and outreach. Today, the churches in many parts of Asia are being accused as anti-national and subversive because of their missionary work This new charge against the churches has to be faced seriously.

Understood rightly, Jesus’ mission was subversive in character. He was committed to the task of turning the most cherished values and laws of his society upside down. He saw In them so many fetters that held people’s consciousness in bondage. He wanted a new set of values, a new consciousness to be replaced by them. Jesus was nailed to the cross as a subversive. The religious and political authorities did not kill, by regrettable error, a good man. They knew Jesus was dangerous, although he never used a sword; he used language and symbols that challenged and threatened the validity of the world sustained by the dominant powers.

The Church that re-enacts the message of Jesus the subversive should not be subservient to the privileged sections of society. It stands for the invalidation of values and system that keep people in bondage and to be willing agent for the ushering in of a future of total freedom and joy

Recently, there has been some discussion on Christian mission in the secular press in India. This was in connection with the political agitation that caused virtual breakdown of life in Assam and the North Eastern border states of India. This area is predominantly Christian and the centre of missionary activity. The government openly stated that the agitation was engineered and sustained by none other than foreign missionaries. In the discussion that followed many were led to believe that mission (any Christian activity whether by nationals or foreigners) was responsible for political disturbances. There is, however, enough evidence to believe -- and objective reporters testify to it -- that the agitation came out of legitimate economic and political grievances of the people who have been neglected and treated as second-class citizens by the majority for a long time. There is an upheaval in their consciousness of this injustice and their due rights. Definitely the foreign missionaries contributed generally through their educational and other activities in creating self-awareness in these submerged sections about their rights. The government is finding a scapegoat for their omissions in the foreign mission. It is true that such an upsurge and heightened consciousness of the people would not have been possible without the work of mission. In this sense, and not government says, mission is subversive and the Church should own it and face the consequences.

It is interesting that in a neighboring State, Mother Teresa is conducting a mission of charity, looking after the dying and discarded human beings. Her work is acclaimed by one and all, and she has received honours from the government. However laudable and Christian her work is, it does not challenge the system and therefore the powers - that - be are happy. But if mission is directed towards the organization of the poor or resulted in creating a new consciousness among the oppressed about their rights, then it is accused as anti-national. In many countries in Asia we are increasingly facing these two alternatives -- either to take seriously the subversive character of mission and face its consequence or to carry on with activities -- charitable, developmental, and others -- which will not cause any tremor in the existing system of things. Yet we know that the messianic life-style is a call to live dangerously, in the path of a subversive. Can we take this life-style seriously?

One may go on raising other areas of specific concern. But my main objective in this paper has been to suggest a way of looking at mission, not necessarily concentrating our attention on programmes and projects and methods. When we discuss mission can we take seriously the question of the life-style of the congregation that is true to our witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Notes:

1.Mahatma Gandhi, The Collected Works (Abmedabad : Navajvan Thrust, 1976). p. 37.

2. James W. Woelfel, Bonhoeffer’s Theology - Classical and Revolutionary (New York Abingdon 1970). P. 253.

3.John D. Godsey(ed) Preface to Bonhoeffer The Man and Two of His shorter writings (Philadelphia : Fortress press, 1965) p. 21.

4. Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 18.

5. Ibid. p. 18-19.

6. Letters from Prison, ed. by Eberhard Bethage (New York: Macmillan, and London S.C.M. Press. 1967). p. 198.

7. Ibid. p. 199.

8. Ibid. p. 202.

9. Communion of Saints (New York: Harper and Row, 1961). p. 114

10. John Godsey The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia Westminister Press. 1960). p. 233.

11. Jurgen Moltmann, The Passion for Life (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1978). p. 38.

12. Ibid. p. 38

13. Ibid. p. 42

14. Bonhoeffer. Ethics. p. 20

15. Moltmann, The Passion for Life. p. 48.

16. Ibid, p.99

17. Ibid, p.99

18: Ibid, p. 105.

19. C.F. Andrews, The Renaissance in India (Madras: CLS, 1913), p. 30.

20. James P. Alter et al., The Church as Christian Community p.35

21. Ibid, p. 196.

22. CT. Kurien, For a Renewal of the Church in India in National Christian Council Review (Vol. XCVII, No. 4, April 1977). p. 192.

23. The Guardian, Vol. LII. No. 22, June 1978, p. 5.

24. S.L. Parmar, ‘Application of the Christian Concept of Power to the Social order in the light of our shared quest for World Community’. in Society and Religion, ed. by Richard Taylor (Madras CLS, 1976), p. 42.

25. Gustavo Gutierrez Theology of Liberation (New York: Orbis Books, 1973). p. 301.

26. Modernization of Traditional Societies and the Struggle for a New Cultural Ethos’, in Asian Meaning of Modernization, ed. by Saral Chatterjee (New Delhi: ISPCK, 1972). p. 33.

27. Liberation, Justice and Development, Asian Ecumenical Conference for Development, Tokyo, July 1970. p. 54.

28. Ibid.

Our study is an attempt to see the relevance of the Gospel to the many struggles of our people in India. In a situation of abject poverty which is being perpetuated by unjust economic and political structures the concern for liberation has a sense of urgency The poor in our country are religious, but the majority are not Christians. There is an awakening among the poor in all the religions to their dignity and selfhood which has been suppressed by age-old traditions and culture, and they demand a critical review of the fundamentals of their faiths from the perspective of liberation. We should also be sensitive to the fact that in the present-day contest in India religious faiths continue to be used by dominant groups to legitimise their control over the masses. In the secular sphere, although the so called development process has brought many gains to certain sections in our society, the control of the economic elite over our political process and the increasing marginalisation of weaker sections like tribals, Dalits and women raise serious questions about justice and corruption that are embedded in our system. This is the context we reflect upon. It is a context where life is continuously threatened, vitiated and destroyed by many forces of death. We need God’s life-giving mission in our midst.

In an attempt to evolve a theological frame work for Christian mission and ministry, I suggest a brief consideration of three fundamental biblical insights about God in our midst and our response to him, and draw some implications for mission and ministry in the Indian context.

