FOCUS October 2018

1 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

FOCUS October 2018 Vol. 6 No: 4

Priesthood and Ministry, Revd Dr. Valson Thampu, Trivandrum – Page 13

Cover Photo: Vettathu Digital, Thiruvalla,

Episcopal Silver Jubilarian Bishops

A Publication of Diaspora FOCUS The Other Side of the Faith, Lal Varghese, Esq., Dallas – Page 18

Editorial, Those to have ears to hear……., Revd Dr. Valson Thampu, Trivandrum - Page 3 St. Paul’s Understanding of His Ministerial Offices, Revd Dr. M. J. Joseph, Kottayam – Page 20

Ministry Diaconic or Hierarchic, Revd Dr. K. V. Mathew, Kottayam – Page 6 Priesthood and Ministry: A Divine Calling Plammoottil V. Cherian, Chicago – Page 22

Faith Seeking Alternatives: Musings on the Theology of Mar Chrysostom, Dr. George Zachariah – Page 7

Rehabilitation of the Noble Word ‘Pastor’ Dr. Zac Varghese, London– Page 9

The Need for a New Vision is Real and Pressing, Revd Dr. Valson Thampu, Trivandrum – Page 26

Priesthood and Ministry – Are They Mutually Exclusive?

- Revd Dr. Martin Alphonse, Portland - Page 28

2 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

EDITORIAL THOSE WHO HAVE EARS TO HEAR . . .

It is appropriate that at this time we stop and take a simple, objective view, to the extent possible, of where priesthood stands at the present time. Many events reported from Kerala are deeply disturbing. What is even more worrisome is that people of the faith, in many instances, are not receiving the spiritual guidance and nourishment they so desperately need.

They are, in the words of Jesus, like sheep without a shepherd.

FOCUS does not push any particular theological or doctrinal school. It is free from denominational biases and blindness when it comes to encountering the truth. FOCUS is guided singularly by the sovereign authority of Jesus Christ and the light afforded by the Word of God to which we endeavour to stay faithful. We believe that denominations came up within specific contexts and with good intentions. But we also believe that every entity existing in time is liable to decay and that there come critical moments in their journey through history when they need introspection and radical regeneration. The institution and practice of priesthood seem to have reached such a stage.

FOCUS has endeavoured to promote a culture of thinking and seeking, in faithful adherence to the teaching of Jesus that we must seek and find the truth ourselves (Mt. 7: 7). It is this discipline of seeking that preserves the dynamic vitality of a faith. When the spirit of seeking becomes dormant, a religion sinks into spiritual apathy and decay. The contents of the present issue of FOCUS are aimed at facilitating free and responsible thinking on priesthood. It is requested that its contents are read in that spirit. If Jesus is our Lord, and if he is the light of the world, we must have, surely, the courage to look reality in the face, without fear or favour.

The readers of FOCUS would be familiar with Max Weber’s views on the implications of the rise, in his words, of the priestly class. For the sake of the few who might not be, here is a miniscule summary of the relevant section in the Sociology of Religion (1920).

Every religion begins with a spiritual ferment. It is distinguished, at this stage, by a universal outlook and the focus is entirely on ideals and deep insights of eternal validity. This attracts people, and a community of worshippers forms itself around it. This paves the way for the emergence of the priestly class. In no time they take control of the three pillars of that religion -the scripture, the sacraments and the dogmas. They arrogate to themselves the exclusive right to interpret or practice every aspect of religion. This goes on for a long time, breeding in due course a host of superstitions and aberrations. This provokes the lay intellectual elite, who arrives on the scene a bit too late.

But they do all they can to cleanse the Augean stable of accumulated irrelevances. According to Weber, this is the stage at which Christianity is in the modern age.

The heart of Weber’s argument is that the rise of the priestly class is a phenomenon that signals the compromise and corruption that overtake a religion. The religion concerned suffers distortions, inflicted on it by the priestly class in order to buttress their control and authority, unmindful both of biblical norms and the lived realities of believers.

This view, I know, could shock a majority of Indian Christians.

We are trained to be uncritically loyal to our particular churches and to accept whatever we are told by priests as the Gospel truth. We think of priests and bishops as God’s deputies upon the earth and we accord limitless respect to them. We associate bishops with authority; not love or compassion, though they may well be affectionate and compassionate. A bishop’s ring is more important for us than his heart.

But what we never do, and which needs to be done here on, is to examine the level and quality of spiritual nurture that happens in congregations. You shall know a tree, said Jesus, by its fruits.

