"The Royalty of Service is Breaking the Hierarchy" by John Allwyn, Gurukul

The Royalty of Service is Breaking the Hierarchy

(In a missionary perspective)

Text: John: 13:1-17

There are many missionaries who planted a fame and name by their hard and solid efforts in means of propagating Gospel. But it is not the same in all cases. It is anomaly thought of a Christian missionary to think about the welfare and development of a believer. Consciously or unconsciously Christian missionaries have a pride and self identity in means of mission that is gaining the souls in Christ Jesus. There are missionaries really doing their ministry without any pride and self-centered. They renounced all their benefits and profits. Above all they are keeping on maintaining their blameless life before others which is really a tough task. Blameless life does not connote the isolation or the separation from the people or the world, but it is a collaboration with them and being one among people in order to save them through Christ. Especially, they are proving the equality that our Lord Jesus Christ showed. The mission work is not a static but it is dynamic, which flows and spreads ceaselessly. Therefore the missionaries should have such flow to reach people not just up to the level of conversion but the scope of betterments of their welfare.  The missionaries’ part is not ended or stopped at the level of introducing Christ to them, but it has a lot of responsibilities to equip them to live a better life in their struggles. The development of the respected place where a missionary posted is not based on the work of a particular missionary how superior he/she is, but on the outcome or the result of the missionary work how long it has reached the people. In fact, that work should equip the people to stand on their own legs. How long people should depend the missionaries for their betterments? How long they expect the missionaries to meet their needs? These questions came to my mind after my experience in the DMPB mission field.

I was posted as a missionary in the Kalvarayan Hills. The mission work started here before merely more than 50 years. Even though, DMPB have done many works, they have raised only few missionaries as local missionaries. The local missionaries are the original people of the particular land, and they are forbidden by the DMPB mission board not to take any post as leaders of the mission. Though a local missionary has a complete quality for leadership, it has been forbidden by the DMPB missionaries. This shows that, we are failing to follow the models of Jesus in the ministry.

1)         Humility: a tool to break the hierarchy

Here, in this pericope (Jn: 13:1- 17) Jesus exhibits the humility which is a model for all of us. Feet - washing would be understood as a traditional act of  love in one sense in the Old Testament, and also feet-washing will be done when one entered one’s house, not during the course of a  meal. The Passover ritual prescribed a washing of hands after the second cup, but there is no evidence that Jesus’ action was a variant upon that custom. Feet –washing is explained here as being a lesson in humility and Jesus illustrated, by his action this essential feature of his mission and he bids his disciples to follow his example.

The fourth Gospel writer John is very keen in chronology of every event. He pointed out that this feet- washing had taken place before the feast that is Nisan the Passover. John emphasizes his chronology, which differs from that suggested by the synoptists. Moreover, according to John this act of feet-washing had taken time after the meal, exactly at the end of eating. Jesus “got up from the table”. Therefore it is clear that this act is not a matter of purification, or a preparatory act for a meal. It is an act of practical or object-lesson to the Disciples to instruct the Humility. Further, Jesus girded Himself with a towel, as a slave would do, and poured water upon their feet. This act showed us how Jesus the Master served his disciples with humility. John tells us that He not only spoke, but acted what He said. As a rebuke to their worldly strivings, He, their Lord and Master, showed them what dignity is in the Kingdom of God by rendering to them the most menial service that could be asked of a slave. The divine humility shows itself in rendering service. He who is entitled to claim the service of all his creatures chooses first to give his service to them. “The son of man came not to receive service but to give it” (Mk: 10:45).  This kind of attitude should be there in a missionary. 

The self- identity of a missionary should be vanished through the projection of Christ Jesus. But, still missionaries are holding such dignity and status in order to explicit them as a leader for mission. The action of Jesus broke the hierarchy between master and disciples, the superior and inferior. Some of our Christian missionaries do not want such mentality to be humble and treat other as their equals. They want others to remain in the same state where they are, is that the fundamental level of their spiritual entity. Missionaries’ need should be there always to help them by the domination. People always remain dependents. As a famous saying “a good leader does not make any disciples, but rather leaders”, Jesus proved it by both words and deeds. This is not an event that Jesus demonstrated such humility, which limited with itself alone but, a solid teaching which condemns the pride and superior hearts. The Lukcan Gospel clearly records the dispute about the greatness, among the disciples, followed by the institution of the Lord’s supper. It gives the conclusion of that dispute as follows; Jesus told them, “in this world the kings and greater man order their slaves around, and the slaves have no choice but to like it”. But among you, the one severs you best will be your leader. Therefore, the greatness is not based on the sophisticated life of a person but it is on humility and in respecting others. The demonstration of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet is a centre core of mission, which is recalling us to partake in such service. Let us find out the way to reach people with humility and meekness. 