1. God is a God of life and to believe in him is to participate in his life giving activity.

Mission and ministry are endeavours of the Christian community to celebrate and to enhance God’s gift of life. The essential character of this life, which the community shares with other human beings and nature, is inter-relatedness. In responsibility to one another and to nature life is preserved and God’s purpose for it is fulfilled.

Faith in the God of the Bible is faith in a living, life-giving God. The phrase “living God” is an expression commonly found in the Old Testament (I Sam 17:26,36; Judges 8:19; Kings 17:1) ‘The realisation of life, in all its fullness, including the material basis of life, is the primary mediation of the approach to God” (Sobrino)¹. For Jesus, God is a God of life. St. John testifies that the word of life is manifested in Christ. God’s own mission is giving life (John 10:10, 14:6). Sobrino observes that God as a God of life is “a primary and generic horizon”. This is a helpful concept. The “genetic horizon” is common to all humanity and not an exclusive domain of the people of a particular faith. It takes us to the very root, the earth-base, of our experience. In this we see a “fusion of horizons” (Gadamar) between us and that of the ancients. This has to “become historicised and concrete in the life of Jesus himself” (Sobrino)². When Jesus speaks of “bread”, he is using it as a symbol of all life: the generic horizon and concrete horizon coming together.

Bread and food are.....primary mediations of the reality of God. This is why Jesus favours and defends them. This is why he eats with publicans. (Mark 2:15-17 and parallels)...This is why the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves (apart from the Christological and liturgical intention of the evangelists) emphasizes that those who are hungry must be fed, and stresses that they ate and had their fill (Mark. 6:30-44 and parallels, 8:1-10; Matt. 15:32-39). This is why the one who feeds the hungry has encountered both man and the son of man. (Sobrino).³

Messianic signs are signs of life in its fullness (Matt.11:2-6). The Kingdom which Jesus preaches is the Kingdom of those who are deprived of life. Jesus’ uncompromising defence of life has led him to a life of conflict with the powerful, ruling class of his time. This conflict resulted in Jesus’ death. “His passion for life led him to the suffering on the cross” (Moltman)⁴. The one who defended and proclaimed life was put to death. Resurrection is the affirmation that God’s “last word” is not death but life.

To believe in the God of life is to affirm the supremacy of life over death. This also means “any assault on life -- hunger, destitution, squalor, oppression, injustice is an attack on God, on God’s will for the life of humankind. A denial of life, therefore is a rejection of the God of life (Gutierrez, quoted in Araya, God of the poor, p. 73) The demand of the God of life in Christ, the rationale for Mission, is a demand for life abundant “were Jesus is, there is abundant life vigorous .life, loved life and eternal life” (Moltman)⁵. To follow Jesus is to witness to the abundant life in words and deeds.

We live in a situation where this sacred gift of life is threatened, vitiated and destroyed. Our willful resistance to God’s demand to choose life and our refusal to participate in God’s life-giving activity are expressed in many ways. From dowry death to nuclear disasters one could draw up a long list of violence we commit to one another and to nature. Our tendency to reduce all these to sin and selfishness is often an abstraction. In the modern world, sin and selfishness assume corporate and structural character; greed is a personal sin but is operative in organised form in our economic system. Caste oppression cannot be simply reduced to “personal” factors. Caste-structure like other evil structures, has a logic of its own. That is why our faith in a God of life has to be expressed as affirming values, practices and institutions that affirm and enhance life and as denouncing the systems and structures that diminish and extinguish the lives of so many voices.⁶  Mission is a response to the demand of God that life be abundant, the demand for humanisation “The mission of salvation and the task of humanisation are integrally related to each other even if they cannot be considered identical” (Thomas, Salvation and Humanisation, p. 8).

2. The God of the Bible is a liberator God and faith in the liberator God calls for struggle against all forces of oppression.

Life is not an abstract, but an historical reality. As we have noted the “God of life “ provides generic horizon for our faith and its practice. But the living God in the Bible is a liberator God, the God of the Exodus experience. Liberation theology, particularly that from Latin America, has developed this theme on the basis of biblical insights and the experiences of new ecclesial communities of poor Christians.

Aloysius Pieris of Sri Lanka points out that the concept of “liberation” is not new and mentions various perceptions of liberation found in ancient philosophy, Roman theology, religions of Asia, and Marxism.

“The stoic perception... sees liberation primarily as spiritual/ personal/interior. It does, however, tolerate an individual’s search for freedom from external social structures that are oppressive -- as exemplified in the case of slavery. But it does not envisage any radical change of social structure” (Pieris) .⁷ He adds that this is the “ideological substratum” of the Roman theology (one may add, Protestant theology as well). Further he observes that classical Buddhism (one may add Hinduism as well) also has similar views of liberation. It holds that structural change is a consequence of interior liberation.

“The Marxist?’ restricts liberation to a class struggle of the poor (proletariat) aimed at socio-economic justice.

In contrast to these three positions, “biblical revelation” seems to advocate a unitary perception of all these aspects social, spiritual/material, internal/structural -- whenever these are predicated of “sin” and “liberation from sin.” (Pieris).⁷

Another distinct and important aspect of the biblical view of liberation is the pivotal role played by the poor in it. God has entered into a pact with the poor. “The poor in the Bible are dynamic group who are not the passive victims of history but those through whom God shapes his history” (Soares-Prabhu).⁸

Biblical liberation is more than a class struggle. It is a “religions experience of the poor” (Pieris). Thus to affirm the biblical faith in the liberator God is to affirm a life in solidarity with the poor.

Pieris constantly reminds us that the poor in Asia are non-Christians, and Asian reality is an interplay between religiousness and poverty. So in affirming solidarity with the poor in Asia / India, an inevitable consequence of the faith in a liberator God is to enter deeply into the religious (non-Christian) experience of the poor. The liberational thrust helps us to enter into a dialogue and cooperation with people of other faiths.

