Thursday, June 16, 2016
Mary is a very important name in the church and it includes St. Mary, first among saints, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Mary the sister of St. Martha among others. Mary brings to mind several things. It is a name that the church will never be able to wipe out. The name brings not just assurance, hope and obedience but rebellion, sacrifice and victory from oppression. Along with Mary John Akhouri who has managed to wake up the senses of the church and civil society in Kerala, India and the world, is Mary Roy who single handedly fought against an oppressive law and a patriarchal church and society which supported the law.
We are still looking at the merit and faults of denying a decent burial to Mary John Akhouri in the church of her choice and as per her last wish. But there is also another interesting aspect to this time and year. 2016 is an important date because it comes exactly 100 years after the act of 1916 which was discriminatory towards Syrian Christian women in India because it gave only 1/4th the share of ancestral property going to the son, to the daughter or Rs 5,000 whichever was less. In 1984 Mary Roy who also belonged to a Syrian Christian family and was separated from her husband and was going to be evicted from her house in Ooty, filed a case in a court of law, which came out with a favourable verdict in 1986. This was followed by several other cases which culminated in the 2010 verdict of the court granting the right to one part of the property to Mary Roy. 100 years after a discriminatory law and 30 years after a favourable court verdict for Syrian Christian women. This is what 2016 offers and the passing away of Mary John Akhouri and her wish to be buried in her parish brings to focus not just inter religious weddings, church membership and funerals but the key factor of rights of women.
I mentioned in an earlier write up that we have to have a lenient view to several parties involved in the recent issue. But how can we reason within the church that Mary John Akhouri deserved better? For this Mary Roy offers help to us. The Travancore Christian Succession Act of 1916 was clearly discriminatory and it was tweaked to be even more so by the powerful Syrian Christian community. “Under Section 24 of the Act, a widowed mother has only a life interest terminable at death or remarriage, over any immovable property. Under Section 28 female heirs who had already received Streedhanam (dowry) were not to be given any share in the case of intestacy because the daughters have only a right to get streedhanam and it was fixed as ¼ of the share of a son or Rs.5000/- whichever is less, daughters could get shares in the intestate’s property only in the absence of male heirs. Even the unmarried daughters had only a right to get streedhanam which was to be calculated as aforesaid. Thus the Travancore Act contained several discriminatory provisions blatantly violating Article 15(1). The reason for the denial of the share in the family property was that the daughter was going to the matrimonial home and only the sons are contributing to the growth and betterment of the family.”
Venu Menon writes that the Supreme Court verdict brought about by Mary Roy’s court case brought the Syrian Christians under the more liberal Indian Succession Act, 1921. “The judicial order sent shock waves through the community, especially the patriarchal authority that influenced the lives of Christians. The verdict not only gave the female progeny equal rights in the father's property, it did so with retrospective effect. The retrospective clause promised to unleash chaos in the community. Every Christian household faced the prospect of an insurrection from within. All past land transactions became open to question. All titles to property derived from intestate succession now stood invalidated. There could be no precise estimate of the number of women who suffered injustice under the earlier law. The Supreme Court judgement provided an instant remedy.”
The church and the state tried to stall and circumvent the court order and has been successful to a great extend with changes in will and daughters agreeing to sign legal documents mentioning they have received their share. The court order should be read from the perspective of daughters being sent off from their house in the hope that they will never return. It is a once for all settlement. Perhaps this was what happened with Mary John Akhouri. Her being sent off or her going on her own was the part of the societal and church sponsored programme of making sure that the daughter of the house was settled and sent away. Mary John Akhouri’s wish to be buried in her mother parish can and must be seen as her return for her rights which were denied to her earlier. Even if she personally got something from her family her return is the return of a Syrian Christian woman for an equal share of the property of her family which includes a space in church and the cemetery as well. Here I am again sympathetic to the priest in charge as his denial must be seen as the denial of the church to accept someone like Mary Roy and her fight for her rights and the effort to circumvent any court order given otherwise.