2)         Recognition: a tool to break the hierarchy

The great attitude of a person is to consider others with their qualities. Respecting others and their talents are needed in God’s mission. For most forms of ministry some understanding of people is necessary. There are people those with multiple talents and gifts which are still not recognized in this world. The Christian mission is a platform for this kind of persons, and the hidden persons should reveal out to the light, since our Lord and savior is metaphorically considered as Light of the world. The recognition is also one way to equality. Jesus in his object- lesson taught to disciples the equality by recognizing them even though the disciples did not know about themselves and their talents. For example:  while Jesus washing his disciples’ feet, Peter denied such act of his Lord, that master comes and doing the menial service is somehow humiliation to the master. But, Jesus’ intention is not like the way Peter thinks. It is more than that, Peter said “Lord are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not know now what I am doing, but later you will understand”. Here Jesus knew that Peter would go to do many things to the world after his ascension, but Peter did not know that at the movement. Jesus’ recognition is so revealed in this verse even though Peter did not know it. Further, Peter said again “you will never wash my feet”, Jesus answered, “But if I don’t you can’t be my partner”. This is a clear cut statement of Jesus that if Peter does not take part in washing then he will lose the equal partnership with his master.  What does the partnership denote here? This might be our question further dealing with this perecope. The partnership is an involvement in God’s mission that Jesus was doing along with his disciples. Jesus identified himself as a servant of God, by doing God’s mission and his open call to everyone to partake in it too. The “part” with Jesus is a sign of accomplishment of God’s mission and importantly the deeper meaning of it is “heritage with Jesus”. The word “heritage” in verse 8 is significant. The Greek expression echein meros can mean simply “to share with; be a partner with”, and this is mean the “more than fellowship”, the word Meros is used in LXX to translate Hebrew Heleq, the word that describes the God-given heritage of Israel. Peter did not understand that at the time but, as per Jesus said he became a great leader later after, Jesus’ ascension. This is what really needed to a Christian missionary, in order to recognize people and respect them with their qualities and uniqueness. 

It is a major question to us that “why there is no recognition given to deserving persons by the Christian missionaries?” it is a sensitive question because people are really not achieving their destination according to their abilities. The reason behind that disregard is if a person is given such privilege then he might perhaps become stronger and superior to a missionary or a Christian leader. In order not to equip the lay people, missionaries do not encourage them up to such leadership levels. In fact those particular missionaries who think like that are not right in sense, but, they are deceiving themselves, moreover they do still know not the self recognition that they are chosen for God’s mission. Nevertheless, the missionaries those who have such mentality, do not recognize their own efforts and motivations that they put in to people’s lives. If the equipped person comes forward up to the leadership state, the inferiority complex of the particular missionary pulls him/her down.  Jesus did not have such thought in his mission, but he gave the recognition and authority to his disciples to go to the world and make all people as disciple of him. 

Dear partners, as so far we have seen the lack which is existing in the mission field and has to be restored with good qualities that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had done. Our great mission is not to project our own Identity where we are doing ministry but we should follow the steps that Jesus demonstrated at the upper room. The mission of Jesus not ended by His resurrection and ascension but it is been continuing still through us.  He sent us the Holy Spirit to strengthen us to accomplish the mission with humility and equality. There is a good deal ahead of us to succeed that, therefore, my partners let us take part in God’s mission without our Ego and selfishness and let’s start recognizing others who are also partners of God’s mission. Why Because, Jesus had given us an example to follow: “Do as I have done to you” let us do the same. Amen.

[Mr John Allwyn J., the preacher of this sermon, is a final year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and ResearchInstitute, Chennai, India.]

‘Advent: the Mission of Hope’ - by Arnela S.

Text: Isaiah 4:2-6

The advent inaugurates the preparation for the coming of Messiah. It is a time when people plan best in order to celebrate the birthday of Jesus Christ. With a hope to have the best times of merry making and feasting. The well decorated streets and echoes of children singing carol, exchanging gifts both young and old...it is not surprising that people keep themselves busy welcoming the festive season.