An EATWOT consultation on “Religion and Liberation” states that all religions, Christianity included, “are in various ways and to various degrees both oppressive and liberative. They are oppressive because they legitimise unjust social systems like apartheid, and caste, and because they create their own special forms of religious unfreedom... But history shows us that religions can be liberative too. They have inspired powerful movements of social protest (like Hebrew prophetism in monarchical Israel, or the bhakti movements in mediaeval India) which have attacked both the oppressive rigidity of the religious systems themselves, as well as of the unjust socio-economic and political structure of the societies in which those religions flourished” (Voices).⁹

It further states that In the Third World, where all religions together face the challenges of enslaving social and cultural systems and the need to struggle for justice, religions should meet each other, exploring and sharing their liberative elements. It calls for the development of a “Liberative ecumenism, that is, a form of inter-religious dialogue which is concerned not so much with doctrinal, insights or spiritual experiences that different religions can offer one another, as with the contribution to human liberation that each can make” (“Voices,” Vol. II No. I 168 ). This is mission, from a liberational perspective.

Mission is to share the gift of Jesus, God’s way of liberation; but at the same time it provides an opportunity to learn from others. A genuine dialogue is not manipulative, not a strategy for conversion but a form of witness on the basis of trust and respect. Participation in issues such as human rights, minority problems, social and economic injustice which we commonly face, give a basis for fruitful dialogue. It must also be pointed out that today we are discovering the dynamism of people’s tradition distinct from elite’s sophistication in our religion and culture and its potential for liberation. People’s tradition is often maintained in protest movements within dominant religions, in myths, stories and legends. This dynamic heritage and its humanistic, liberative revival have set the stage for a more meaningful dialogue and cooperative action among the religions.

The liberation that we experience in God through Christ is cosmic. The biblical vision of “new heaven and new earth” (Rev. 21:1) and our confession that Christ is renewing the cosmos (Col. 1:15 -20) compel us to the earth and to its liberation and transformation. The creation’s “groaning in travail” (Rom. 8:22) together with our own groaning is audible in the ecological crisis we face. The marginalised groups in their struggle for freedom and human dignity have discovered the close link between environmental crisis and exploitation: tribals, fishermen, landless people and women. They are pleading for an alternate form of development which is ecologically responsible and meets the basic needs of the people.

How do we witness to the God, the liberator of cosmos in a situation of increasing crisis of ecology and in the context where the people are forced to search for a responsible relation with nature? That should be an agenda of mission. Too long we have been preoccupied in our theology with the dimension of history in isolation from the cosmos. We can never set the plane of human history and nature in opposition. It is in the search of liberation of all aspects of human life, cultures and natural environment that we can truly affirm that salvation is the wholeness of all creation.

3. “To know God is to do justice”

The God of life, the liberator God orients the struggle of his people in a precise direction toward the establishment of justice. In the Hebrew faith, Yahweh appears as the Goel the defender of the vulnerable groups from whom all rights are taken away -- the widow, orphans, aliens and the poor. God is the “near relative”, the protector and avenger of Israel. This is affirmed in the covenant which Yahweh has established with his people -- and the clear expression of that relationship is justice. It is in justice done to the weak and helpless that Israel’s true national identity is to be found.

Gutierrez writes:

Indeed, Israel’s identity, the meaning of belonging to the Jewish nation, is the rendering of justice to the poor, rescuing their rights trodden under foot. And when the Jewish people fails to do justice to the poor, it is false to itself as a people. That is, it not only does evil, does wrong, but in violating the pact of the covenant, it goes directly against what identifies it as a people and always has : the liberative act of the exodus, the historical experience of having come up from Egypt thanks to its alliance, its covenant, with God. ¹⁰

To know god is to enter into this covenant-justice-oriented relationship. So for prophets to know God is to do justice (Jer. 22:13-16). This is the basis of mission. as doing justice.

In an interesting study of missionary activity in the later nineteenth century in India G.A. Oddie has brought out documents about missionaries’ involvement in agitation for social reform. I was interested in the account of the missionary involvement in the indigo disputes. The opposition was against the indigo cultivation by the European planters, their own country men. The system was such that the poor ryots had to yield to the pressure of the zamindars and cultivate indigo. This cultivation was not profitable and it led to the neglect of rice and other crops. European planters working through the zamindars with the support of police and other government machinery had thus designed a system which exploited the poor ryots. Missionaries organized a heroic fight against this system and at enormous cost: imprisonment, threat, loss of job and so on and succeeded in changing it.

One or two aspects of this involvements stand out. Response to the gospel of Jesus Christ in a given context and the fight against unjust structures are integrally related. Some of the missionaries criticises their fellow workers who are involved in such social issues. But those who led the fight were clear about this integral relation with the gospel and the transformation of unjust structures.

We should also notice how in their fight they were in solidarity with all victims regardless of their caste or religion. It is true that they were led to the fight when they saw the hardship of some of the poor Christians. But when the fight was directed to a system they had to broaden their base and include every one who was subjected to the evils of the system. A deeper involvement in social issue borne out by our commitment to the gospel takes us to an open arena of human sufferings. It is also interesting that when they stood by the exploited people they had to oppose their own fellow “Christians”. In a context like that an alliance for the sake of perpetuating a so-called Christian identity was not so important as establishing solidarity with the suffering masses who were not necessarily Christians.

The practice of faith in a God of life, liberation is our mission and ministry Theo-praxis. Where life, liberation and justice are denied in praxis God is denied. To believe is to practice. To believe in God is to turn from oneself and to commit one’s life to God and to all men and women in concrete practice. This is conversion, an essential dimension of mission. Although it occurs in the realm of the personal, it is not privatistic; it is a process translated into the socio-economic, political and cultural sphere in which the converted lives. It is to participate in God’s mission. Concrete forms of it in the context in which we live were mentioned earlier. Commitment to life-affirming values, and structures, solidarity with the poor in their struggle for justice and for their forests and land, and dialogue with other faiths directed towards a liberative ecumenism are some of these.

Perhaps one may issue a word of caution here. The experience of the ultimate which is concretised in our struggles for justice and liberation is not the ultimate in itself The Gospel has the character of givenness, a mystery, if you will, the meaning of which is not exhausted in our response. ‘It continues to expand our horizon, judging and transforming us. One of the perennial problems in Christian understanding is to keep in tension these two dimension -- the ultimate and concrete. But the issue is never simply either one or the other, although accent my be placed on a particular aspect in view of the urgency of a given situation.