The court order giving equal rights over ancestral property to women in the family was always fought by the church and the political class as well because they thought that the ruling patriarchal class would be offended if they did not circumvent the court verdict. It was also a case of holding on to power by the influential class of people in society. The church still has a chance to redeem itself by first of all accepting what Mary Roy, a Syrian Christian herself has done for the emancipation and equal rights of women. She should be honored for this fight and struggle that she has undertaken. Her fight and case should not be seen as anti-church but as a struggle for the church and its constituency of women. What the church has not done for various reasons was taken up and done by a church member and this should be appreciated by the church. The church finds itself at the cross roads looking at itself on what it means by equality, justice and peace. Is it only a slogan or is it something which suggests that all who are in the church are its members and deserve equal treatment from the church? In the Mary John Akhouri analysis it will help church members and others to understand that her burial is not just a burial of a church member who was away and therefore had given up her membership status but that she was a woman of the church who was collectively wronged by a patriarchal society and church together. Her wish to be buried in Kumarakom is her coming back and her journey for the justice which was denied to her because of a discriminatory law of 1916 which still seems to be hanging like a mill stone around the neck of church administrators.
The church and all of us together must understand that we have been hand in glove with all of this. We have not considered the work of women like Mary Roy and Mary John Akhouri because they were women and they tried to change the status quo of gender roles prevalent in the church. One did it through a life long legal battle to get a right to her ancestral property and the other did it through an end of life wish to gain access and right to her ancestral tomb and thus property.
In Numbers 27 the daughters of Zelophehad Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly at the entrance to the tent of meeting and said, “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not among Korah’s followers, who banded together against the LORD, but he died for his own sin and left no sons. Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.” So Moses brought their case before the LORD, and the LORD said to him, “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and give their father’s inheritance to them. The five daughters of Zelophehad are the women who makes God change God’s rules. They go to Moses and the others and when Moses asks God, God tells Moses to give them the inheritance to their father’s property and name even though that was not the norm.
The year 2016 is a good year to remind ourselves about our commitment to women and that we owe them their inheritance which they will come to claim at a time they choose. Mary John Akhouri chose now and chose her way to do that. Mary Roy has already brought about a change through her struggles. Now it is time for us to go to God like Moses did and ask God what indeed we must do.
Pictures courtesy dnaindia.com and alcherton.com
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
The Mary John Akhouri burial: An opportunity to discuss religion in public for the benefit of the masses
Mary John Akhouri (aka Madhu Jyotsana Akhouri) was denied a burial in her mother church, the St. John's Attamangalam Jacobite Church, Kumarakom because the church argued that she did not possess a membership which she had forfeited due to her marriage to Dr. Akhouri, a Hindu. She was then buried in another church. Mary Akhouri is the grand mother of Bollywood actor Priyanka Chopra and this was one of the main reasons of the story being reported in the mainline media. Priyanka herself called it an unfortunate incident while the Jacobite bishop of the Kottayam diocese H. G. Thomas Themotheos called it inhuman and unchristian. The church in question through its vicar and committee stood their ground and said that this was what any church under the Jacobite fold would do and a burial was denied not just because of Ms. Akhouri’s intercaste marriage but because she had never renewed her membership in the church. Her relative though from the same church said that Ms. Akhouri had confessed to a priest and had communion from the same church two years ago.
It is easy to point fingers at this moment but we should also be understanding on several fronts. We should be understanding to Ms. Mary Akhouri who was a hard working person, a freedom fighter and a member of the legislative assembly in Bihar. We should also be understanding to Ms. Priyanka Chopra because it is not fair to come down heavily on her because she is a famous actor and she is rich. In many ways even though it is easy to criticize the church we should also try and understand the policies of the church, irrespective of whether they are good or bad.
