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.]

Open Door - by Rev.Fr.Zerah Paul, Gurukul

Text: Rev. 3: 7-13

The Author of the book introduces himself in the opening sentence of the book as “God’s servant John”. He frequently refers to himself in the work most commonly as a prophet, but never as an apostle. In this respect he differs markedly from Paul.

In the book of Revelation written by John, the second and third chapters deal with the letter to seven churches. The portion assigned for today’s meditation is Ch: 3.7-13. This text deals with the letter to the church at Philadelphia. Philadelphia was located 28 miles southeast of Sardis. Both Sardis and Philadelphia suffered extensive damage in a great earthquake in AD 17. The message to the church at Philadelphia is most probably an assurance of the entrance into a new age. Philadelphia gained a position of certain commercial importance in the politico-economic context of the Roman Empire. Yet it had many contradictions as some of the typical Greco-Roman cities. The actual town had few inhabitants but the majority lived as farmers in the countryside. Because of the rich volcanic soil available, the farmers of the place heavily depended on viticulture. Their lives were in fact a life of great endurance, for which they are highly commented in the letter. The whole letter is dominated by the sure and certain prospect of life in the Kingdom of God.

In this passage I focus only on one verse i.e. verse 8 “I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut”. This statement which describes how the exalted Christ has used his power of opening and shutting on behalf of the Philadelphian community may be an allusion to the introduction to the oracle about Cyrus in Isa: 45.1, signifying God’s ultimate dominance over the course of history in creating hopes for the broken and repressed people. This reflection is going to be focused on the question of the meaning of this “open door” metaphor?

 There are essentially 2 possible meanings.

1. Opportunities for effective evangelization, especially the conversion of Jews
2. Guaranteed access to eschatological salvation i.e. entrance into the messianic kingdom.

The metaphor of the open door is found twice in the undisputed letters of Paul (1 cor. 16:9, 2 cor.2:12) and also occurs in col.4:3 and Acts.14:27.In all these contexts it means that opportunities to proclaim the gospel have been made possible. It is therefore probable that the metaphor has a fixed meaning among the Christians and refers to opportunities for evangelization. However, the fact that missionary activity is never mentioned elsewhere in revelation and hence such an emphasis does not allow us to take this meaning as granted.

It is an open door that will introduce a new dimension of John’s vision. That privilege afforded John to enter, to see, and to enjoy the glory of God is now accorded to the least promising of the churches. It is a promise from Christ to a church which is weak. Christ is an open door to all people mainly for the weak, oppressed and marginalized. As disciples of Jesus we should imitate him in being an open door to help people have entry into God’s glory. When we examine the history of our communities we can see several men and women of God who have acted as open doors inviting people to come and share in the glory of God. Francis Assisi, Ambedkar, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Mother Teresa etc...Etc…They helped the poor people by uplifting them from the marginal existence to a life with restored human dignity. Because of their willingness to offer themselves as a medium, revealing God’s will through their lives the poor could break all sorts of bondages. They in turn became open doors for others to reveal messianic kingdom experiences in our world today.

Let me conclude with an incident that happened in the life of the renowned saint by name Francis Assisi. One day he went to visit some leprosy patients. There he could see people who could not sleep, walk or even eat because of the severity of their diseases and rotting ulcers on their body. So he started going there every day and helped these patients by giving them food and cleansing their wounds. After some days of his visit many of the patients were getting cured. One cured person came to him and asked “Are you really the risen Christ”? Because he felt God’s healing and comforting presence in St.Francis Assissi. Do anyone, ever ask us a similar question? If the answer is no, why is it so?

So this passage challenges us to become open doors to other people who are weak oppressed and marginalised. We had such a person in our midst, who lived out his life as an open door showing people way to God’s liberating glory. It was none other than our former Director emeritus Dr. K. Rajaratnam, who as we all know was a champion of Dalit liberation. Let us all decide to follow Jesus as being open doors to guide people to realization of God’s kingdom in our midst.

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

An ecological reading of John 4: 3-15 by Fourth Year Students of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute

Withering lands to Renovated Earth

The word Ecology is derived from two Greek terms oikos (house) and logos (knowledge). The term ‘house’ is one of the most powerful analogies used in the Bible to depict the relationship between God and creation. Ecology defines the experiential approach of relating the whole cosmos as our house. Ecology, economics, ecumenics are all derived from this common root oikos. This symbolism of the earth as our common home evokes the communal and inter-relational nature of life on earth, touching into felt experiences of safety and shelter, house or habitat, justice and security.

The passage John 4:3-15, talks about the meeting of Jesus and a woman in Sychar, a Samaritan town. The time of this conversation, on the sixth hour, still arises a question whether it happened at noon (according to Jewish time calculations) or in the evening (according to Roman time calculations).