What are the spiritual fruits that we may expect legitimately from priestly ministry? Or has the sacerdotal ministry become like the fig tree to which Jesus turned in hunger, on his way to Jerusalem, and was deeply, bitterly disappointed?

It is high time that the laity developed a biblically sound idea of what ordained ministry needs to be. For centuries priests have told the laity what they need to be. It is high time this one-sided harangue is modified and the other side of the equation is also rendered visible and audible.

It is all the more so because today many of the members of a congregation could well be superior to the priest in general awareness, practical wisdom, and even in the understanding of the Word. Most priests survive because they stand, physically, six feet above contradiction, thanks to the elevation of pulpits.

In this the habituated intellectual passivity of the congregation on Sundays during hours of worship serves as the religious bulletproof module of protection. Why can’t the ministry of the Word be re-cast as a dialogue? Why should the audience be necessarily passive receptacles? Why shouldn’t sermons be made more contextually relevant? Why shouldn’t the Word become flesh again and again through the ministry of the Word?

You may not agree with Max Weber’s arguments in all details.

But you can’t disagree with his analysis in one respect: regarding the supreme authority of priests and bishops. This, in itself, is not a problem. The problem is that this cripples the laity, and makes most of them like the paralytic in the 2 chapter of the Gospel According to St. Mark, who has to be carried on his pallet by others. If the model of priestly ministry is such that it hinders the laity from growing up towards spiritual selfreliance it should be deemed contrary to the will of God and the vision of the Word. nd

I have asked many fellow Christians, who seemed eager to study the Word regularly, why they could not form Bible study groups on their own. The responses I encountered invariably were, “How can a Bible study group exist without a priest?” If that is the impact of priesthood on a congregation, then it is, I dare say, a hindrance and a spiritual aberration. A priest is not a monopolist. He is under the insight of St. Peter that the believers together constitute a ‘royal priesthood’ and a ‘sacred nation’. The function of priests is to liberate ministries among the laity and to strengthen them in pursuing the same. They are not to stand above the rest like banyan trees that choke other trees and plants within the radius of their foliage.

To me the logic for the emergence and relevance of priesthood is to be found in Genesis 2: 15. In God’s plan for our species, we are required to be a caring species. The spirit of caring is the very essence of humanity. It is the essence, certainly, of

3 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

spirituality. In the vision of Genesis, our duty to care was to cover every aspect and form of life. Adam was put in the centre of the Garden to ‘till the land and to take care of the garden”.

That is to say, a caring spirit must guide tilling. “Tilling’ in this context symbolizes all of human activities and relationships. It is an all-comprehensive metaphor embracing all human endeavours.

In the biblical view, sin kills this spirit of caring. It substitutes caring with killing. That is why the fratricide of Cain killing Abel is recorded in the Bible. All of human suffering, the multitudinous cruelties and aberrations, stem from this one disability: our incapacity to care. Mothers are divine because they are the embodiment of the caring spirit. Cultures blinded us in this respect. We have been conditioned to honour soldiers who kill, above mothers who give birth to life and nurture it. This is a diabolic aberration. The Judaic religious establishment became a death-dealing agency because it rejected the caring spirit. The Crucifixion of Jesus is a direct result of it. Even today a majority of people believe their gods can save only with their excessive and inhuman cruelty!

The quintessence of the ministry of Jesus, which is meant continued through priests, was the caring spirit. Compassion is its emotional reservoir. A servant does not need to be compassionate. He only needs to discharge certain functions and obligations. His personal stature and vision are irrelevant. It could even be suspect in contexts. He can go about his tasks in a routine, mechanical fashion, so long as he does not swerve from the lines drawn. There is no way the authenticity of a priest’s ministry can be checked and found out except by looking at the members of the congregation. Are they growing up in spirit and in maturity? Are they getting better equipped to live meaningfully and fruitfully?

In terms of the Genesis vision, the presence of the caring spirit has to be ascertained by its fruitfulness. Adam’s caring relationship with the Garden was to be authenticated by the improvements in the Garden and beyond. In my extensive experiences and exposures to diverse churches and denominations, most of them are depressingly routinised and dormant. The ferment of a people growing up in the spirit is missing from them. Rather, believers are getting more and more emaciated. You may dismiss this as cynicism on my part, but can do so only if you shut your eyes willfully against ubiquitous symptoms of congregational and individual drift.

A priest is meant to be, like Jesus, a servant. But whose servant is the question? Is s/he the servant of a bishop or a church or of the rich people in congregations? A priest is a servant, first and foremost, of God. To serve God is to become a king: the king of love. This love is the greatest power on earth. It is also the secret of spiritual authority. But the question to ask, if we dare, is if priests are free to obey God? Even if they are free, if they wish to?

