"The Way of Just Peace",- by Ajay. T, Oommen, Gurukul

Scripture: II Samuel: 12: 1-15a.

India has a celebrated history of, diligent adherence towards peace and propagation of peace. India thus became the mother to several religions, that had strong desires for the search to realise the ultimate peace. The recitation “Threefold refuge” of the Buddhist tradition ends with the utterance of this utmost longing, “Peace.” The champion of Indian freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi is the most revered personality in 20th century, for his persevering quest for peace, freedom and liberation. Yesterday, Jan 30th was the Day of Martyrdom of Mahatma Gandhi. But the day becomes a reminder for me and all of us that the quest for a real peace is still beyond our reach. The discernment Gandhiji had, about the peace instituted by the British Raj and the path that Gandhiji trod for the independence of India, calls us for deeper engagements with the current “manifestations of peace.”

Henry David Thoreau an American philosopher of 19th century had profound influence over Gandhiji and Martin Luther King Jr. in devising their strategies of non violence and civil disobedience. Thoreau points out that, “The essential freedom is the freedom to dissent.” Standing firm on the convictions of these personalities, today we have to question our clichés of freedom, peace and liberty. When multitudes of Indian citizens are detained, ravaged and bruised, when their civil rights does not have the luxury even to chit chat in public, we must enquire where our peacemaking efforts have reached. The struggles of Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, Medha Patkar, Anuradha Koirala, Tasleema Nasreen, Daya Bai and many more to name reminds us to critically view our notions of peace. Today the read passage for reflection calls us to look keenly into the actions of peacemaking under sovereigns and try to find meanings for our current scenario.

The system of Davidic monarchy was a well devised one. There were rules regulating the social life of the people, and the irrevocable laws which were given by Yahweh ensured human rights, and the violation of any kind was punished by the king, in the name of Yahweh. Moreover David was such a king in the history of Israel, who never compromised with the laws and commandments of God. So there was absolutely no chance for a crime to happen, and if so happened, the wrongdoer could not get away from the punishment prescribed by the Mosaic Law. There was no way for anyone to find a serious Human rights violation, under the monarchy of David. At this point Nathan, the man send by God comes up as a witness of a grave crime, before the court of David. This entry of the prophet subverts all kinds of manipulated peacemaking, in order to establish an unprecedented way of peacemaking.

For God and the prophet, the peace making is qualifying peace through disturbing “peace.”

Qualifying peace through disturbing “peace”

Uriah was killed and his wife Beth-Sheba was under the detention of David, and hence there were no one to address the injustice and crime done by David. V.12 says that the violence done by David was in secret. The scheme of David thus went well-off, no one interrogated in to the matter, no riots have broken out and in a sense a sort of peace persisted in his reign, even after the incidence. For the king and the people, the system was put up in peace, but for the deceased Uriah and his wife Beth-Sheba, who was detained and raped by the king, the system was violent and unjust. But the Lord God could not sit back, disregarding the injustice done to the helpless and the voiceless since it was done in secret, or since it was done by the anointed one of God against a Canaanite servant. The God of Justice reacts through Nathan the prophet, appointed by God to bring about the real peace, the “Just Peace.”

The prophet comes with a parable before the king, to which he reacts indignantly with the preconception that, it was an injustice happened somewhere else in his kingdom. This is the strategy of power holders, finding or locating injustice outside its sovereign head. David enquires and pronounces a verdict, “that Ben Māwet,” “the son of death” deserves to die. He is eager to find the “death dealer” outside him and his hierarchy, to punish him and to reclaim himself and his system as just. When the statement “you are the man” comes from the prophet, it points to the “death dealing force” within the hierarchical head.

Until this moment, David had evidently never looked his crime in the face. Now it was so placed before him that he saw it in its entire enormity, stripped off from any mitigation or excuse which he might have thrown over it, if it was known to him through any other means. When we continue to read from v.16, we see that the prophetic intervention for just peace upsets the peace, maintained in David’s court and definitely in his kingdom. Here the peace making itself becomes peace breaking in a hierarchical structure of power.