 A story parallel to Jesus and Samaritan woman can be seen in Buddhist traditions also, where Aananda, Buddha’s favorite disciple ask a girl of chandala caste who is drawing water from the well for a drink.

The meeting of Jesus and the woman near a well in Samaria can be viewed and understood in various perspectives. In this paper we are trying to interpret this text in an ecological perspective.

Reaffirming the inherent worth of land

Samaria was a region of Palestine comprising the northern kingdom of Israel created when north and south split after the death of Solomon. The region was named after its capital city, Samaria.

Samaria was a country beautifully diversified with mountain and hill, valley and plain.  The extremely fertile soil had resulted in the growth of vines, olives, fruit trees, barley, wheat (v.4:35) etc.  Josephus speaks about excellent grass, by reason of which the cows yield more milk than those in any other place. This city was built during the reign of King Omri and later became the capital of Northern Israel. The name "Samaritans" clearly applies to the Israelite inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom.

But as results of the colonisation and continuous invasions by the empires (e.g Babylon and Assyrians), many people are deported to other lands and replaced with foreigners. As a result, a mixed tribe gradually began to develop in that area. Moreover the influence of foreign cultures has led the land to adopt idol worship. Because of this, Jews regarded this place as the ‘land of heathens’ and the people as a "mixed race" contaminated by foreign blood and false worship. As a result many Jews avoided the journey through Samaria and chose a long route across the Jordan and up through Perea to travel between Judea and Galilee. In other words, for jews Jerusalem is the holy place and Samaria is a cursed place. Similarly there was theological opposition for jews to worship in the land of Jerusalem.

From this passage it is clear that Jesus deliberately chose his way to Galilee through Samaria not only to deconstruct the notions of purity and pollution, but also to reaffirm the intrinsic worth of the land of Samaria. Here, Jesus rejects the very concept of division of land based on ‘purity’ of blood.

 Every land has its own worth. The value of a land exists within the natural order.  The worth of a land is determined neither by its residing people nor by its utilitarian value for human beings. In v. 21 Jesus tries to say that no piece of land is a perfect entity or more holy than others and hence the true worship should not be confined to a particular area or place.

The term used to signify a territory in earlier times in Kerala was Amsham (which means a portion). Now this term is considered as an apt word that used to indicate that the particular land was not an entity but only a part of the whole cosmos.

The Earth was so good when God created it. But later due to the dualistic Cartesian concept, nature was considered as a resource for human utility. This dualism in turn resulted in the subjugation of nature by man and gave rise to a new world view in which nature is inert and passive; uniform and mechanistic; separable and fragmented within itself; separate from man and inferior to be dominated and exploited by human. 

In Indian cosmology, the nature as prakriti is an expression of shakthi, the powerful creative principle of the cosmology, in conjunction with the masculine principle Purusha.  Prakriti is considered as sacred and is worshipped as Adi Shakti. In contrast to the Cartesian system, Indian cosmology considers person and nature (Purusha-Prakriti) as a duality in unity which are inseparable complements.

  Resources as God given Gifts

The woman is the central character of this passage. Jesus found her as she came to fetch water from Jacob’s well. In Palestine, water is commonly drawn out of the wells or cisterns by females, and carried, upon the shoulder or head; in large leathern or earthen vessels. Moreover, Deep wells (probably about 100 feet deep) are not uncommon there as the shallow wells will become dry in summer.

 During the conversations with Jesus, the problems posed by the women reflect her concerns about the deep well, v.11, (may indicate the scarcity of water) and her difficulty to come up to the well continually, v.15 (may because of the long distance).

The drying up of India is a man made rather than a natural calamity. This water seeking Samaritan woman in this passage can be compared to one among hundreds of the women in our country who walk kilometres daily to fetch water for their family due to mega dams and other developmental projects. The availability, accessibility, affordability and quality of the water are still a question before them. Thus the scarcity of water is a complex theological, socio-economic and political issue. Women and water are the most vulnerable elements in the nature that are easily exploited by the dominant powers.   Violence to the water cycle is probably the worst and most invisible form of violence. Due to technology assisted pollutions on water, it has now becoming a non-‘renewable’ resource.

Water and well were considered as a symbol of pride and prosperity in Old Testament times. To give a name to a well denoted a right of property, and was also a mark of conquest, or an encroachment on territorial right claimed or existing in its neighbourhood.

The present day context is not too different. Due to Globalization and privatization, Earth and its natural resources are considered as mere commodities. Rivers, sea shores that are acquired and encroached as private property, Bottled water labelled as ‘mineral enriched pure’ are excellent examples of packaging of God given resources.  Human violence towards nature is still continuing since it is not considered to be violence.