Was the priest correct to say no to a burial in a church under his leadership? Did he also refuse to conduct the service despite a directive from his own bishop? The priest must have in all probability used his experience, the church tradition and the collective wisdom of the church committee to come to an understanding. Was he wrong in doing so? I don’t think so and I will explain why. A priest is taught in a regional seminary to follow the rules and traditions of the church that he is pastoring in. In this case the marriage of Mary John to a person from a different religion must have disqualified her from church membership. Whether the church actually did follow any procedure in intimating Ms. Akhouri or her family in Kerala about the cancellation of the membership is not known to us. The priest only followed instructions which he learnt. Which religion teaches priests to be compassionate or humane? Which priest is given permission to follow his heart and not the rules? If that was the case would so many people die in the name of religion in India? Wouldn’t India be absolutely inter religious and unified in diversity? So if at all, the church, religions and the society has to be questioned as to what their roles are? Is it to unify people or to create discord among people? Priests in all religions end up being spokespersons of their own community and don’t go beyond that. It is true that the bishop seems to have sent the priest a directive. One way forward was for everyone to meet and sort out the issue. But aren’t there deeper issues which cannot be sorted out with one directive from the bishop?
What are the issues that come to the forefront through this? What is the policy of religions to inter caste marriage? What is the belief of religions with regard to people of other religions coming to their sacred space and partaking of their blessings? Are people of all castes allowed in all temples, are Hindus allowed in mosques, are all people from all religions and other denominations given communion in churches, are women allowed in the holy of holies of religious spaces? There are many underlying issues in the issue of denying a decent burial. Are we ready to talk about them?
Couples who opt for inter caste weddings are killed and brutalized for falling in love and this is justified by politicians, religious leaders and high caste families. Why don’t people come together against this? Women in the Syrian churches are married out of the church. They join the church of the husband and then severe ties with their mother church. Why should it be this way and why can’t women still be part of their own church? Mary Roy created history by fighting for the rights to her ancestral property and through that came into the bad books of her Syrian church and interestingly all of this happened in Kottayam. Mary Roy, the illustrious mother of Arundathi Roy fought for and got a judgement from the court granting equal rights to ancestral property for women. The church was uncomfortable with Mary Roy and the verdict, and this continues even now because Mary Roy has not been felicitated for the great work that she has done. This has been the context of the priests and how they have experienced ministry in the church.
The humanity and Christian values that they have to show in the church they are ministering in also gives second priority to women in almost all things. This is so for burial as well when the face of the deceased is preferably covered during the last rites by the son or another male member of the family and not a woman. Recently I also observed some priests insisting that when a woman was buried the church should not use a silver plated cross but a wooden cross because the husband was still alive! This has been the context in which a priest has come up. Any reaction to a new situation is only based on what he has experienced right from childhood up till becoming a priest. In many cases priests do not completely agree with what is being followed in church. An example of this is that girl babies are not taken to the altar after baptism while male babies are taken, creating a clear division between boys and girls. Many priests now do not agree with this but keep quiet knowing not what to do.
As I mentioned before it is not fair to come down heavily on Priyanka Chopra or her family for what has happened. So we can consider Mary John Akhouri as our own grand mother. What else should we have done to make her memory live on and for her last wish to come true? We should for starters try and understand the system of the church and debate and seek change of any archaic and wrong traditions followed in the church which are beneficial only for a certain section. Why are women treated as second class citizens in the church even though the theology of the church says that God has created man and woman in God’s image and likeness? Can’t we question caste based traditions still followed, sometimes unknowingly and sometimes with clear cut intentions? People inside and outside the church approach the church mainly for baptism, marriage and burial. But shouldn’t we also be approaching the church at other times and debate with the church about the culture of the land and about a society which is very multi lingual and multi cultural? Any loss of a family member is sad but that is the case for all families. When other people and families are discriminated against on the basis of caste, class, gender and religion why do we keep quiet and maintain a status quo? It is time to debate and time to change.
But again it is not to say that we have to do something new in the context of new challenges but to also see what are the corruptions that have come into the church because of cultural pressures and thus go back to the bible and read what it says. The concept of a cemetery is new and is not mentioned in the bible though having a tomb for people is. In John 11:38 it says “Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it.” There is no suggestion that this was a cemetery. In Genesis 23:9 Abraham seeks a place to bury Sarah and the verse says “That he may give me the cave of Machpelah, which he owns; it is at the end of his field. For the full price let him give it to me in your presence as property for a burying place.” In the Old Testament as well we read about tombs and not cemeteries. In John 19:38-42 Jesus is also placed in a tomb after his crucifixion. “After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” So even Jesus was not buried in a cemetery. But then Jesus showed us the importance of his resurrection over his death.