In most congregations that I am familiar with, priests are caught between two hostile blocks. Instincts of survival, and calculations of profit and loss, make a priest align himself with the more powerful of the two blocks. That signals the death of his spiritual life and pastoral ministry. A priest who is a hostage to a political faction in a congregation is a bankrupt phenomenon.

It is against this background that spiritual traditions emerged.

And priesthood, being a byproduct of it, needs, surely, to be animated by the spirit of caring. That, I believe, is the reason ‘pastoral care’ is the primary expectation we have of priests.

So far, it is so good. But now there is a problem, which needs to be reckoned. The scope of ‘caring’ is either not understood or is misunderstood. In a state of spiritual illiteracy, ‘caring’ gets equated with ‘serving’; and that too, serving with intent to keep people pleased. So, a priest becomes a contradiction. He is assumed to be an authority in respect of the three pillars of religion. But he is also something of a man-pleaser, a glorified servant in relation to the laity, and a mere servant in relation to episcopal authorities.

Priests tend to do so not only because of their own inherent inadequacies but also because they do not get assured, unbiased support from bishops. The harsh reality is that bishops, barring exceptions, take the side of the rich and the mighty. Priests are, in comparison, commodities that can be controlled or taken for granted. They have no option. They will stay on, despite hurts and humiliations. It is lack of option, not work satisfaction, which keeps many priests docile and loyal.

In the early years of my ordained ministry, I used to think of the church as the Kingdom of God manifest on earth. I do so no more. I have seen and heard far too much. I cannot but recall an experience of mine that goes back to 1982. On the eve of my ordination, I called on the Delhi bishop (CNI) -the only godly bishop I have known in North India- and told him I was keen to join church service full time. I was ready to resign from my teaching position in St. Stephen’s. “That”, said this venerable man, “would be a mistake. The church is not the right place for an academic like you. Moreover, we don’t have anyone else who can work in the context of Delhi University.”

4 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

I also recall a conversation with the late Athanasius Thirumeni, when he was the bishop of the Ranni diocese. He was greatly appreciative of my work and entertained an exaggerated impression of my worth as a preacher. So, I used to be a regular preacher at the diocesan conventions there. In the course of one of my visits, we were having a meal at the aramana. In the conversation that spiced the meal he said“Church is not what seems from the outside. It is not a place suitable for a person like you to enter.” (Achaneppoley oralku praveshikkan pattiyathalla.)

I worked all my adult life in the North. The cassock has become a despised symbol in most places there. The image of the Christian community is lamentable. The plight of most Christians in the Hindi belt is a cause for worry. Pastoral ministry is at its lowest ebb in these places. The number of bishops in CNI against whom extreme actions had to be initiated for unimaginable crimes and aberrations in the last decade is alarmingly high. For every bishop or priest caught, many more go unnoticed.

All these add up. And image of the community today lies in ruins. Unmindful of all this, we go ballistic on Article 25 and claim the right to propagate the faith. What faith? Whose faith?

Who will propagate it? What is our credibility? Why should anyone tolerate us?

Hence it is that we tend to focus almost entirely on tribal belts of human helplessness and destitution. This, I cannot resist the thought, is driven not only by our compassion for the would-be beneficiaries, but also by the comparative ease with which they can be influenced for the reason that they do not know us. If so, it is not far from practicing a fraud on them.

Preach to the nations, Jesus said. But be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Let your light shine in the world. But if your light turns into darkness how terrible will that darkness be?

For far too long we have taken everything for granted. We have gone by (in the Anglican lingo) the bells, smells, and yells of ritualistic Christianity and forgotten, in the process, that it is an incarnation of God’s love for the world (Jn. 3: 16). Jesus is the King, not of the Jews or of the Christians. He is the King of Life.

And priests are meant to be his disciples, not mere servants on the payrolls of churches. I am personally convinced that we must shift, without any delay, to tent-making ministries after the fashion of St. Paul. Full-time church employment appears to have, for all practical purposes, failed the Kingdom of God. Priests must work and earn their keep in the secular world and serve God in the fullness of their hard-earned freedom, if they have a genuine sense of divine calling. I am convinced that so long as money is involved in the ministry, one way or another, priesthood will stand on precarious grounds. It will never come into its own. The golden rule for the ministry is, “Freely you have received, freely give.”