Every religion gives prominence to water. Every civilisation formed beside the water. Both the creation accounts in the book of Genesis simply assume the existence of water. God does not have to create water; it was presented fundamentally as a part of divine reality. Water was used in bible as a means for personal, social and planetary transformation. In this passage, Jesus uses water and its symbolism as a means to deconstruct the inferior attitude of the women and to lead her to a complete transformation.

Human beings as Earth bound Creatures

The whole conversation between Jesus and this woman happens near the well. V 11 mentions that this well was a source of living for human and animals for generations. In other words this well was a site for interdependence between human and animals. Earth is a community of interconnected living things that are mutually dependent on each other for life and survival. The Tamil term ‘Mannin manam’ signifies all creations essentially carry the inherent smell of nature. This invisible link makes us all, nexus of a circle of inter-belongingness.

 As the mode of relationship changes, the concept of custodianship is more relevant than the stewardship. Custodianship is a mutual partnership between earth and earth community. Earth has provided food shelter, beauty and other riches to sustain the life of the human beings. In return, the human beings have to assume that    these riches as the contribution of their partners to the earth community. Even on a humanly dominated planet, we do not save the planet, rather the planet saves us day by day, in every cell of our body, in every breath we take and every morsel we eat.

Cries of the creation as voice of the Earth

The hostility between Jews and the Samaritans prohibited them even drinking from the same vessels. In v. 7, Jesus requests the women to give him something to drink. Can’t we hear the cry of Jesus for water from hundreds of poor who are denied to access the wells due to caste problems and environmental issues?  Millions of people in this world suffer because of water shortages or supplies that are contaminated by toxic chemicals.

Jesus’ cry can also be considered as a bold attempt to break the traditional boundaries that segregated Jews and Samaritans. The symbolism that Jesus used is the living water that is flowing and bubbling continuously (Amplified Version Bible), which can be considered as an ever moving life force that overrides all boundaries. Living water, then, is free to move and to follow its God given mysterious nature. It is unnatural for water to remain still. Its essential nature is that it is always moving, creating, purifying, healing, energizing, and nourishing life. It must override the traditional barriers of caste, state and so on. The provision for the thirst of the poor is a fundamental measure of one’s faithfulness to God.

Discerning the resistance of Earth

The ecological crisis is one of the major problems which we face in the present context. It destroys the entire happiness and joy of the world and species on the earth. According to Ban Ki Moon, the UN secretary general, “Evermore people are denied food because prices are stubbornly high, because purchasing power has fallen due to economic crisis, it is because rains have failed”. It reminds us the ecological crisis definitely creates problems of the survival of human life.

A new order of life is the will of God and the need of the hour. In this given passage, Jesus identifies himself with the natural element of water. He apparently expresses his ecological concern saying “Living water is the gift of God”, in other words water is life and nature is the gift of God (John 4:10). If we deny it, we are thwarting the very purpose of God i.e. the redemption of all creation.

As Amos 4:1 says the land of the Samaria happened to be the victim in the hands of the prevailing system who oppressed the poor and crushed the needy. But we can explicitly discern the resistance of earth against the injustice of the dominant system in Amos 4: 7-13 where the rain fall became uneven, scarcity of water raises, locusts destroyed the fig trees and so on.

In Indian philosophy earth is portrayed as “Mother Earth or Bhoomatha” who is said to have long lasting endurance. But she loses her endurance on account of human’s greed for more and more. As a result our mother earth resists and protests herself to the injustice of human through natural calamities in the form of droughts, earth quakes, floods, cyclones and tsunami etc.

India is one of the most vulnerable countries when it comes to the effect of Global warming. Two islands have already vanished and 10,000 people have already been displaced in the sundarbans, an area which India shares with Bangladesh. Orissa is another state which is already being hit hard by global warming. The village after village in Orissa’s coastal kendrapara district vanishes into the Bay of Bengal because of rising sea level. Ironically these people hardly contribute to global warming and green house gases. The virulent effect of Tsunami costs 11,000 lives, and about  3,80,000 people were displaced in India alone.

Earth is sensitive to the injustices to which earth is subjected. Though the earth has an inherent ability to revive and regenerate, this ecological healing is limited. Does the groaning of creation (Rom 8) and the vomiting of land (Lev 18:24-30) reflects the struggle of earth against the injustices? Hence the need of this hour is the promotion of a cosmic centred spirituality that is sensitive to the injustices that threaten the total ecosystem of earth.

 [Prepared by Abraham Sudeep Oommen, Anandraj Paul Jacob V.,  Jaya Jesudas Pudi, John Haide Manukonda, Lijo Johnson, Philipose John, Fourth Year BD students of Gurukul Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, Chennai, India]