I have not said anything specifically about ministry. In fact I do not want to make any separation between mission and ministry. It is argued that ministry is about caring of the “faithful” and mission is what the faithful do in response to the faith. This division is artificial when we acknowledge that Christian ministry is our total response in faith and action (praxis) to Christ and his message in a given situation. Ministry cannot be reduced to what the minister does as a poojari or guru but what the community of faith together do and how they live out the faith. In this sense Christian ministry is a community endeavour. Mission and ministry are signs and instruments of God’s life-giving, liberative act. Elsewhere, I tried to suggest that there are three moments in Christian ministry (Wilson C. ed. J, The Church, 110). First, there is a critical awareness of the situation, particularly the factors and structures that influence the life and struggles of people. The second moment is the faith-reflection. Here the scripture as well as the heritage of faith is studied and interpreted in the light of the experiences of people . In this faith-reflection Christian community should sink its roots into the life and culture of all people. The third moment is action which is an interaction between the other two moments. In a situation of injustice we need collective action directed towards generating life-affirming, humanising values, altering unjust structures and building new alternatives. Ministry in this sense becomes part of God’s mission.

A question that keeps on coming is, “Can the present church be trusted with mission?”. This demands a new look at the shape and structure of our congregations, and the administrative bodies, the leadership pattern and the Christian community’s relationship with people of other faiths . It is not enough if we just introduce Kuthuvilakku or add a few Indian Lyrics to our service. The challenge is to express our solidarity with people of other faiths in common quest, action, shared values and spirituality. Indigenisation and liberation should be the same process. The church in its mission and ministry is called to be a community who make ‘Jesus’ theo-praxis, their own.

Notes:

1.   Jan Sobrino, The Epiphany of the God of life in Jesus of Nazareth” in Richard Pablo, Idol Of Death and the God Of Life, Maryknoll N.Y Orbis, 1983, p. 70.

2. Sobrino, op. cit., pp. 73-74

3. Sobrino, op. cit., p. 73

4. Jurgen Moltmann, The Passion For Life , Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983, p. 22.

5. Moltmann, op. cit., p. 19

6. Voices From the Third World, June 1988, p. 91.

7. Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation, Maryknoll, Orbis, 1988, p. 123.

8. Soares-Prabhu, in Vidyajyothi, New Delhi, p. 320

9. Voices, June 1988, p.152.

10. Gustavo Gitierrez in Victoria, Maya, The God of the Strategic Covenant, Maryknoll N.Y Orbis, 1994. p. 69

David Bosch, in an admirable book, Transforming Mission, has provided different paradigms of mission that have emerged in the life of the Church: Discipleship, Proclamation, Liberation, Dialogue and others. A paradigm shift takes place as the Church responds to the new situations and challenges. In India too we have evolved many different paradigms of mission as the Church seriously faced its task to respond to the specific challenges of the Indian context. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of these paradigms and indicate the need for newer paradigms as we face newer challenges.

Proclamation of the Good News: Evangelism

Perhaps the earliest paradigm of mission may be characterised as evangelism; the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ. Missionary enterprise was guided by this model. When the Church of South India was formed, it declared that:

It is the primary duty of every member of the church to witness by life and word of Jesus Christ, who came into the world to save sinners. This work of evangelisation may be done both individually and by groups, and should include special methods, such as lyrical preaching and the distribution of the scriptures and other evangelistic literature (Constitution: Ch. IV, Rule 1 and 26).¹

Even today this continues to be a model widely accepted by the members of the congregations. To act in obedience to the great commission, and to give money and time for direct evangelism is considered to be the primary duty of every Christian. While acknowledging the importance of proclamation in our work of evangelism we endeavour to keep an integral relation between work and deed. Although in the early pronouncements on mission a great deal of stress is placed on direct evangelism, a broader framework for interpreting mission is discernible as the church faced new challenges.

Nationalism: Challenge of Hindu Renaissance

The nationalist movement, a movement whose specific purpose was the removal of foreign domination, provided a new context for the Church to rethink its mission. Nationalism was linked with a reassertion of Hinduism and its values. A response to the Hindu Renaissance was therefore, an integral part of Christian witness in modern India. A social issue that was widely discussed in regard to this is the attitude of Christians to other faiths and the relation of the Gospel to the claims of other religions. P. Chenchiah, who was committed to this task, articulates the need for a change in the Christian attitude to Hinduism in these words:

There was a type of convert in the past who hated Hinduism and surrendered himself wholeheartedly to what he supposed to be Christianity The convert today regards Hinduism as his spiritual mother, who has nurtured him in a sense of spiritual values in the past. He discovers the supreme value of Christ, not in spite of Hinduism but because Hinduism has taught him to discern spiritual greatness. For him, loyalty to Christ does not involve the surrender of reverential attitude towards the Hindu heritage.²

People like Chenchiah, V Chakkarai, A. J. Appasamy and others made the affirmation that the living forces of Hinduism could be “a positive key to the still inaccessible riches of Hinduism.³ They were not content with a mere intellectual approach to Hinduism but wanted to enter into the spirit of Hindu religion with a desire to learn new things about their own faith and to express them on the basis of their encounter.

A positive attitude towards Hinduism and other faiths was based on the faith in the universal Lordship of Christ. The conviction widely shared by many Indian theologians was that God is already at work in whatever area of life the Christian is speaking to make the Gospel effective. P. D. Devanandan has expressed his conviction in the following words:

Is the preaching of the Gospel directed to the total annihilation of all religions other than Christianity? Will religions as religions, and nations as nations, continue characteristically separate in the fullness of time when God would gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth?

Christian faith distinguishes between the Gospel of proclamation of the fulfillment of Gods promise of the Kingdom, and the hope in fulfillment of all religious faith, wherever it is found. Fulfillment in the second sense would mean that all sincere humans striving to reach out to God will indeed find favour with him.⁴

Paradigms of Mission Inculturation and Dialogue

The new-found theological conviction and a positive attitude towards other faiths have made distinct impact on the mission praxis. All have agreed that the missionary era directly or indirectly associated with colonial rule has come to an end. Mission was no more foreign mission, directed towards the conquest of a pagan culture and satanic religions. Mission, it was affirmed, is the witness of a community of faith to God’s transforming act through Jesus Christ. Mission is not an aggressive propaganda but a way of life. Further, the Church became conscious of its alien character and the need for becoming rooted in the soil of this country The mission model that evolved during this period is indigenisation or inculturation.