It is important that the church and civil society work together and that the church should be a corrective for civil society and when necessary civil society should also be critical of the church. One should not get into the narrative of church vs civil society or church vs the media but should look ahead at what can be done so that all who live and all who pass on are equally honored because they are a creation of God. Why is it that people in the church and people belonging to civil society keep quiet or are not expressive enough when people who died were not given a decent and honorable burial because of church feuds? Why weren’t the people involved including priests then not questioned enough about the inhuman and unchristian approach to dead persons? Was that person not a human being? Why don’t we pose enough questions when the funeral rites are done two times, one each by different denominations wanting to assert their supremacy through such acts? Why do we remain quiet when the pulpit is used for preaching hatred, caste supremacy and gender difference?
We have in numerous ways humiliated various living persons and dead persons by our actions in the religious sphere. Mary John Akhouri was not singled out for discrimination but that does not mean that she did not deserve better. It is time that various religions and denominations got together to look at their similarities rather than preach their differences. It is an opportunity to talk about topics usually not encouraged to be discussed in the open. It is also a space for us to gather in public and openly express our religious beliefs including and not excluding the other. If we can do this in the name of Mary John Akhouri and other women and men before her then we will end up respecting them forever. Anything less than that will only lead to the disrespect and humiliation of the soul of Mary John Akhouri. May God guide us.
Friday, June 10, 2016
In a church which tries to express itself in the 21st century it is important for all to know who a priest who leads a church can and should be. This is important for the priest to minister well to the priest’s flock and for the flock to understand what to expect and how to work with the priest in a particular church. It is also important that the clergy and laity work together in the church so that everyone in church and society benefits from the policies of the church.
Looking at the clergy from the perspective of the laity is also important. It is this Orthodox understanding of the "laity" that discloses the real meaning and function of clergy. In the Orthodox Church clergy is not above laity or opposed to it. First of all, strangely as it may seem, the basic meaning of the term clergy is very close to that of laity. Clergy comes from "clerus" which means the "part of God". "Clergy" means that part of humankind that belongs to God, has accepted God's call, and has dedicated itself to God. In this initial meaning the whole Church is described as "clergy"— part or inheritance of God. But gradually the term "clergy" was limited to those who fulfilled a special ministry within the People of God, who were especially set apart to serve on behalf of the whole community.
This association of the clergy and laity is important to keep the clergy grounded in the grace and mercy of God instead of always talking of priesthood in terms of privilege that certain people enjoy over others. Pope Francis in his sermon to priests made a very critical observation which is valid for priests all over the world. He requested the priests to strive for a “conversion of our institutional mindset,” because if priests don’t showcase God’s mercy, they become something “bizarre and counterproductive.” A priest cannot forget that the basis of priesthood is the very humble grounding on the mercy of God. Priests would do very well for the church if they can come out of this institutional mind set mentioned by the Pope. It is not what we cannot do, but what we can do which makes a priest a listener, helper, motivator and provider for someone seeking the time of a priest.
The Pope continues “If we start by feeling compassion for the poor and the outcast, surely we will come to realize that we ourselves stand in need of mercy.” A priest will definitely go through several forms of crisis in pastoral ministry and family life. This should not be the reason to jump on the laity but a reason to love them more because our journey in search of God’s mercy should make us be merciful and reflect God’s mercy to others. That is why the Pope reminds us to “show mercy” in order to receive it. He makes this clearer by saying “The priest who has scarce pity for sinners is only half a priest. These vestments I wear are not what make me a priest; if I don’t have charity in my heart, I am not even a Christian.” The Pope uses the gospel passage of the woman caught in adultery. When Jesus encounters her, he’s asked “should she be stoned or not?” “He did not rule, he did not apply the law. He played dumb, and then turned to something else,” Pope Francis said, adding that in doing this Jesus started a process in the heart of a woman who needed to hear, “Neither do I condemn you.” It will do well in this era for a priest to understand the needs of a congregation and make it the best place available in an area to come to and be in. It should be a place where a congregation member can be herself or himself. A church will become a dark, judgmental place if the priest is judgmental.