“Peace” is not a static state or a stable condition, in which one could settle down contently in a human society. One cannot keep peace, but only could make peace. For the official priests Zadok, and Abiathar the tales of pomp and glory about the “shining golden era of Israel’s monarchy” under David, was enough to put behind the veil, the tale of Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba who were assaulted by the state sponsored violence. For them to sit back silently, neglecting the fate of the Hittite was the strategy to keep peace. But for God and his prophet the injustice done to the Hittite was the crucial thing to be addressed concerning David’s reign. Peace needs to be interpreted as a “yet to be attained state” in a society, through the unceasing struggles for justice. So the prophet comes to seek the justice for the Hittite in the reign of David, which the king and his priests failed to address. For the prophet, peace is experienced only in just struggles and not in contentment about acquired peace. Often the “peace” in which we live is only a state of unaddressed violence and unattended injustice. In our contentment we need to ask the question, without peace can there be justice? Without justice, can there be peace? We should ‘qualify the peace’ in which we live.

The process of “just peace” begins, with unmasking violence and uncovering hidden conflicts, in order to make their consequences visible to victims and communities. It has to disturb the artificial peace, expose structural violence and find ways to restore relationships, but not relying on retribution. “Just Peace” is “Just” diplomatic, political, economic and social means of struggle. Peace and freedom are never bestowed, but they are attained. So the striving for just peace involves the transformation of fear, apprehension and allurement through which the “kingdoms and authorities” “manages” the common people.

Too often we pursue justice at the expense of peace, and peace at the expense of justice. To conceive peace apart from justice is to compromise the hope that “Justice and peace shall embrace,” envisioned in Ps.85:10. When justice and peace are lacking or set in opposition, we need to reform our ways. This reformation is possible through exposing the locale of hegemony through “responsible disobedience.”

Exposing the locale of hegemony through “responsible disobedience”

The diligent silence of the priests Zadok and Abiathar may be because they think that to speak with the King about this injustice will be impotent because Uriah was killed a long way back and his wife became the mother of David’s son. Their obedience to the authority was infused in their silence, which the sovereign king sought for. This silence thus legitimised the authority of the King to decide over the destiny of his subjects, and this authority was eventually getting integrated, to the way of exercising power and to the sovereignty of the king. The entry of Prophet Nathan, was to prevent this legitimisation of power to decide over the destiny of the people, even though the story of deceived Uriah was long forgotten in the history of wars, waged by King David. By the utterance “You are the man,” the prophet negates the diligent silence or even a heedful dialogue and goes for a “confrontation” as a means of exposing the locale of hegemony, that resides in the “sovereign” King. Confrontation becomes necessary when one of the parties to a dispute holds such a measure of power, that can determine the conditions for and can manipulate any efforts seeking just resolutions.

Nathan was never named as an official of David, as the priests Zadok, Abiathar and Abimeleck. But it was not these priests but Nathan, who had less accessibility to King and his rule, stood up for the “unclaimed justice” for the murdered Uriah and the raped Bathsheba. For Nathan there came the moment, to “disapprove” the royal power as it appeared to be malevolent in its exercise; and the unvarnished truth about the injustice has to be named and faced. Nathan’s confrontation was “responsible disobedience” in the sovereign monarchy of David. He was disobedient out of a higher obedience, the obedience to God.

Responsible disobedience is a social behaviour, directed to the change of the community. The responsible disobedient disobeys, because he/she has concluded that disobedience will enhance righteousness and justice. Responsible disobedience is an action that warns and admonishes but it is not in itself a threat. The responsible disobedient assumes the right to disobey for genuine ends. At this point the response of Gandhiji towards civil disobedience is worth reminding. He says, “Civil disobedience is the assertion of a right which law should give but which it denies.” So civil disobedience begins at a point when no hope is left with the authorities.

In the book of Esther, God’s people were saved by act of courageous law-breaking of Queen Esther, as she bang into the inner court of the King Ahasuerus claiming justice for her people (Esth. 4:10-11). It was an appropriate title for any prophet, that king Ahab gave to Elijah, “You disturber of Israel,” in his encounter with the prophet (1Kgs.18:17). The mandate for such a disturbing mission is a powerful instigation; a commission from God. The Gospels does not leave us in a slightest doubt that Jesus, who was judged by the standards of his religious milieu, was in fact often “disobedient.” The rage of the religious and political conspirators, against this “unyielding disobedience” sent him to the cross.