Attempts were made to adopt Hindu symbols, architecture, and thought forms for worships and liturgy and also for communicating the Gospel. Amalorpavadas, a Roman Catholic theologian, has done some pioneering work in this area. He describes inculturation as:

The process by which the Church becomes really incarnated in every human group, society, culture and sharing, humble service and powerful witness to the Spirit of the Lord at work in the universe and dwelling in our heart. Having no culture of her own, she communicates with others and expresses herself through the human and social, cultural and religious signs of the people among whom she is incarnated.⁵

Inculturation for him and other theologians is incarnational. Culture has a broad meaning here. It stands for all aspects of life of people in a given context. The attempt at inculturation met with several criticisms. A majority of Christians in India refused to accept this uncritically, with the result such attempts remained esoteric without the church owning it. Recently a fierce controversy was generated in the Church of South India over a prayer used in its Synod meeting that attempted to interpret the Christian Gospel through Hindu symbols and forms of worship used by the exponent of inculturation, taken from the higher forms -- Hinduism and Sanskritised Culture of the dominant community They argue for a process of inculturation that takes seriously the symbols that emerge from the life and struggles of the oppressed. While inculturation is an attempt at rectifying some aspects, of the missionary era it has not sufficiently taken into account the class association of mission with colonial power. The cultural distortion of Christianity is to be seen as power distortion as well. Church and mission are closely associated with the dominant groups and their interest, the colonial powers in the past and the capitalist forces in the present.

Closely related to inculturation is the dialogue model. It is a process in which Christians with sensitive awareness of the religious heritage of others try to listen, share and to cooperate with them in building a common humanity, based on the values that are germane to these faiths. The focus of inculturation model is on the life and worship of the Christian community But in dialogue the emphasis is on shared values and on mission. Theological convictions that underlie dialogue are important. There is the affirmation:

a) That plurality and differences are God’s gift and integral to the structure of God’s mission. Differences should not divide us. They enhance the beauty and harmony of our life.

b) The centre of faith is a mystery we know only in part. Christ is ultimate for Christians. But the way they apprehend the meaning and interpret it are influenced by different cultural and social backgrounds. Only when these different perceptions are allowed to be in dialogical relationship can we begin to see the fullness of truth.

c) The Church is only an agent and a sign of the Kingdom of God. This presupposes that there are other signs and instruments. A report on a consultation on “Dialogue and Mission “held in Tambaram, Madras, clearly articulates this:

The mission of the Church, Gods active purpose in world history being carried out by the Christian movement, need not be, and in fact we can see is not, God’s only mission in the world.

This is theologically certainly, more valid. For it is truer to the God whom we know, whom Jesus Christ has revealed to us, to recognise that he is constantly and everywhere at work; that his mission to humankind cannot be, and has not been, and is not now, confined within the limits of one geographical segment or one ecclesiastical organisation or one historical or one religious movement. The mission of the church is worldwide; but it is not god’s only mission. It Is not even his only worldwide mission. Anyone who accepts the doctrine of the holy spirit, without setting ecclesiastical frontiers to his activity already admits this is theory, though many have yet to see and feel it in their hearts.⁶

An attitude of humility and openness is the starting point for genuine dialogue. We need to listen to the other and be willing to learn from others.

There are different forms of dialogue. A comparative and critical examination of different perceptions of the religious faiths, is one of the earliest attempts at dialogue. This has not borne much fruit. A more creative form of dialogue is expressed as cooperative action. In solving the problems of poverty, communalism, environmental destruction and others, all religions should unite. There is nothing like Christian hunger or Hindu hunger! The hungry have to be fed. To protect our environment is a task in which we all join together. If we want to plant more trees or clean the area in which we live, should we not ask all people to join in?

A question is often asked : Is mission unnecessary when dialogue is practised?

Yes, we are asking for a new way of understanding and doing of mission. Mission is still important. In fact, if we do not have a mission we have no right to exist as a Church. But our mission is not an aggressive crusade directed to condemning other religions and enlisting everyone in the Church. We are committed to sharing through our lives and action God’s liberating and transforming presence in the world. When we participate with people of other faiths in love and mutual trust there are plenty of opportunities to share the source of our inspiration for our life -- Christ the giver of New Life.

We attempted a detailed discussion on dialogue as mission model because it has challenged many presuppositions of the traditional understanding of mission and opened a way for a meaningful form of Christian witness in a pluralistic context⁷.

Nation Building: Service, Development and Justice

The struggle for independence and the process of nation building have also brought challenges to the churches with regard to its social and political witness. The question was posed as to how to witness to Christ in the midst of socio-political changes? A conviction widely shared at this point was that Christ was present in social and political realities, judging and transforming them. Witnessing to the Gospel in the social and political context was a theme developed by the synod of the Church of South India that met in 1962. A resolution passed by this synod was a landmark concerning Indian church’s thinking on social questions.

The Synod believes that the social revolution now taking place in India is a manifestation of the eternal purpose and judgement of God in human history. It believes that the Church is created by God to be a people wholly unto the Lord and to seek the establishment of Righteousness, Mercy and Love in human society It therefore calls the members of the Church of South India at this critical time to a series and prayerful consideration of the implications of this belief for their worship, work and witness in a changing India.

The synod called upon all Christian institutions, congregations and individuals to take seriously their responsibilities in relation to:

1)   The need to offer the love and compassion of God in Christ to all sorts and conditions of men;

2)   The need to establish within the life of the Church a fellowship transcending distinctions of caste and class;

3)   The need that each Christian should be a politically conscious and responsible citizen;

4)   The need to witness to the kingdom of God, to set forth and establish in society both the love and the righteousness of God in Christ;

5)   The need to make Christians in ‘secular occupation’ realise that their occupations themselves which supply the physical and economic needs of society are also in the plan and purpose of God for the total redemption of society.⁸

Several paradigms of mission have emerged at this time. One of the traditional modes of the Church’s participation in national situation is service, The Church in India did pioneering service by establishing medical and educational institutions. Many charitable institutions like orphanages and relief operations through the Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action (CASA), have provided help to the needy regardless of their religious affiliations. Some of these programmes are well-known and there is no need to describe them elaborately But the churches moved to a new phase in this when they started developmental projects with the help of foreign donor agencies They are directed towards self-employment for the poor and to creating the infrastructure that is necessary for community based development in health and other areas.