Isaiah 4:2-6 is the book-ends to the collection of materials in chaps.2 - 4, surrounding the section full of disaster but with the definite explicit language of Hope. This text is a response to the immediately preceding announcement of judgement on daughter Zion. The content of this unit moves a few steps from a prophetic to an apocalyptic understanding of the future, but formally it resembles prophecies of salvation. This description of future salvation affirms that the prophecies have been effective and that the goal was the purification of the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. The section has a remarkable concentration of theologically significant expressions. It begins with a temporal phrase “on that day” which many scholars have taken to be eschatological. The context, in which the “branch” parallels the “fruit of the land” strongly suggest a hope for the fertility and fruitfulness of the land.

Christ is described by his names as the branch of the Lord and the fruit of the earth, and by proper epithets of him, as beautiful, glorious, excellent and comely. Christ is called ‘the branch’ but not as God, as human but not as a son, as a servant but not as mediator. A branch being tender denotes Christ’s state of humiliation on earth, he who grew up as a tender plant before God and was contemptible in the eyes of men: yet this branch became beautiful, being laden with the fruits of the divine grace such as righteousness, reconciliation, peace, pardon, sanctification and eternal life. These ‘divine grace’ are given freely to us in grace if the ‘branch’ grows in us. Thus, the advent season of waiting the Messiah is indeed a season of promised hope and blessings. In the text, the Messiah appeared to be excellent in his person as the Son of God and particularly in the fruits and blessings of grace, which grew upon him and come from him. The ‘survivor of Israel’ is the idea of a ‘remnant leftover from judgement’. It is possible that these escapees were thought to have survived because they were more righteous than those who were destroyed. They are accounted as ‘holy’ called with a ‘holy calling’ unto holiness.

Although destruction has been predicted against the filth of Israel, yet the writer had the confidence in God’s will to save. With this hope they persevere in godliness and holiness, we may call them ‘living and persevering Christians in Jerusalem’ whom shall be admitted to the new Jerusalem.

Likewise friends, as we welcome and anticipate for the birth of Christ in our hearts, it is imperative that we are reminded as to how we prepare ourselves to welcome the messiah? The season of Advent, as we see in today’s text, is a season of hope and anticipation for blessings. A blessing under one canopy of God’s love in Jesus Christ, all people will be drawn underneath it. A universal mission of God indeed! A season and arrival of peace where Jesus Christ will be our arbitrator and an era of peace where people will molten their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (cf. Isaiah 2:4). In today’s context where tension, hatred, conflict and war exist within and outside the community and between nations, the message of Advent gives us hope of the arrival of love, peace and life. It calls us to engage joyfully in the mission of hope and peace. It reminds us to be agents of peace and reconciliation. The more important question is: how can we be the image of peace and hope? OR, how can we be the witness of peace and hope? In contrary and unfortunately, we Christians engage in some of the unfitting and demeaning activities to our calling. Unless we ourselves are filled with peace and hope, it is clear that we cannot participate in the God’s mission of hope, love and life. For that reason, Advent season prepares us to welcome the blessing of God in Jesus Christ, in our hearts. It is the mission of God that calls us to participate in that universal love as persevere of godliness and holiness.

May God humbles us and gives us hearts to welcome this overwhelming love so that we can be channel and befitting to participate in the God’s mission of hope, peace, love and life.

[The preacher, Arenla S., is a first year MTh Student in the Department of Missiology in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute,Chennai, India.]

How HIV Virus Infects?

[This short video, The  Destroyer, was shown during the community worship service during World AIDS day, 2010.]