Non-violent resistance is central to the way of “just peace.” Recognising that, the strength of the powerful depends on the obedience and compliance of citizens, non-violent strategies of resistance include, the acts of civil disobedience and non-compliance. Blind conformity to the will of superior, unquestioning acceptance of all rules and directives issued by legitimate authority may promote peace, but not “just peace.” We need to speak truth to the power, and if truth is to have a chance with power, it must be done potently. Truth has its own autonomy over obedience. Flattery is neither love nor service.

The prophet advances further through recounting the records of David’s power.

Dismantling hegemony through recounting the “records of power”

God reviews the history of Divine graciousness towards David in Vv. 7-8. It was a history dominated by “giving”, in contrast to David’s “taking” mentioned in v.9. God states about the willingness, to have given David even more (v.8b), but David has now moved from “gift” to “grasp.” Here the power and authority given to David was taking a violent form. So David’s offenses are not just against Bathsheba and Uriah; they are offenses against God who cries “You have despised Me.” Here God through the prophet recounts the records of power of King David.

For God’s chosen ones the offices for services were instituted by God. These offices were installed with a certain authority. This authority is to protect, to lead, to administer justice, and to restore the strayed ones. These were the authorities given to priests, judges, prophets, and kings. But sometimes these offices just like human individuals, tend to turn upon themselves, and indulge in self seeking, self-glorification and pride.

The hegemony exercised by David is seen not in the direct action of killing Uriah, but in devising the death. Hegemony becomes a weapon, more powerful than any other, in determining the fate and destiny of the people. The hegemonic power of the king over the Hittite left him with no other option, than to put his personal happiness and life in his master’s disposal. And it was this power relations, that aggravated David’s crime. The sin of David is not merely located in his unjust actions against Uriah and Bathsheba, but really lies in the hegemonic power distribution, that enforces his subjects to serve the king by giving less importance to their personal priorities. Here the prophet recounts before King David, the record of his power.

In David’s justice system every injustice has a resolution and could be satisfied by compensations, as v. 6 says, a fourfold return is expected from the wrongdoer. But for God, the perpetrator of injustice himself needs to be changed, the hegemony that controls human fate must vanish. After the prophetic intervention, King David was left with no power to decide over the destiny of the people, but he was left as an unfortunate father who laments over a dying child. Here the hegemony gets dismantled and “just peace” dawns.

The claim of the MNCs backed by the so called “development oriented missionary governments” over the natural resources such as land, water, minerals etc can only be viewed as modern day manifestations of this hegemonic power chemistry. The poor villagers who are left only with their ancestral lands and streams of water are asked to contribute their everything, satisfying themselves by meagre compensations. The stories from Narmada, Nandigram, Singur, Jharsuguda etc are the stories of protests against this hegemony.

Any office of service could become masked violent structures, when it exercises power to carry out its sovereign will. Whenever such offices face voices of dissent, it should be discerned that some flaws have happened in the way the power was executed. A recounting of the records of power at this juncture could help, for a re-envisioning of the offices in service, which God intended. Any relationship between the groups of people inside or outside the Christian circle, has to be seen in its real setting of power relationships. Our social and political institutions such as state, Church, family, educational institutions etc often remains reluctant to leave away its pre-eminent influence over their subjects, through the methods of discipline such as, dismissal, divorce, excommunication, isolation, and prison. Unless and until these social and political institutions shed off their hegemonic power over common people, and recount the records of their power, they will remain as a threat for the people.

Christ investing Peter with the supreme authority in the Church calls him Rock. But subsequent to it, He calls him Satan. This is true of all who holds authority. There is in them a duality of Rock and Satan. Hence they are not beyond criticism. They need to distinguish for what their authority is; for service or to exercise hegemony.

There is a divine governance of history, that transcends human institutions. There is a divine power at work in history, that judges human exercise of power. This divine governance reminds constantly all who holds power, that they have to recount the records of their power.

Bringing in peace is not reduced to the task of authority. The promptings of the Spirit never occurs entirely within wholly authorised conditions, and it eludes the checks of the hierarchy. Those who heed to the promptings of the Spirit, may be asked to move along unmarked paths, without the counsel of the usual norms of obedience. No authority has exclusive access to the “Holy Spirit.” Hence there exists a tension specific to the Christian disobedience. This is what Karl Rahner evidently tries to point out, when he says, “If the Spirit is not to be extinguished, we need a correct and courageous interpretation of civil and ecclesiastical obedience.” Thus these powers have to recount their records of power and bring peace to the call, for which they have been called.