It is important that in a situation of extreme poverty and continuing misery of millions in rural and urban areas the churches have to provide service for the needy. Sometimes such actions are powerful witness to churches solidarity with people, breaking its isolation.

In their study of the churches in North India, J.P. Alter and H. Jaisingh make a pointed reference to one such moment in the life of the Church in Delhi. In 1947 there broke out the worst communal clash between Hindus and Muslims and thousands of refugees streamed into Delhi. Christians took the lead in ministering to the needs of victims and this was widely acclaimed:

This service to refugees was of profound significance for the life of the Church. It demonstrated that Christians, though neutral in the communal struggle, were not indifferent to the sufferings of their neighbors. It created a fund of goodwill which proved to be of great value in subsequent discussions concerning faith Above all, it helped to draw the Christian community out of its isolation and to identify Christians as responsible citizens of the new Democratic Republic.⁹

However, laudable and necessary such charitable and developmental activities are, they seldom challenge the existing system and structures of injustice that perpetuate poverty and unequal distribution of resources. In the long run they do not provide an answer to the search of the poor for their dignity and justice. It is this critique that led to the awareness that the poor have to be organized to fight for their rights and they should not be mere objects of charity but subjects of struggle for a new, just order. That mission of struggle for justice is the paradigm that emerged very clearly at this time. Au awareness that the struggle for justice is the context of Christian mission and a new vision of Christ as Liberator,¹⁰  both these have contributed to the emergence of this new paradigm of mission. Justice is a dimension of the saving act of God. To participate in the struggle for justice is to participate in God’s mission. This paradigm is also based on the critical analysis of the economic and political situation in India, and the phenomenon of poverty.

It brings, to our awareness the importance of organized struggles of the poor for justice. During the past decades several groups of young men and women have gone into organizing the landless, marginalised groups. They are certainly Christ-inspired, but not necessarily controlled by ecclesiastical machinery. Moreover, the team of workers in each group is multi-religious and they work with people of all faiths. There are many clusters of these groups -- prominent being the Urban Industrial Rural Mission (UIRM) and Programme for Social Action (PSA).

Initially the action group started to evolve among the marginalised sections of society with the specific intent of raising their critical consciousness against oppression. In this process they have linked with the groups which are not Christian and become part of wider movements of people such as tribals, Dalits and workers. This partnership influenced their style of functioning.

What is disheartening in the development of action groups work, however, is the apparent conflict between them and the church organisations. The style and structure they have developed, which were necessary for their expression of solidarity with the marginalised, have moved them further and further away from the institutional Church. The dialogue between them has not proved very constructive. The churches keep on raising questions, sometimes legitimate, about the style and structure of action groups and people’s movements, without showing any readiness to face the challenge posed by the vision and strategy (justice and collective action) for the Church’s ministry and mission. Can we truly say that in a situation of poverty linked with unjust economic and political structures, justice oriented ministry should be the preponderant form of Christian mission? If we face this challenge honestly then the present forms of ministry and the church structures that support them will also undergo drastic changes. For one thing our preaching and worship will authentically reflect the cries of the people for justice and our church structures will become catalysts for strengthening the struggle for all people and not just ghettos that preserve our narrow parochial interest -- they truly become the salt of the earth.

Before we close this section a brief mention of one other point is necessary. Questions are raised in the discussion on mission about the relation between proclamation of the Gospel and the Church’s involvement in politics and society. Some maintain that evangelism should be distinct from other forms of witness like dialogue, development, service and struggle for justice. But others reject this separation and affirm an integral view of mission embracing all aspects of life and its relationships. One has to proclaim the Gospel through one’s words, deeds, and life. They are inseparable. However, we cannot ignore the fact that on programmatic level the Church has been making some distinctions and it is difficult to obliterate them. But we need to ask how each can be informed as well as critiqued by others.

For example the justice oriented approach raises critical questions to all developmental and service endeavors of the Church. If service projects and institution do not lead to the removal of unjust structures, they should be viewed with suspicion. All institutional forms of service in which significant resources of money and personnel from other countries are even now involved, come under critical scrutiny especially as some of them provide subsidised service to the middle and upper middle class sections of society. In this section we will mention some of the contemporary challenges to Christian mission. They will be discussed in detail in the later chapters.

a).  The Struggle for Identity and Justice

The struggle by different ethnic groups for their identity and justice has brought serious questions to the mission of the church. Identity is a way of asserting one’s place in society. Culture and history provide a framework for people’s self-understanding, the source of their identity. These elements in the life of marginal groups have been totally suppressed. A conscious recovery of them is essential for their struggles for dignity Reflection on mission should be related to this newly gained awareness of marginalised groups.

In the past the Church has been ambiguous with regard to this response to the identity question. Christian mission for sure has enormously contributed to the social transformation of Dalits and indigenous people. But it has been insensitive to people’s struggle for cultural identity. The Church has often projected a view of uniformity that suppresses all differences. But plurality is the principle of creation.

If the struggle for Dalit and tribal identity is a demand to secure the rightful space for indigenous people in the wider human discourse and relationship then it should be accepted as integral to God’s purposes for them. The theological link between Christian faith and the struggle for identity should be strengthened and that should be the basis for a pluriform community. The missionary obligation should be reformulated as the church’s solidarity with the marginalized that seeks its identity The struggle for identity is also a struggle for justice and participation. This gives a concrete and distinct focus for our struggle. Here the biblical tradition of faith can make a significant contribution. The prophets were uncompromising on their stand on justice. They rejected any pattern of relationship that fails to ensure justice as contrary to God’s will. I believe that this focus on justice in our identity struggle gives us a concrete direction as well as a new theological meaning for it.