The Bible bears witness that freedom is the medium of true worship, or worship in spirit and in truth. That was the good news that liberated and rehabilitated the woman of Samaria (Jn. 4) sunk deep into man-inflicted degradation. It is the message that we need to heed. We -the priests and the laity- cannot worship God in spirit and in truth, if we are not free, as freedom

is envisaged by Jesus. Freedom is to the Kingdom of God what slavery is to the kingdom of man-the working principle.

Wherever man feels oppressed, coerced, used like chattel, he is entrapped in the latter, even if it flies the banner of the former.

Money is, historically, the principle of un-freedom. It is using money that freedom is bought and sold in the market. Money and prostitution go hand-in-hand. ‘Prostitution’ is a metaphor.

Judas Iscariot was a disciple who was, inwardly, a prostitute. All who serve Mammon are de facto prostitutes; for they sell their freedom to be authentic for a mess of pottage. This is reprehensible in all walks of life; but most of all in priesthood.

“Do you have,” I have asked myself umpteen times, “the courage and strength to be a priest who is free to serve Jesus Christ through thick and thin? You are economically free and do not need to fear anyone’s caprice; for your bread and butter does not depend on the whims and fancies of some church oligarchs here or there?”

But do you dare? Each time I have interrogated myself I have shuddered. In my extensive and (seemingly) illustrious career as a preacher - crisscrossing continents- I have never been free to preach the truth of the Word as it should have been. I was afraid, irrationally afraid. Partly it was a mistaken sense of courtesy. Is it right to upset the apple carts of those who have so graciously invited me? Also, is it right for me, as an itinerant preacher, who is wafted here and there by random invitations, to descend on a people, plunge them into spiritual turmoil (manthan, as the Hindus would say) and scoot?

The net reality is that I did not preach the Word as it deserved to be preached, in its fullness; even to the fullness of what I knew to be the truth, which was a measly little anyway, and nothing less than the whole Word is the Word.

I failed in my duty to preach the Word; even though I was, among all priests, under the least pressure to compromise the message. I confess this as a case study, in case you are interested, on the plight of priests and the status of priesthood in our midst. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear!

Revd Dr. Valson Thampu, Trivandrum Member, FOCUS Editorial Board

http://www.issuu.com/diasporafocus http://www.scribd.com/diasporafocus Disclaimer: Diaspora FOCUS is a non-profit organization registered in United States, originally formed in late Nineties in London for the Diaspora Marthomites. Now it is an independent lay-movement of the Diaspora laity of the Syrian Christians; and as such Focus is not an official publication of any denominations. It is an ecumenical journal to focus attention more sharply on issues to help churches and other faith communities to examine their own commitment to loving their neighbors and God, justice, and peace. Opinions expressed in any article or statements are of the individuals and are not to be deemed as an endorsement of the view expressed therein by Diaspora FOCUS. Thanks.

Web Site: www.facebook.com/groups/mtfocus E-Mail: mtfocusgroup@gmail.com

5 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Ministry: Diaconic or Hierarchic?

Revd Dr. K. V. Mathew, Kottayam* Once the disciples of Jesus asked him a question - “Who was the greatest - first among them?” Jesus responded: “He who wishes to be great, shall be the servant – diaconos; He who wants to be first, shall be the slave – doulos” Jesus continued: “Just as the son of man, a fully human, came not to be served but to serve by spending his whole life for the sake of others {Mark 10:43-45} Early Church In the apostolic and sub apostolic period, we find apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers serving the Christian community as ministers [diaconia] to equip the believers for the wider ministry in the world. [Ephesians 4:11-13] We also note the presence of presbyters – Kassissa, Women Leaders – Kashishta and Deacons – Shemshana. Presbyters serve as episcopa presiding the community worship [1 Timothy: 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9] Early church was considered to be the household of God where men, women and children were built together as God’s family. All were given due respect and shared in the ministry of the church. [cf 1Timothy: 5:1-10, Ephesians 2:19-22] But in any of these ministerial orders we do not find priests.

Why didn’t Jesus call a priest to be an apostle? Perhaps from experience with Jewish priests and high priests, Jesus would have surmised what would happen to his own mission had he included them among the disciples. Priest represents an authoritarian, dominating, powerful class of hierarchy ruling over the believers exercising their priest craft and using the people for their class interest.

et al. Deacon [servant] was reduced to the last grade, and the people were expected to serve the higher echelons who in turn forgot that they were servants too. Jesus’ ministry of the servant-slave in the way of the cross was gradually left in the backyard.

We also see titles like ‘Servant of the Servants of Christ’ attributed to the Pope, the pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. In the political scenario, particularly in the democratic system, this meaningful term ‘minister’ is used for the chief representatives of the people. These are signs of hope.