"Human Sexuality as a Garden of Celebrations" by Georvin Joseph, Gurukul

Text: Song of Solomon 2: 8-17

Natasha Walter   in her recently published book titled, The Living Dolls: The return of Sexism   paints a frightening picture of an erroneous sexual culture. Walter, a Briton, predominantly speaks about the western society, but she cautions that it is spreading globally too. This culture, what she calls as ‘’Hypersexualisation”, tells young women that the best they can aspire is to  become a pole-dancing glamour model, and their gender preferences are biologically determined   rather than socially constructed. This culture turns women into the primped and hollow dolls   that are given to play with as children. Walter contends that   though feminism has made determinative influences in the social order, a male chauvinism   with antagonism towards women is fostering this culture to objectify female bodies as locales of exploitation. Let us go back to the text   and search in it how Hebrew poetry views human sexuality.
For many of us   it may be awkward to hear these words from the pew; it is even more uncomfortable to speak them   from the pulpit. Love poetry describing the erotic body   and the description of sexuality   within the confines of worship is beyond taboo. Yet we hear these words   from within the canon, from the holy book that we claim as guide for our lives. Tucked in neatly between Ecclesiastes and Isaiah, the church has historically   tiptoed gingerly over it.
The Song of Solomon has been interpreted as an allegory, a collection of pagan fertility cult liturgies   and an anthology of disconnected songs extolling human love.  The allegorical interpreters   include the Jewish tradition which viewed the book   as an allegorical picture of the love of God, for Israel. Church leaders, including Hippolytus, Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, and Bernard of Clairvaux, have viewed the book   as an allegory of Christ's love for His bride, the church. However, the Song nowhere gives an interpreter   the suggestion that it should be understood as an allegory. I reserve the position that   the purpose of this book is to extol the human love   and any attempt to view it as an allegory   is our shyness or incapacity to speak of sensual love and affection in the context of a church. This song is the beautiful portrayal of a priceless gift of God   to enjoy and celebrate. Before going any further I feel I must honestly admit that   I am not speaking coherently to my differently sexual oriented brothers and sisters   as the further treatment is focusing on a heterosexual audience.
Sexuality is the gift of God to enjoy and celebrate
The poetic form employed in the songs is called in Arabic as wasf, a love poem in which   the lovers describe one another's bodies   using images from nature and architecture. That is why we see lot of imageries   from the nature in this passage and about the buildings in 4:4-5. The passage contains many words that are peculiar only to these passages and not seen elsewhere in the Jewish Bible   and it suits the spirit of the book as a whole   as there is no other book as Song of Solomon in the Canon. The preceding sections of the song   seem to have a royal setting though outdoor scenes also were mentioned   for example in, 1:14; 2:1-3. But the setting for 2:8-3:5   is the country side, where the lovers meet each other.
The influence of ancient west Asian art   makes the portrayal yet more imaginative and rich in drawing the score   for the song. Lover, asks his darling to go for a walk in the countryside. The elaborate description of spring   probably meant to do more than simply emphasizing the beauty of the setting. It is likely that he was also describing their relationship. In a sense when one falls in love, the feeling is like spring and everything seems fresh and new. The world is seen from a different perspective, which is how the lover felt   when he was with his beloved. Several statements refer to the beauty of the spring.  Flowers appear in the spring, adding delightful colours to the landscape, inducing people to sing for joy. Doves sing, announcing spring's arrival. Fig trees put forth their early fruit. Grape vines blossom, giving off their fragrance just before the grapes appear. In total, spring stimulates the senses of sight, sound, taste, and smell.
These verses call upon to enjoy the sensual pleasures promised by the nature   as nature gets ready to affirm the continuance of life. What a spectacular portrayal of nature’s joys intertwined with sexual union? The sexual union completes the sensual pleasures through the sense of touch. The culmination of their sensual pleasures   marks the beginning of an authentic spirituality, where one gives oneself for the other. These verses bring to us   the celebration of humankind's return to the Garden of Eden. In the garden, humanity was "naked and was not ashamed"; humanity was free to eat of the goodness of the garden, to live in harmony with the animals, and to walk and talk with God. Upon the expulsion from the garden, humanity found itself in a world of hard work and difficult life. The Song offers a glimpse of a return to Eden, to the innocent state   that the world was created to be, a return to nakedness and no shame, to the utter joy of creation and being in the presence of God. Born to mutuality and harmony, a man and a woman live in a garden   where nature unites with them to celebrate the one flesh of sexuality. Their love is truly the celebration of themselves being the very bone and flesh of the other.
We have to scrupulously evaluate whether the marriages   in our families celebrate sexuality as portrayed in the Song. We often tend to adhere to the gender constructions of men with six packed muscular structure and with an attitude “I’m from Mars”, while women as pacifists, enduring all kinds of circuses by these machismos   through internalising. We need a redeemed masculinity and femininity which consider both as complementing partners   which stimulate mutual celebration of sexuality. Now why did this desirous celebration of sexuality become undesirous? Why is it for us difficult to talk and teach   such a beautiful state of our lives in the context of a church? As v.15 says we have to catch those foxes   that destroy this beautiful vineyard of our lives.
Sexuality is precious and should be guarded against all vices
Foxes were noted for their destructive tendencies in crop fields, so the reference to those animals   probably suggested metaphorically some problems   in the relationship of the couple. Craig Glickman in his book, ‘A Song for Lovers’ comments that, I quote   “the foxes represent the obstacles or temptations   that have plagued lovers throughout the centuries. Perhaps it is the fox of uncontrolled desire   which drives a wedge of guilt between a couple. Perhaps it is the fox of mistrust and jealousy   which breaks the bond of love. Or it may be the fox of selfishness and pride   which refuses to let one acknowledge his fault to another. Or it may be an unforgiving spirit   which will not accept the apology of the other.” End quote   Their willingness to solve the problems together   is an evidence of their maturity.