Sometimes long years in ministry can slacken a priest and lead to disinterest in being a spiritual counselor and guide for the congregation. The Pope has a clear piece of advice here. He says “A shepherd after the heart of God has a heart sufficiently free to set aside his own concerns. He does not live by calculating his gains or how long he has worked: he is not an accountant of the Spirit, but a Good Samaritan who seeks out those in need,” the Pope said in a June 3 homily. “For the flock he is a shepherd, not an inspector, and he devotes himself to the mission not fifty or sixty percent, but with all he has.” “In seeking, he finds, and he finds because he takes risks. He does not stop when disappointed and he does not yield to weariness. Indeed, he is stubborn in doing good, anointed with the divine obstinacy that loses sight of no one,” the Pope continued. “Not only does he keep his doors open, but he also goes to seek out those who no longer wish to enter them.”
Even young priests could back track from their ministerial objectives because of the pressure they may have from seasoned and established seniors and lay leaders who may not agree with the free flow of grace and mercy. The Pope gives hope here by saying “Woe to the shepherds who privatise their ministry.” A shepherd after the heart of God does not protect his own comfort zone; he is not worried about protecting his good name; he will be slandered like Jesus. But rather, without fearing criticism, he is disposed to take risks in seeking to imitate his Lord. Blessed are you when they insult you, when they persecute you,” he said. A good shepherd excludes none of his flock and does “not await greetings and compliments” but is the first one who reaches out to others, listening patiently to their problems and accompanying them with compassion. “He does not scold those who wander off or lose their way, but is always ready to bring them back and to resolve difficulties and disagreements. He is a man (sic) who knows how to include,” the Pope said.The final exhortation of the Pope is passionate and he reminds priests “Dear priests, in the Eucharistic celebration we rediscover each day our identity as shepherds. In every Mass, may we truly make our own Christ’s words: "This is my body, which is given up for you”.
This is also true in the Orthodox church. Although Orthodox clergy are given considerable honor by the Orthodox Church, each ordination is also viewed as a kind of martyrdom. The Orthodox cleric agrees to be a servant of both Jesus Christ and of the people of the church; many of the vestments are intended to remind him of this. Much is expected of the clergy, both practically and spiritually; consequently, they also have a special place in the litanies that are prayed, asking God to have mercy on them.
The Priestly Commandment in most Orthodox churches include to teach people by good example and inspiring sermons, caring for the congregation as a father not a hireling, to work for achieving the food of eternal life which does not perish, rather than that which perishes, continuous growth in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. The priest must escape from the love of money which is the source of all evil deeds, must be aware of drunkenness and bodily lusts as it darkens the enlightened mind and converts a man to a lustful animal, must avoid envy and strife, unkindness, mockery and pride, so that he does not lose and destroy his service, must avoid gossip, boasting, hypocrisy and pretence, for they are terrible vices which cause problems and make people stumble. The priest must also avoid being double faced, double tongued, and false witnessing, must not frighten or dominate people, but rather, be compassionate and patient, must love God and all creation with all his heart and soul, must possess the virtues of righteousness, mercy, chastity, humbleness, content, contrition, endurance and patience, resembling his master and teacher Christ Jesus in His virtues and good behavior. The priest must not deviate from the true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who is the foundation of religion and by whom all Christians are saved, must treat the congregation of God with compassion and skill, leading them by the tenderness of Christ, endurance and compassion, must care to acquire the first Christian virtue, which is love, by the sincerity of conscience and true witnessing, must care for the Holy Mysteries, especially the sacrament of Communion which are the Holy Body and Precious Blood of Christ Lord, and watch these treasures and gems as the cherubim guarded the tree of life (Genesis 3:24).