The relation between Gospel and culture should be considered in this context. Many things are written on it and several insights are today widely shared. It is clear that the Gospel comes to us in a cultural medium and for most of us in India it has come through western culture. We need to be sensitive to these cultural trappings. We also know that the Gospel fulfills as well as judges the cultural aspirations of people. It is this dialectic that makes our task daunting.

b) Ecological Crisis: God’s Cosmic Mission

Ecological crisis raises a host of new questions about the concept and practice of mission. There was a time when we thought this was not a Third World problem. But today we are convinced that preserving the environmental integrity and promotion of an ecologically responsible development are a matter of survival for the whole world. Fast depletion of natural resources, pollution of air, land and water, the global warming and other atmosphere changes have catastrophic affects. A consultation on ecology and development has correctly observed that while all are affected by the ecological crisis, the life of the poor and marginalised is further impoverished by it. Storage of fuel and water add peculiar burdens to the life of women. It is said that tribals are made environmental prisoners in their own land. Dalits, whose life has been subjected to social and cultural oppression for generations are facing new threats to them by the wanton destruction of the natural environment. What we witness today is a steady deterioration and degradation of the biosphere all life and physical environment.

The biblical insights on our dependence on nature and our responsibility for nature bring new challenges to our understanding of Church and mission. The Church is cosmically oriented (Moltmann) and participates in God’s cosmic mission. “The mission is not for humans alone, but for the whole of God’s cosmos. Its aim is not geographical, territorial and numerical expansion, but transformation of the whole cosmos”¹¹ God’s saving activity has a threefold dimension calling persons to commit to the Kingdom of God, justice and peace in society and ecological health in the land (Amos 9:14-15). All three dimensions are integral to the cosmic mission of God and they should be expressed together. “The environment will continue to deteriorate if we pay attention only to evangelism and social mission.¹² How concretely should we participate in God’s cosmic mission?

It is no mere coincidence that the root word OIKOS is the same for ecology economics and ecumenics. We are committed to preserving the living space that is common to humans and all other living and non-living things. At the World Convocation on “Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation” which met in Seoul in March 1990 the churches convenanted together to renounce “all idols of wealth, power, race and gender superiority and security which cause people to suffer and the earth to be dominated, plundered and destroyed.” Further they made a commitment to build a just economic order on global, national, regional and International levels of all people. Ecologically oriented mission is expressed as a commitment to a set of values that are wholistic and humane. Perhaps, the scale of values may be summed up as follows,

Need against greed.

Enabling power against dominating power

Conservation against consumerism

Integrity of creation against exploitation of nature.

Unless the values which we consider important become part of our life-style, they remain vague and empty. Justice, freedom, human dignity, enabling power, all these should be made readily recognisable in our corporate life of the churches.

c) Is the Church Credible?

The Church proclaims and lives by the mystery of Christ. Specific challenges from the situation provide an occasion to delve deep into its meaning and to formulate appropriate response to it as mission. Thus the parameter of mission expands with the ever-widening horizon of the Gospel. But the institutional church by far prefers to remain in the security of the familiar and the traditional. Members often get entangled in the power struggle of the caste and communal groupings. Self-aggrandisement of the leadership further distorts the vision and the message of Christ.

Every religious organisation, including the church, possesses ritual power as well as institutional power. Both can be easily misused by the hierarchy and others in leadership positions. They use their ritual and institutional power to manipulate people in order to perpetuate vested interests and to maintain the dominance of ecclesiastical functionaries. Blatant forms of corruption, misappropriations, nepotism and other forms of misuse of power have become a rule and not an exception.

Can this church be trusted with mission? How can the Church be a community where different identities can flourish without fear of domination because of its overriding commitment to the values of the Kingdom? How can the Church truly bear the Cross of Christ? The call is for fidelity to the Lord of the Kingdom in everyday practice. Schillebeecks, the Dutch Catholic theologian, developing the theme “The New Testament Churches as Exodus Communities”¹³ points out that N.T. Churches were not “activist” churches. But they have developed a paradigm in regard to their witness in the world. They wanted to express in their life and relationships the vision of the Kingdom with which they impact the society.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have attempted to discuss important models of mission that have emerged in the modern period as the Church responds to the challenges of other faiths and socio-political realties. We have also indicated some of the new challenges we face today They will receive further attention in the following chapters. A question remains : Is there a new paradigm of mission being evolved? It is perhaps too early to make a definitive formulation. But one may venture to describe mission as Celebration and Sharing of Life. This will be the theme in the next chapter. It is an attempt to express holistically our mission embracing all our aspects of life. Mission is an endeavour of the Christian community to celebrate and to enhance God’s gift of life. The essential character of this life which the community shares with other human beings and nature is interrelatedness. In responsibility to one another and to nature life is preserved and God’s purpose for it is fulfilled. The demand for life abundant. “Where Jesus is, there is Life”.¹⁴  To follow Jesus is to witness to the abundant life. More concretely it means to support values, practices and institutions that affirm and enhance life and to denounce systems and structures that diminish and extinguish the lives of so many. Further, commitment to life-affirming values should be expressed in the life and relationships of the community of faith.

Notes:

1. Tiff Book Christian Literature Society, Madras.

2. Rethinking Christianity in India,

3 Ibid.

4. Preparation for Dialogue (Bangalore: CISRS. 1964), p. 192

5. Quoted in JAG Gerwin Van Leeuwen, Fully Indian and Authentically Christian (Bangalore National Biblical Catechetical and Liturgical Centre, 1990), p. 241.

6. “Tambaram Revisited, Papers and Reports of a Consultation on Dialogue and Mission” International Review of Mission, Vol. LXXVIII, No. 307, July 1988, pp. 366-367.

7. A helpful and comprehensive discussion on the concerns relating to this approach is given in S.J. Samartha’s One Christ-Many Religions, (NewYork: Orbis Books, 1991) and Indian edition, SATHRI, Bangalore, 1992.

8. Rajaiah D. Paul, Ecumenism in Action, p. 100

9. James P. Alter et. al., The Church as Christian Community, p.35

10. This model can also be appropriately called Liberation model. Liberation and justice are interrelated concepts.

11.Quoted from a study guide of the Presbyterian Church (USA), 1991.

12. Ibid

13. Christ, (New York Cross Roads, 1988)

14. Jurgen Moltmann, The Passion of Life  (Philadelphia Fortress Press), 1978, p. 19.

K.C. Abraham is uniquely qualified to write about the new developments m mission, ecology, theology and their inter-connectedness. As the President of the Ecumenical Association of the Third World Theologians (EATWOT) and Director of the South Asia Theological Research institute Bangalore, he has traveled throughout the Third World (Asia, Africa, and Latin America), participating with grassroots people in churches and other activist groups as they struggled to create a new future for themselves. He has also traveled widely in the First World (Europe and North America) where he has participated in conference and workshops, visited churches and theological schools, debated with theologians and economists, and dialogued with lay people and pastors about issues of justice, peace and the integrity of creation. This book is the result of many years of reflection, defined by his solidarity with the poor in their struggles against local elites in the Third World and the corporate rich in the First World.