In the Egyptian love poetry foxes represent   sexually aggressive men, who tamper the mutual intimacy   expected in the conjugal relationship portrayed in the songs. 15th verse has a feminist intonation   that sees male domination as the root cause   for the vices in sexual relationships. As we read Matthew 5: 28   Jesus in his teachings about adultery, identifies men as the primary agents of adultery. His rebuke is addressing men who look at a woman lustfully. Natasha Walter in her book argues that   the men in the hypersexualised society are encouraged to view female bodies as a mere object of pleasure. At the same time women are asked to make their bodies   more sexually appealing to present themselves   as attractive products for bargain rather than devote on intimacy, imagination and love. This reduces sexual intimacy to mere acts of performance   where they are appraised completely based on their performance quotient. Our sisters, brothers and children who were pulled to the flesh trade   making them commercial sex workers by this culture   are indeed the sinned against. Their precious sexuality is stolen from them   asking for compromises to be compensated with filthy money.
In the pretext of hypersexualisation there is a wider outcry that the younger generation is taking marital life lightly   and engage in premarital and extramarital, uncommitted sex. Predominantly our response is a blatant ‘NO’. A Christian ethical response to this will be to educate that   these casual uncommitted sex sells us short as relational beings, capable of inter personal love. It just involves two persons   using each other’s bodies for individual pleasure   without interest in and concern for the person, who each of them is.
The couple in the song   is very much contrary to what is described   about man-woman relationship in the hypersexualised societies. The relationship between the woman and the man   is one of mutual desire and enjoyment. Neither one of the lovers   nor the couple itself fits a gender-determined stereotype. They are fiercely committed to each other. Both of them use much of the same colourful and provocative imagery   to describe each other and the love they share. These imageries are not used as means to bargain on their bodies   rather to express their joy of self giving and love making.
The song certainly applauds the glories of lovemaking   and more importantly, it celebrates the depth of the commitment shared by the woman and man. Chapter 8:6-7 has been described as the zenith of expressions of the entire Song. The woman maintains that   their love possesses a force that can easily rival the power of death and Sheol   the place of death. It can even withstand the chaotic primal and flood waters. Neither death nor chaos is a match for the love   that joins these two. No power from the netherworld   and no treasure from this world  can compare with the strength and the value of love. This realisation about one’s sexuality   and the mutual love they share   enables the couple to engage in the sexual talk   as a mark of protest.
Sexual talk as a voice of protest
The final verses of the passage   figuratively express the sexual union of the couple. Some translators consider the lilies mentioned here   to be lotus flowers, which were symbols of sensuality and fertility in Egypt   and Canaan. They were committed to each other   and the woman knew that her beloved belonged to her   and she belonged to him. Her thoughts of their mutual possession of each other   naturally led to her desire for physical intimacy. So in her mind she invited him   to turn to her like a gazelle. Gazelles are often portrayed as the companions of the goddess of love   in ancient west Asian art. The original text refers to a mount of Bather   in Hebrew al harē bather in v.17. The original site of this mount is not yet found. It seems preferable to take the mentioning of mountains   as a subtle reference to the woman’s breasts. In an implicit way   the woman wants that intimacy to last during the night till the day breaks at dawn   and the night shadows vanish.
This language expressing the longing of the woman   towards sexual intercourse is a clever interpolation of the writer   to voice the sexual preferences of the women   in a predominantly androcentric world, where a woman who speaks of her sexual desires   is bringing shame to the honour of her man. The Song of Songs is telling to its readers of all times   that the preferential passages that they would normally deem to be 'religious'   or expressing God's will for them, is not the only way to talk about   the manifold experiences of life. Even if the Song of Songs is interpreted as a metaphor,   the reality of the language and its immediate 'real life' references imply   how important are they to human life. All we need indeed, is a radical readjustment of our concepts  on what should be deemed 'holy' and what should be ‘profane’. The song does not present a negative protest   but a positive celebration that protests by implication.
There is no doubt that   the Song of Songs was written within the circumstances of a patriarchal society   dominated by the preferences of men, in the realm of sex as elsewhere. Though there are not much supporters   to the argument of female authorship of songs   scholars like S.D. Goitein asserts that   the framework and the plot of the Song of Songs   is authored by a woman. Another suggestion is that a woman was the author of Song of Songs   perhaps one of Solomon's wives or a female sage from a later period of ancient Israel. The woman's voice dominates the chapters and verses of the book,   fifty six of its verses are the voice of the female character,   while thirty six are the voices of the male. In addition,   the feminine voice opens and closes the dialogue of the book. Altogether   the spirit breathed in the songs   suggests a female authorship. This indeed registers the fact that   women even in that patriarchal society were capable and imaginative to acknowledge their protest.
Tissy Mariam Thomas is a lecturer of Psychology, teaching in Christ College, Bangalaru,   who authored a book in Malayalam titled ‘iranginadappu’   which means ‘walking outside’. She prophetically dared to write   about the irritating and painful experience of a woman  going out on the streets of Kerala. She says, I quote   “each time when I sat down to write my column,   scores of bitter experiences and a number of scars came rushing into my mind   and it was deeply disturbing. But I was happy, overwhelmed, and proud   and even felt a little more empowered   as I could see people were irritated, shocked, hostile and surprised   with the incidents narrated.” These are the voices of protests of bold women   from our patriarchal society. What is our message today?
Our message for this day is that, we should be cautious   when we too often stigmatise people   who speak of their sexuality, about their preferences   or their experiences by branding them as ‘immoral’. Immorality is a dubious term   which does not have a definite meaning unchangeable over the time. Morality calls us for an adherence   to the expected norms of the society. So to envision a change   where everyone gets an opportunity to celebrate their sexuality responsibly   in their words and deeds,   beckon us to be ‘immoral’. It is risking us for the sake of authentic celebration of our sexuality.