Within our limitations of language and intellect, “just peace” can be comprehended as a collective and dynamic process of freeing human beings, from fear and want. It is the envisioning of overcoming enmity, discrimination and oppression, and of establishing conditions of just relationships, that gives privilege to the experiences of the most vulnerable and respect the integrity of creation.

While life in God’s hand is irrepressible, peace does not yet reign. The principalities and powers, though not sovereign, still enjoy their victories, and we will be restless and broken until peace prevails. Thus our peace building acts should criticize, denounce, advocate, and resist as well as proclaim, empower, console, reconcile and heal. Peacemakers will speak against and speak for, tear against and build up, lament and celebrate, grieve and rejoice, in the way of “Just peace.” May the God of “just peace” empower us, to take bold steps to thwart the powers of unjust dominations. Amen.

[Ajay T.Oommen, the preacher of this sermon, is a final year student of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]

"The Gift of Faith Articulation as the Assertion of God’s Choice on Plurality"- by Alex Das, Gurukul

Scripture: Genesis 11:1-9

The Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Thiru. M. Karunanidhi made a statement which was reported in the Hindu Newspaper says that “God does not want to be of approved by anybody, because God is not going to be a candidate in elections. God loves those who all are doing good to humanhood irrespective of the caste, colour or religious differences or even atheists.” We are living in the midst of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsies, Buddhists, atheists and people who are following several other religious faiths. They are our neighbours and they form the part of this diverse society of ours as a beautiful one. One of the papers of World Council of Churches contains this beautiful statement. “God’s oikumene or house is the whole inhabited earth and not just the Christian part of it.” As we celebrated our 62nd Republic day two days ago, the passion for a secular republic is yet a challenge to all of us.

From a theological perspective different positions have been developed on Christian attitude to other religious faiths over the years. These positions are roughly divided into three, exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. While exclusivists believed that Christianity alone is true religion, inclusivists are open to other religious faiths embracing all their good values into the over arching frame work of cosmic Christ or the Kingdom of God. But by insisting a category of their own faith as the ground of all religions they also prove to be exclusive in an indirect way. On the other hand pluralists consider different religions as equal and relative constituting together the absolute truth. I would like to draw your attention to reflect on the read passage towards accepting the religious pluralism and seeks to know how the language of dominant religiosity becomes a threat to the common identity of human beings as God’s creation irrespective of religious faiths.

Tower of Babel as a Hegemonic Structure Created by Delusions of Unity and Splendour

The conventional way of interpreting the passage Genesis chap.11:1-9, views the dispersion at the Tower of Babel as a punishment of God over the human pride. But we need to understand that the dispersion has already started right after the flood, when the sons of Noah filled the earth, and it was seen as the gist of the blessing. Both in Genesis chapters 9 and 10 this dispersion is positively acknowledged. The linguistic division of peoples has already appeared in chap 10:5, 20 & 31 as has the spreading abroad or the scattering of the nations. Moreover Babel has already been named in Chap 10:10. The V. 14 explains that people are afraid of being scattered. The fear of being scattered should not only be understood geographically but also ideologically. We must not make the mistake of thinking that all are equally afraid of being scattered. But we have to assume that the people, who were having economical and political control, are the ones who are afraid of being scattered.

Within the religious realm also those who wanted to rule are trying to keep all unite. Mega projects could be understood as the means to manipulate and hold people together. The building of the tower of Babel was not the necessity of the common people. It was the project and ambition of the dominant. The phrase ‘name for ourselves’ in the same verse is also problematic. It implies the integration of the diverse identity of the humankind into ‘one name’, most probably to the dominant ‘name and identity’ existed at that time.

It may signal an autonomous attempt to secure their own future. The building projects constitute a bid to secure their own future as a unified community, isolated from the rest of the world. Both in psychology and political life, we know the presumption that “need to have a name, as well as the drive for megalomania, are responses to the human fear of losing control and domination.” Through the building of the tower, the ambitious among the human beings were trying to integrate all the cultures and faiths into theirs. Thus tower of Babel was going to be the graveyard of diverse cultures, religions and languages. In this context God is going back with the people of Babel to the created order of differences.