It is quite clear. Who is a priest? A priest is a person who serves, is merciful to others, looks at life as sacrifice, looks beyond an institutional mind set, does not judge but is rather a shepherd, and looks forward to martyrdom. It is our prayer that the church gets more such priests for ministry.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Touch and touch therapy have been found to be one of the most effective ways of healing. So much that many hospitals these days are teaching nurses touch therapy and many governments are releasing funds for more research and training of touch therapy. This touch is also called therapeutic touch involving touch with and without actual coming into contact with the body. The energy field of the body and the coming together of the energy fields of two bodies and the resulting healing using touch and channelizing of energy has been talked about for many years now. But what about the church and is the church using the power of touch or has the church discounted the power of touch and through that the power of healing?
The priest in church is asked to pray for church members and this is usually done by touching the forehead of a believer or a person who has come to church or whom you have seen in an outside setting. I have come across many people from other religions who have requested prayer even though they were seeing me for the first time. I have come to understand that this is not my greatness or power but the positive energy of spirituality through touch that they are seeking. It is not the power of my hands but the power of touch which Jesus has so effectively shown us through his ministry. This power is so much there and effective. It does not belong to the priest to use according to his whims and fancies but rather to be given freely just like the grace and mercy of God is given to us by God freely. In Daniel 10:18 it is written “Then this one with human appearance touched me again and strengthened me.”
Touch also in church includes much more than the touch for prayer and blessing. It includes our looks, gestures and all that we do while conducting ourselves in church. This leads to touch. Touch is not what we should be ashamed of or reluctant to give but should rather be a part of our conduct in and outside the church. If we are reluctant to touch it means we are reluctant to accept the person we come across and that means we are discriminating against people. Touch has now become such a difficult thing in church because people are watching when two people use the magic and miracle of touch to heal each other. They may pass comments or view touch with judgment even when it is one of the most powerful miracles we can initiate on a regular basis. It is amusing that the church does not allow women to be a part of the ministry of the church and at the same time will also judge a priest who is using the healing power of touch irrespective of gender in the church.
There is also the problem in society of abuse using touch when men without permission touch children and women leading to abuse. The fear of abuse is also making the church and its people paranoid about touch which is such a shame. Touch can only be upon the comfort and the permission of the person we are touching. Any other touch is not acceptable as it will not bring about healing. Even the touch between husband and wife and parents and children has to be with comfort and permission as otherwise it will only be the touch and expression of power and not healing.
What was so special about Jesus’ ministry? Was it that he healed so many people? Yes, but what did he do before the healing process was initiated. He touched people and in all cases he touched the most unlikely people including women, lepers, the blind and the lame. They were all people Jesus was not supposed to touch. In Mark 8:22 we must note what the people did “And they came to Bethsaida and they brought a blind man to Jesus and implored Him to touch him.” In Luke 18:15 touch even brings discomfort to Jesus’ disciples as we see “And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them.” In Mark 7:33 “Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva.” And in Matthew 8:3 “Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying, "I am willing; be cleansed. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.” There are many other examples which prove that Jesus touched and touched and touched and thereby the miracle of healing was so prevalent among different kinds of people. He did not leave anyone out.
Today a priest, a missionary, a lay leader and any person who has any role in ministry is given a list of people who are not supposed to be touched. Of course this is not a written down official list but a list which is culturally passed on and expected to be followed. What happens in the process is that the power of healing is lost in church and in the area of ministry. This is sad and wrong. Jesus’ touch was acceptable to the people he touched. He did not touch inappropriately and unwantedly from the perspective of those he touched. He also submitted himself to touch. Such is the healing of touch!
Touch does not just come from above from the bishop, then to the priest, then to the deacon and then to the lay leader. The healing power of touch plays around in various kinds of relationships. This is what we have to revive in church and in the sphere of the church. For that we have to see people equally as otherwise touch will become a very difficult thing to practice. The father and mother have to touch their child/children, the wife her husband and the husband his wife, the child the parent, the siblings, friends and in all kinds of relationships touch will enhance healing and happy living. Even while praying we are unknowingly touching. Folded hands mean that one hand is touching the other. Some hold on to the table, some to the book and some elsewhere. We are all touching because it is part of the healing process of the body.