Indeed the Song of Solomon removes the envelope, challenges the status quo, and empowers that our bodies are spaces   for the divine to reveal   in our frail attempts to love one another. While the theme of sexual relationships   does appear in Proverbs and in Hosea, they are often associated with negative connotations of adultery,   which is condemned. Hence we never find a celebration of the pleasures   of physical love or an admiration elsewhere. Today we ourselves are puzzled   in the mesh of finding out   where we stand in understanding our sexual bodies   under a huge span of extremes. We see that there is a growing fear in the church   and society that the younger generations are getting hypersexualised. But at the same time there is a conscientious silence   towards the discussions relating to sexuality. Many simple behavioural changes in adolescents are considered as severe mental ailments   and called upon counsellors for a cure,   while society itself needs more clear guidance   on understanding such changes. This is a matter of grave injustice,   which we are doing to the generations to come.
The male and female protagonists of the passage   affirm to us that their sexuality and love is indeed divine,    nurtured by nature and gifted by God. They realise in their intimate life   that there can be obstacles they needed to overcome   and to consider sexuality as precious and worthy   and never allow it to get vitiated. Their bold talk on enjoying their bodies and sexuality   reminds us to take our sexuality seriously,   to be bold enough to address our desires   and all the more to reject the Greek dualism that still rules us   which puts Spirit as good and body as evil. If we trust on the biblical passage through which we went through this day,  we have to stand our ground and say with boldness that   these, our sexual bodies are indeed good,   the gardens of authentic celebrations of life. May the divine love   constantly challenge us to take this bold step   and fight all forces that distort authentic celebration of our sexuality. Amen.

[Georvin Joseph, the preacher of this sermon, is a final year B.D student of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India.]

" Inviting the poor from Gates of poverty into the wealth " by Jaya Jesudas Pudi, Gurukul

Text: Luke 16: 19 -31

            In August 08, 2006 a small story was printed in ‘India Today’ magazine. Once there was a rich man, who was living a luxurious life with all kinds of bliss and rich accommodations. He became rich without any experience of pains and strivings and struggling. He had only one son about 10 yrs of age, whom he loved so much. Once he took his son to his native village and showed him the poverty of the villagers. After the trip got over and returned back to his city, that rich man asked his son about the poverty. His son replied, “Dad, we have only one dog, they have four. We have a small swimming pool, they have a Long River. We have lights, they have stars. We have small piece of land, they have large fields. We have servants to serve us, they serve others. We buy food, they grow theirs. The boy’s father was speechless. Then boy said, “Thanks dad, for showing me how poor we are”. Later his father realized what was lacking in his life, even though he was blessed with so many riches. He gets to realize the pains of the poor who were really struggling for their livelihood.

            Friends, we are gifted with so many riches of life with what we are enjoying the pleasure of it ourselves, but not bothering about the needs of others especially poor, who are not able to meet their daily needs. Being selfish, we are neglecting and despising them. We are keeping them outside the gate and not inviting them to share our riches with them. They always remain in poverty. The following passage gives us a good example to the so called people who are lovers of money and not caring the poor.