The Confusing of Languages as God’s revisit to Affirm Differences

Vv. 7 & 8 says “Come let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth and they left off building the city”. Here the plural “Let us” indicates that, Godself visits the humanity in the varied and multiple attributes, in the disclosures and ways in which God appeared to the people in various time and space. That visit itself ignites the people to rethink about their distinct cultures, languages, religions and identity. So when we look into the episode of confusing of the language, it must be seen as the emergence of varied opinions that stopped the building of the tower, and not just the confusion. It shows the peoples retroversion to their distinct faith systems. God desired the multiplication and spread of people over the earth, but people wanted to stay in their safe mode of Homogeneity.

The languages are part of deliverance and blessing from God. The Austrian-born English philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus purports that "What can be expressed can only be expressed by means of a language, and so that which is necessary for the understanding of all cannot be expressed through language." The limits of language correspond to the limits of thought; hence there are certain things that cannot be thought. The proposers of the Babel through their unity of language and might, tries to express their language of pride through the tower of Babel. Here God gives the diversity of languages as a protection against domination. Diversity in language and thus culture is given in order that people may be free and develop themselves according to their own dreams. Babel stands for an imposed unity, without freedom of culture, language or religion.

Languages are always developed for the God- Talk. Languages got forms as they were started to be used to express the faiths. It is difficult to set apart languages without the relation of religions, faiths and philosophy. Hebrew, Sanskrit, Pali etc are examples of the languages that emerged along with the religion. So the people speaking different languages imply the re-emergence of different religions, faiths and philosophy, which were there in the pre- Babel civilization. And it is obvious that God was the one, who took initiative in promoting the heterogeneity of faith and culture.

Towards a Faith Articulation Affirming Horizontal Relationships

Finally the building of a city with a tower may not be an issue in itself. But the motivation and attitude towards the building project has to be scrutinized. The building of a city with a tower reflects the knowledge of Mesopotamian construction methods. Two kinds of towers are common in Babylonian culture. ‘Fortified city tower’ and ‘temple tower’ the latter one is also known as Ziggurat, a stepped mountain shaped structure. In Babylonian culture, the Ziggurat provided for communication between earthly and heavenly realms through priestly intermediaries. “The base of the tower was on the earth and its top in the heavens”- it is the popular description of Ziggurat. V. 4 which say, “Come let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens,” makes clear that the tower of Babel was a Ziggurat. The Ziggurat represents an indirect relationship between heaven and earth. But the verse 8 says they left off building the city.

The God who intervened in the human attempt to grow vertically, through integrating everything into the dominant side, commissioned them to grow horizontally, enjoying the diversity of faith, culture, religion and language. Today it is a strong reminder against all fundamentalist religious claims, as it pronounce the message, what humanity needs is not towers of churches and temples but a world where one can express oneself, truly without the suppressions of the dominating culture and religion.


The famous Malayalam novelist P. C Kuttikrishnan, popularly known by his pen name “Uroob” writes a story in his famous novel, “Sundarikalum Sundaranmarum.” Raman Nair, one of the characters of the novel saw an orphaned old women lying by the road side unattended and weary. He asked her to come home and only after they started to home he realized that the woman belongs to another religion and caste, and what a trouble he is inviting on himself. “Uroob” calls this action as the act of humanity that defies rationality. Indeed the God-given humanity must defy rationality that breeds selfishness.

This rationality of making compromises at the face of making just decisions is the call of the hour when there are many who wish to make “name for themselves.” They call for the annihilation of divergent views about life, love, God, and much more, to make a one single name. The revisit of God through the confusing of language in this realm of annihilation seeking unity and splendour is the expression of God’s affirmation on diversity. Languages reaffirm the divergent views on God-talk and seek our dedicated engagement with other faiths to redeem our misconceptions in stereotyped God-talks. Our faith affirmations should be a call to mind the horizontal relationships with the members of the creation, rather than being mindful in preparing highways leading to one single faith affirmation. As Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others we can co-operate for bringing about justice and peace in this world. Each religious community can mobilize its resources for this corporate effort. In our contexts of plurality we may still differ in our perceptions of the ultimate goals of life, yet we can work with proximate goals and strive to achieve them. May the God who revisits our life locales, call us to mind for a committed relationship with people of other faiths and be alert against call for unities of hegemony. Amen. 
[Alex Das, the preacher of this Sermon is a final year student of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.] 