Isn’t it time we brought back touch? Why are we reluctant to practice healing through touch? Isn’t it because we have unequal relationships, discriminatory relationships and the sins of gender, caste and class posing hurdles? This needs to be corrected in the church context and we have to become Jesus people who use the power of touch to question wrong notions in society and through that perform miracles. Each one of us is a miracle worker. God has given us the unique power of being a miracle worker and the power is in our hand. But unless we exercise it and unless we use it unabashedly without any hurdle we can’t become Christ’s church. We will just continue to be collectives of people who come and go without following Jesus in particular!
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Festivals are a time when people come together in hope and prayer interceding to a saint and asking for God’s grace and mercy. But one should also note that people also come to a festival in a flow of tradition and as a performed ritual. It becomes a time when one nudge leads to another and then another and further another. There are many who don’t identify a saint with their present life and there is therefore a disassociation with the saint in some way. This is not to say that all people come to church during a festival not knowing why but that many come without associating the life of the saint with their own!
St. George was a solider born to a Greek father and a Christian mother who lived near Palestine in the 3rd or 4th century C.E. He joined the army and rose up in life very quickly because he was a good soldier. He then became the joint leader of a 1000 strong regiment and was popular among his peers. This was when the Emperor Diocletian brought out an edict that all Christians in the empire should come back to the state religion and that Christianity would not be encouraged by the state. St. George on hearing this changes his stance of being loyal to the state and says that he is loyal first to Christ and then to the state. Till this point of time the state through weapons gave him the security he needed. But he is prepared to shed the weapons in favour of Christ and the protection God offers him. St. George is tortured and then asked to convert from Christianity but he keeps refusing and the torture and the range and scope of the torture also keeps changing. Finally the soldiers and the emperor understand that the only way to make St. George quiet is to behead him, to separate his head from his body because every single cell in his body when alive kept repeating the name Christ. Such is his faith that it is said that after his torture the empress and the chief sorcerer in the empire also join St. George in his martyrdom after accepting Christ.
There are a few things for us to learn from the martyrdom of St. George and from one of the most popular traditions about him. The martyrdom of St. George is a model of disarming ourselves and our enemies. We live in a world where we use arms and ammunition to get our things done. Many countries and media houses create monsters so that they can then destroy the monsters they create and do a victory lap. But St. George is not like that. Instead he rejects arms and violence and preaches Christ because the peace of Christ is beyond the power of any arms and violence. John 14:27 says “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.” Further in John 16:33 Christ says “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” As it is said in Romans 12:2 “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” St. George is overcome by a peace he perhaps never had before and that is the peace which gives him courage.
How do we identify that St. George was transformed by the renewal of his mind and his discernment made him fight for peace and shun violence? What does this understanding give us to identify and understand in today’s world? The single powerful symbol for us to identify with is the picture of St. George which we have in most of our churches. This is the picture of a man who looks like a solider and is on a white horse putting a spear at a dragon, with what seems like a woman in the background.
But look closely at this picture on top. The usual story behind the traditional picture (at the bottom) is that a particular city was hounded by a dragon who lay at the only source of water for the city. This was followed by the need of the dragon to eat something. Water was available for the city only if the dragon was fed. Initially the dragon was satisfied with cattle. But after that was exhausted, the people who were selected according to lots were fed to the dragon. One day the daughter of the leader of the city is selected by lot to go before the dragon. The leader is helpless and the young woman is led to the outskirts of the city and left there. This is when St. George who is passing by stops and asks the young woman what the problem is. She asks him to go on as she is scared to even accept and talk about her fear. St. George persists and she is ready to engage her fear and so tells him about the dragon. On hearing this St. George does not move on but helps the woman to disarm her fear. He mellows down the fearful dragon and tells the young woman to put a rope around the neck of the dragon and walk it into the city. By now the young woman is fearless and does just that. Imagine the sight of a crowd who were waiting to hear the sound of the satisfied dragon after having devoured the young woman. Instead they saw her walking into the city, fearlessly with another man on a horse. They immediately believe in God. The transition they have in their lives is quick because such is the sight they see. They, like the woman are not scared anymore.