In this passage, preceding verses and chapters, The Lord Jesus has been speaking to the crowds, among who are money-loving Pharisees. They are not at all pleased with what they have seen and heard from Jesus. They grumbled against Jesus for receiving sinners and even eating with them (Luke 15:2). In response to this, Jesus told three parables, all of which dealt with the finding of something lost in chapter 15. In chapter 16, we can see the grumbling of the Pharisees turned sour—to scoffing.

Jesus’ teaching in verses 14-18 is in response to the scoffing of the money-loving Pharisees. The Pharisees considered wealth to be a proof of righteousness (Deut 28: 11-13). The savior himself and most of his followers are poor, and rich men are very apt to despise what they consider the cheap Quixotism of the views of pious human concerning, the best use of riches, when those men are themselves are poor. Jesus startled them with this story in which a diseased beggar is rewarded and the Dives (rich man) is punished. He taught them to act in spirit and have the quality of neighborliness, and need to help others with their money and things.

“Having Neighborliness” as a Barometer of soul (19-26)

            Jesus Christ introduced the rich man without any details respecting his age, place of residence and nameless too. He lived a life of royal magnificence and boundless luxury. His apparel seems to be purple and fine linen a royal precious thing scarcely used by princes and nobles of very high degree. Everything with him that could make life splendid and joyous was in profusion. In striking contrast to the life of dives paints the life of a beggar Lazarus, derived from Hebrew word “El-ezer” (meaning= god help) (should not be confused with the Lazarus whom Jesus raised from dead in john 11. This giving of name to person in this parable nowhere else recorded in any gospel records of parable teachings of Jesus. He is represented as utterly unable to win his bread. He was a constant sufferer, covered with sores, wasting under the dominion of incurable disease. The crumbs of bread from dives he ate signify the broken fragments which the servants of the dives toss to the poor beggar man as he lay by the gate (greek ‘pulon’). These dogs adds additional color to the picture of the utter helplessness of the diseased sufferer, there he lay, and as he lay, the rough homeless dogs would lick his un bandaged wounds as they passed on the forage.

            At last kind death came and relieved Lazarus of his sufferings. His dismissal, as might have been expected because of deadly disease. He was carried by the angels by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. Some scholars interpret the words that body as well as soul was carried by angels into paradise. The term “Abraham’s bosom” (Gk- kolpos) was used by Jews indifferently with ‘Garden of Eden’ or ‘under the throne of glory’ for the home of happy. The idea of suffering does not live in those first words regarding Lazarus but, in ‘being in torments’. The very fact of the man’s being unhappy is gently represented. The home of the, loving, where Abraham was, would be no home for that selfish man who had never really loved or cared or considered as his neighbor. He saw for himself. Torments might or might not be the material flame. It is rather the burning never to be satisfied. In the case of dives, his delight on earth seems to have been society, pleasant jovial company, the being surrounded by a crowd of admiring friends, the daily banquet, the gorgoreous apparels and the stately house. But in the other world his soul seems to have been quite alone. Lazarus had sweet companion ship of Abraham. Some see this in relationship of child to parent (john 1: 18). 

            The rich man’s attitude to the great patriarch (Abraham) is deferential, for he addresses him as ‘father’ and words his request humbly enough. Unconscious arrogance in his attitude to Lazarus can be seen in asking to send a drop of water with finger of Lazarus. He assumes that he can have the poor man(Lazarus) sent across to him a service (unless his words mean no more than that he was ready to accept the alienation. He has not realized that earth’s values no longer apply. Abraham gives a reasonable refusal to the request his addressing dives as ‘child’ is tender. In life the rich man had had his good things. He could have spent time with the things of God and delighted in the word of God. He could have engaged in alms giving (Lazarus had been close enough). For him good things had been purple linen, daily merriment and feastings. Here the balance is redressed. Justice is done.

Friends, what’s the point here is….

Jesus is saying that riches don't count for anything after we die and our souls depart, but that isn't the thrust of this parable. According to me, he is making two points.