'Stealing of Blessing'-Samuel Varghese, Gurukul

Text: Genesis 27:30-38

The just read passage Gen 27:30-38 describes how Esau the elder son of Isaac lost his blessing from the father and his cry before Isaac for the lost blessing. Isaac was also in a helpless situation. Both Isaac and Esau fell in the trap formed by Rebekah and Jacob. They steals the blessing from the father in a cunning way. This morning let us reflect together on the topic “Stealing of Blessing “. Here mother Rebekah supported and helped Jacob to steal his brother’s blessing.
The Hebrew word for blessing is ‘beraka’ It generally denotes a bestowal of good, usually conceived of materials. In the ancient near East the blessing of the father to his son was passing of his property and authority to next generation. Blessings were integral part of the Israelites liturgy and were frequently paired with curses violation of covenantal stipulation.
Today in our churches and society also there are many people like Esau, Jacob and Rebekah. Many people are denied of their basic needs under severe poverty. They can be compared to the image of the Esau. We see this image in the oppressed communities like Dalits, adivasi and women. They are eligible for the enormous blessing of God. Jacobs and Rebekahs also present among us today, By amassing wealth exploiting and living on the expense of the others, this Jacobs and Rebekahs were destroying the God’s plan for the humanity. All the development projects aim at all-round development of the Society. But eventually if fails in its aim, and it becomes ultimate blessing for the dominant group of Jacobs and Rebekahs.
They live luxuries life by stealing the opportunities and rights of the less privileged people of our Society. They make the life of the marginalized people more miserable. Jesus was also aware of this fact that is why Jesus says in Matthew 7:15 ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves’. Here Jacob also came wearing the garments of sheep’s clothing and he cheated his father and brother.
Let us introspect ourselves that we share whose image with us, we claim to be a called community, working with values of Jesus Christ, but we also silently taking part in stealing the blessing which are the inheritance of our fellow being around us. We are called to serve others without expecting anything. But today we forget our call and commitment often we take the role of a paid employees. We speak theology boldly but fails to practice it in our day today life. 

Every festival is a remembrance of blessing what God has given without any hierarchy all the people celebrated. It is also remembrance of God’s abundant blessing on all people without considering Caste, Color and Class. Let it be an occasion for us to understand the blessing of God is for all. Including Jacob and Esau without any individual difference.
Let us prepare ourselves to share the blessing that we get from the God.  Amen.

[Samuel Varghese, the leader of this meditation, is a third year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]