Although K.C. (as we have come to know him in EATWOT) writes to and for the people of India, his message has meaning for all Christians and other justice seeking people who are committed to creating a global village that protects the rights of the poor and provides space for the affirmation of their dignity. His main theme is mission -- the very heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But K.C. provides new insights into its meaning, derived primarily from the God of life whose liberating presence knows no bounds. For K.C., mission is not just what has been traditionally called evangelism or the proclamation of the Gospel to the unbeliever. Neither is mission simply dialogue with people of other faiths in the hope of bringing them to Jesus. Mission is making solidarity with poor people in their flight for justice. To proclaim Jesus Christ without bearing witness to the justice he brings is to distort the emancipatory power of the gospel. We must not forget the words Jesus took from the prophet Isaiah as the definition of his mission: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lords favor” (Luke: 4:18-19 NRSV).

Liberative solidarity, justice and peace, ecological crisis, loving mercy and spirituality -- these are the themes that resound throughout this text and in the life of K.C. Abraham. They tell us where he stands -- what the bottomline is for his perspective on the Gospel of Jesus. Since the poor have been the main victims of development, K.C. calls for an alternative vision of society one in which the rights of the poor are protected and their voices are heard.

Although these essays were written over a span of time and for different audiences, they are held together by K.Cs deep and passionate concern for justice, peace and the integrity of creation, This is a book that should be read and studied by churches, grassroots people, policy makers, theologians and others who are seeking to create a world that is safe for all.

Numerous articles and books have been written on mission. To add another book on this topic is to run into the risk of repeating all too familiar ideas. But the attempt can be justified for many reasons.

First, the perspective on mission is still a point of debate. Some of the traditional patterns of mission are becoming irrelevant to meet the emerging needs and challenges of our situation. In this collection of essays many such issues have been analysed. Developments in science and technology communication systems economic policies and practices, the emergence of market as the altar at which all are required to offer their sacrifices and the globalisation process -- all these have tremendous impact on the lives of our people. We are also aware of other issues such as the ecological crisis, marginalization of weaker sections and communalism that distorts the essence of all religions. Organized movements of people for identity and justice also raise challenges to the Church’s mission. Therefore the questions that are raised on the proclamation of the Gospel directed exclusively to the renewal of individual souls is also inadequate. A wholistic message that brings all our relationships into the orbit of divine reality alone will be meaningful for today

Second, there is need for a careful assessment of the style and purpose of mission in the emerging context of a pluriform society. In fact mission is no more a Christian word. It is widely used by people of other faiths and secular strategists. A few years ago when Rajiv Gandhi started his campaign on science and technology he constituted a body called technology mission. When the U.S.A. launched its war against Iraq it described it as a mission to liberate Kuwait. We are also familiar with the Ramakrishna Mission and missions in other faiths In these usages mission is conceived as an activity designed to achieve a result. It is a programme to win others to your point of view or to your side by persuasion and even by coercion.

Unfortunately this prevailing notion of a propagandist mission has failed to capture the authentic message of the Gospel of Jesus. It has distorted the message. This is not a biblical concept either. The word is from the Latin version of the biblical word “sending.” Missionary is ‘apostle’ and mission is “apostolate.” We are called to be messengers of God. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (John 20:27). The New Testament also uses the word “witness” to denote the outward expression of the life of the Church. The emphasis is not on activity -- although activity is not totally absent -- but on life and its relationships.

A recovery of this New Testament meaning of mission is necessary to ward off much of the distortions that have come into our understanding of the Church’s mission. In other words, Christian mission is not so much what we do as who we are as God’s children It is a life lived in response to God’s purposes for us and for all his creation. “Mission is as concrete as the life of a people” (Legrand, p. 144). I believe that a reformulation of mission as faith response alone can give an authentic basis for pluralism. One’s response to one’s faith is not directed towards denying other faith responses; rather it is always concerned with building a world in which all God’s children with their different gifts could praise God the Creator.

Third, the praxis of mission is closely related to the discovery of who Christ is among us and for us. Thanks to the emphasis of liberation theologians, we see Jesus in his social and cultural environment and not as part of a doctrinal formulation. As Dorothy Solle writes,

If we look at the paradigm of liberation theology, we find there an understanding of Jesus which strives for neither objectification of the mystery in dogma nor for subjectivising in personal appropriation. The liberation theologies mention the mystery of Jesus in his historical existence. They say of him that he was poor, hungry, forsaken, subversive, and out of his mind; that he was a worker, a nobody without papers, a carpenter, unemployed, a political prisoner, tortured. They attempt to begin where Jesus began, where he lived, where the people met him-not in churches but in everyday life and that means in misery He is not recognisable by his halo. (Solle :An Introduction to Theology, p. 114).

It is this discovery of Jesus that is at the centre of our discussion on Mission in this book. To respond to this Jesus in the concrete is to embark on a costly form of discipleship. In fact, there is simplicity about this Jesus. But that simplicity is offensive to our life-style.

The papers in this book have been presented at various occasions, and published in various journals. They have been edited to avoid obvious repetition. But some of the ideas are repeated and I ask the reader to bear with me. A wide range of concerns are raised and the reader may miss a coherent presentation of a theology of mission. The first four chapters may provide a theological basis for mission. Included in them is a discussion on different paradigms of mission with the first chapter giving a general framework to it. A selected number of issues have been dealt with in the rest of the articles. Two themes that run through these inflections are “Life” and “Solidarity.” Mission is celebration of God’s gift of life. “I have come in order that you may have life - life in all its fullness.” (John 10:10). Ours commitment to life-affirming values and structures are integral to our obedience to Christ.

The solidarity with people, especially with the suffering, is the way to live out mission. “Jesus also died outside the city... Let us, then, go to him outside the camp and share his shame” (Heb. 13:12,13).

K. C. Abraham