The festival of St. George is a time to look at and accept our fears, engage our fears and disarm our fears. The woman, like a woman in our society today was scared. She was scared of evil befalling her but she must have also been scared of the soldier who she thought must have come to harm her. But the solider does not do that and instead helps her go through the difficult process of handling her fear. The festival of St. George is the time we get to help each other and to help ourselves to take fear head on but without killing anyone and without harming anyone. Instead we use the peace and love of Christ to completely disarm and diffuse evil and the fear of evil.
St. George offers us an opportunity to accept Christ and transform our lives from what it is now. It is not to pull back to the safety of the city and hear the woman die but to stand for the life of the woman even though we do not know her before. As responsible and religious human beings we can also do just that. We can stand up for one another and use the peace of God to transform ourselves from fearful by standers to fearless people who interact with the person nearby to together create a fearless reaction to a situation. The festival of St. George should invigorate us to do such acts of fearlessness.
(Parts of this was preached as a festival sermon at the St. George Knanaya Church, Domlur, Bengaluru on May 28, 2016.)
Thursday, June 2, 2016
The Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church has put a good foot forward by encouraging congregations to have 35% reservation for women in the managing committee of the church. When we read into it what it means is that all women and men can attend the general body of the church. Thus far women are not allowed to attend the general body as voting members unless a woman has lost her husband.
Even though these are good steps on behalf of the church one does get the feeling that the church which includes priest leaders, lay leaders and church members are not completely ready for equality in the church even though the church believes in equality of gender as there is nothing like inequality in the theology of the church. Despite this we can see that all spheres of the church are very unwelcoming and unequal for women and men. What could be the reason if the church maintains that the church believes in equality of both women and men? One of the strongest factors is morality.
Morality apart from being a framework for living is the form of standards for life and is also a way of drawing lines and saying for sure that this is what the church believes in and there is no other option. It is also the measure through which groups or certain people are prevented from being who they are and as they want to be. Take a look at the unending list of things starting from childhood.
1. Girls have to cover their head.
1. 1. It is mentioned clearly in the bible.
1. 1 Cor 11:15- “but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.” Meaning that women already have covering and don’t need extra covering.
2. Girls/women should not pollute the church by their presence if they are having their period because they need to undergo the time for recovering and purity.
2. This is what is said in Leviticus 15.
2. Read Leviticus 15 again. The first part talks about the discharge of men and what they should do. Which church talks about this?
3. Women should dress properly.
3. The bible says so.
3. 1 Peter 3:2-5 says “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful.”It is suggesting the inner beauty of women and not necessarily what to wear and what not to wear!
4. Disease is brought about by an immoral life style by women and men. Women are also now smoking and drinking like men!
4. Women should be modest, and cancer and other diseases are increasing because of an immoral life style followed by men and women.
4. In Mathew 8 Jesus heals a person with leprosy, heals the helper of the Centurion who is paralyzed and heals Peter’s mother in law. 8:17 says ““He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.” Jesus never associates disease with sin and morality but rather heals.
5. Women and men should always live within the framework of marriage. If you are unmarried you are susceptible to an immoral and sinful life. People in church always have an eye on a man and a woman talking, to ensure they stay within moral standards of the church.
5. The bible is always moral conscious. Proverbs 12:4 says “A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.” So morality is important.
5. In John 8:7 Jesus says “Let anyone among you without sin be the first to through a stone at her.” Further Jesus says again in Mathew 5:28 “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” If so then what difference is it going to make by watching people and commenting on their single hood or marriage?
I can go on and on about different forms of moral standards and moral policing in the church. But does the bible and does God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit expect us to fulfill moral standards and be morally solid or does God want us to be God’s creation reflecting God’s love, assurance, equality and justice in this world?
When we examine different rules and regulations in the church we understand that many of them are a result of morality and how we look at people with the lens of morality. Women are usually on the receiving end of this but men also find themselves stuck in a moral debate of what is good and bad. There has been a call by the World Council of Churches to root out caste from the church. Caste, gender and other oppression are also a result of moral standards of purity, colour and piety. The church then has to also address the issue of morality in the church to make the church closer to what the early church was and also near to what Jesus envisioned it to be.