"Three Fundamentals for Relationship"- by Jeremiah, Gurukul

Text: 1 John 5:1-5

Shane Caliborne, a Christian activist writes in his book ‘The Irresistible revolution’ “All around you people will be tiptoeing through life, just to avoid to arrive at death safely. But dear children, do not tiptoe, Run, hop, skip or dance, just don’t tiptoe”.
In contrast to most N. T. Letters 1 John does not identify the author, although distinctive pasterns of style and ten references to ‘my dear children’ make it likely that the apostle John wrote it as an elderly man – which is also an early church tradition.
In this chapter John focuses on the relationship of the three fundamental elements so important to him in the knowledge of God: faith, love and obedience. Here faith requires not only that something is held to be true, but that a commitment has been made. God has taken up residence in us and a relationship has been established that one can’t help but confess (3:23; 4:2,4,15). Like the three legs of a stool, all are needed for experiencing the fullness of life that Jesus came to bring. And there are three historic facts, witnesses that are basis for entering into that fullness ( in live with O.T. law which required two or three witnesses – Deut 17:6; 19:5). Like the three legs of a stool all are needed for experiencing the fullness of life that Jesus came to bring. And there are three historic facts, witnesses that are the basis for entering into that fullness.
However in the pressured ordinaries of everyday life all this obeying and loving can just feel like hard work. Vibrant faith can appear elusive or even something to be avoided in case of too much is demanded of us. The commitment to remaining on the move on a faith journey with God can so easily be replaced by a strong desire to settle, to stay within comfort zones.(Heb 11: 13-16).
Sexual morality, gossip, church politics and the driven nature of many of our lives are some which seriously damages our relationships and go largely unchallenged. John does not explicitly mention these issues, but he does place great emphasis on the importance of loving relationships. In addressing the problems of heresy and being concerned about what his readers believe he appears especially interested in their behaviour as the evidence of their relationship with God. True belief that God is light is not about mere intellectual assent or some form of super-spirituality but is tested by whether but is tested by whether one walks in that light and obeys God’s commands. Believing God is righteous is demonstrated by whole life discipleship, and knowing he is a God of love must translate into an active love for others that is much more than warm fuzzy feelings.
The simple but radical requirement of love and obedience here points to the simplicity of Jesus’ own teaching and the response he requires of those who profess allegiance to him. This is about everyday lives marked by generosity and integrity in our dealings with others and being quick to deal with personal sin, as well as forgiving those around us their own failings. It flows from a deep heart commitment to model our lives on Jesus himself, and is outworked through active relationship with him, seeking to obey God’s commands in the stuff of our daily lives within the world he has placed us in.
In reality God’s commands are not burdensome. The secret and the means to overcoming the temptation to settle for less are already ours. When God entered into us and we trusted in Jesus we are given the relationship with him. Investment in that relationship brings an exchange of love that in turn motivates and empowers us to live the full in the everyday.
I conclude by reading another quotation by Shane Caliborne in the same book titled ‘The irresistible revolution’ “And I think that’s what our world is desperately in need of lovers- people who are building deep, genuine relationships with fellow strugglers along the way and who actually know the faces of the people behind the issue they are concerned about”.
May God bless this words....Amen. 

[J.Jeremiah  Alfred, the leader of this meditation is a third year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]

"Turn Back" by Biji Panchiyil, Gurukul

Text: Luke 15:11-24.

 One day a policeman went on his night rounds. On the way, he saw a man searching for something under the street light. He asked the man, what he is searching for?. The man replied that he was searching for his lost key. The kind hearted policeman joined in the search. Even after a long time, they couldn’t find the key. The policeman asked the man “Are you sure that the key is lost here?” Then pointing to the other side of the road, the man replied that “I lost my key there, but as there is no light there and enough light here, I’m searching here”.
In this passage alsowe can see such a person who was searching for pleasure in the light supplied by the world. This is mentioned in the gospel according Luke chapter 15:: 11-24, which is a familiar parable to us. The meaning of life lies in the type of choices that one makes.
In verse 13, we can see that the young man went in search of the pleasure under the world’s light. For that he broke his relationship with his father and his family. His priority was to enjoy his life in this world rather than to be an obedient son in his family along with his elder brother. He tried to find pleasure outside his family relationships. But his search for finding pleasure ends in a pathetic situation. His efforts finally failed. Verse 15 says that, in the end he landed among the pigs, which is a shameful association for Jews. 

In this modern world also, we are searching for worldly pleasures by breaking our relationship with our Heavenly Father. Like the younger son we also thinking that ‘our money, our property and our friends will give us ultimate pleasures. Sometimes it brings pleasure, but it will last for a short time only. They are like bubbles in the water which tempt us but will not exist for long.  

Dear friends many times for worldly pleasures we break our relationship with our God. But in verse 17 we can see that when the young man came to his sense he returned to his father’s love and care. Finally he found pleasure in the relationship with his father and his family. Sometimes we may also realise our pathetic or shameful association but we never tried to return rather adjust with the situation. Vainly we continue our search. But we have an opportunity to return. We have to use it.
It’s the time for us to return to our relationship with God. The God of the Bible always wishes to live with us. There are times for everyone when we come back to ourselves and realise so many things, our failures, our mistakes, what is good is to be done and what is not, but the question is how far we make use of it. We should remember that a loving father is waiting for us. The broken relationship has to be re-established in our life with our God which will always give exact happiness in our life
This is the time for us to realise and to think about ourselves, whether we are standing inside or outside in the relationship with our Heavenly Father? If we are outside in the relationship it is the time for us to return from the midst of the pigs to the love of the father.
Friends, returning to the relationship is always painful initially but, it ends in a rejoicing experience, it is what God is expecting from us today.

[Biji Panchiyil, the leader of this meditation is a first year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]