   1. Wealth without active mercy for the poor is great wickedness.

   2. If we close our eyes to the truth we are given, then we are doomed.

In the context, Jesus is condemning the Pharisees not only for their love of money but lack of mercy for the poor and not having the sense of neighborliness. Once he has already commented about their scrupulous tithing? "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rues and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone" (Luke 11:42). It isn't their piety that he is condemning, but what they aren’t doing i.e., showing mercy to the poor, seeking justice for the downtrodden. It is ironic that the Pharisees who prided themselves on being such Bible scholars largely missed the spirit of the Old Testament i.e., mercy and justice. As the teachers of the scriptures they need to have neighborliness towards poor. Thus, they can be called as spiritual preceptors but not so. We are also in the same situations. As bible toting Christians we need to recognize the lord and his love in the poor

“Recognizing the lord in poor” as the scriptural perception (27-31)

For the first time in the story the rich man (Dives) shows some interest in others (though still not of the poor, he sticks to his own). He asks that his 5 brothers may be warned. In his deep seated sense of superiority remains. In contrast is Lazarus impressive silence throughout the parable. He does not speak at all. He neither complains of his hard lot on earth, nor grudges over the dives after death, nor is expresses resentment at the latter endeavors to have to have him sent on errands. Throughout he accepts what god sends him. Abraham points to the scriptures Moses (writers of law) and prophets (16v). The scriptures give the brothers all they need. There is an implication that the rich man’s unpleasant situation was due not to his riches, but to his neglect of scripture and its teaching. But the rich man does not agree. He knows how he had reacted to the possession of the bible. So he says that if someone goes to them from the dead things will be different. That will bring them to repentance. Such is the fallacy of the natural man.

The parable concludes with Abraham’s solemn affirmation that the appearance of one risen from the dead will bring no conviction to those who refuse to accept scripture. If a man (Jesus) cannot be humane with the Old Testament in his hand and Lazarus on his doorstep, nothing or neither a visitant from the other world nor the revelation of the horrors of hell will teach him otherwise.

At the end of the gospel, we are told of two, whose hearts were “strangely warned” when the scriptures were interpreted to them. They were walking on the road to Emmaus. A stranger joined them and began to explain the law and prophets. When evening came, the two insisted that the weary stranger share their table with them. Then, as they shared their bread with the stranger, they recognized their lord in the stranger. Perhaps if the rich man had tended Lazarus needs and invited from the gates into his home and share a meal with him, he too would have recognized lord in the poor Lazarus who had always been a stranger to him.

Did the 5 brothers ever get the message? We are not told; for that is the question the parable leaves us to answer. Each of us needs to write our own ending to the story.

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats teaches similar lessons.

    "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

    They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

    He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:41-46)

Friends.... Wealth is not bad. After all, Abraham was wealthy. But wealth brings with it certain responsibilities, a certain stewardship. We will give an accounting for how we handle the wealth God has given us. We have relative wealth. Perhaps not relative to our own culture, but relative to the global village that we can affect with our giving. We will give an accounting.

We are Scripture-toting Christians who have the benefit of the scriptures. If we don’t notice and minister to the poor, what excuse will we have? In the final analysis, the rich man's punishment is not for riches, but for neglect of the scriptures and what they teach. That doesn't mean we should give out of guilt or give unwisely or give to whoever cries the loudest. Instead, we are to give out of the love of God within us. Not selfishly to assuage our guilt, but selflessly to care for someone else's needed.

The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is about Money, wealth and self-centeredness. At the same instance, it is especially a parable about mercy -- mercy now!

I go back to the story what I told in my introduction. The son of the rich man who made his father speechless, become the inheritor of his father’s property after his death. Immediately, he spent half of his income for the upliftment of his native village. Just imagine if each and every one of us have the same motto.

Friends............... What are we doing for the Poor?

As disciples we are asking: What should we learn from this? Jesus, what are you saying to us today?

In a sense, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus teaches a similar lesson to that of the Unjust Steward (16:1-9). We can use our money in a way that secures for us secure eternal damnation, or in a way that secures us friends in eternal habitations who will welcome us. But there's more. William Barclay titles this passage, "The Punishment of the Man Who Never Noticed."  Lazarus was at his door and the rich man didn't notice or invite.

Who is at our door that we as a Christians and as a church don't invite?

    * Needy illegal aliens who avoid the social welfare system for fear of being deported?

    * Divorced moms with kids who are living below the poverty level but are too proud to ask for help?

    * Families where the breadwinner is sick or shiftless or missing?

    * The poor in third world countries who are out of sight and out of mind?

Don’t forget that we are living in an unexplained world, where the poor walks miles and miles to gain food. And the rich walks miles and miles to digest the food. Let us act and invite poor from the gates of poverty to wealth. Let the doors be shut with no one remaining outside. Amen   

[Jaya Jesudas Pudi, the preacher of this sermon, is a final year BD student in Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Instiute, Chennai, India.]