Impact of other religions Since Christ movement crossed the Jewish border, people of other faiths rushed to join the Church. To accommodate and to make them feel at home, Christian hierarchy was willing to reinterpret Christian faith in gentile idioms and welcome their faith practices into the Church. For e.g. The concept of incarnation, Mary-Mother of God, Last Supper as Christ’s Sacrifice to God, atornement theories, Priests as Mediators, Belief in eternal hell, idols, icons in the church etc. As a result, people were denied direct access to God. Their freedom to believe in God as guided by the divine spirit was curtailed by the priest. Thus the movement of Christ in the world was institutionalized and the chosen people became a frozen community like any other religion thriving on rituals and practices conducted by priestly class at the helm.

Why these Reflections?

Early 19 century saw a social movement in the spirit of renaissance in Kerala. In the Christian Church Metropolitan, Clergy and Almaya were awakened by the open Word of God and revived the ministry of the Church. The late Abraham Mar Thoma Metropolitan [1917-47] made a call to the Almaya to be volunteers in the ministry of Christ. Reform Movement impacted the entire society of that time and continues to bear fruit through the Mar Thoma Syrian Church in India and abroad. th

Jesus warned his followers of the dangers of hierarchical lording over his community. He initiated a lay people’s movement where his followers were the members of the household of God regarding one another as brothers and sisters. [cf Matthew 23:9, Hebrews 2:17, 1 Peter 5:1] It was the beginning of the Messianic movement to transform the world into a new humanity without religious borders. When the movement got out of the Jewish boundaries, the people of the world transformed it into Christianity - followers of Christos.

Hierarchy in the Church [What happened to Christian Leadership in course of time?]

By early 4CE, persecution ceased in the Roman Empire.

Christianity became the religion of the land. Emperor Constantine embraced the new religious movement. The servants of the Church were offered the privileges, positions and authority of the royal officials, an enticing moment for the servants of the Church. While most of them fell into the trap of royal patronage, there arose the ascetic movement in disapproval of royal patronage. Soon Christianity became Christendom, a political version of Christian Faith. ‘Liturgia’– which means serving the wider community, became service confined to the Church. A hierarchic system followed for administrative purposes in the form of Pope, Patriarch, Arch Bishop, Catholicos, Metropolitan, Episcopos, Priests, Deacons

The purpose of the above reflection on Christian ministry today is to awaken the lay people [Almaya] to their call as true disciples to be the servants of Christ. Christian movement was essentially a peoples arising, a laities’ call to be witnesses of God’s rule here on earth. It may not be in the best interest of the beneficial hierarchic class to come forward to revive the servant ministry.

Our Turn [What about us the Lay and the Hierarchy today?]

Are we still burning with the spirit of servant ministry of Christ or, are we standing ‘still’ under the burden of a church hierarchy of traditions, the sign of a dead church? Or are we ready to follow the Gospel Tradition, sign of a living church bearing witness to God’s rule on earth where justice, peace, righteousness and joy will prevail in a new humanity. Even the whole creation eagerly waits for such a time on earth. If we don’t, God will raise his people, even from among the stones, to carry out the divine plan and purpose.

6 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Faith Seeking Alternatives: Musings on the Theology of Mar Chrysostom George Zachariah, UTC, Bengaluru spirituality in our social interventions to transform the face of the earth.

Mar Chrysostom’s understanding of spirituality is important in a context when we continue to profess and practice a heavenbound Christianity, renouncing the earth. For him, “heaven is the place where we realize the fullness of the potentialities of God’s creation. We can create heaven on earth.” Heaven is the place where we find the true meaning of our lives, and for Christians, it is in the vocation of enabling the other in realizing his/her humanity, that we find the meaning of our lives. God is intensely material. “God created the world. God enjoyed and celebrated the life on earth. God worked for the need of the world and to solve the problems of the world.” Re-imagining spirituality as flourishing of life and humanity invites us to experience the richness of spirituality in the struggles for life in solidarity with the other.

History of Christianity is more than the biography of the individuals who lead the Church. Rather it is the narrative and interpretation of the journey of the Church engaging in public witness. In that narrative, the life stories of the servants of God who facilitate the Church in its discernment and practice of mission are also important. However, the intention in weaving those life stories into the story of the Church is not to valorize them or to glorify them. Dominant versions of the history of Christianity prove that it is a difficult task not to yield to the temptation to convert historiography into hagiography. These introductory reflections are important as we celebrate the birth centenary of Philipose Mar Chrysostom, the Metropolitan Emeritus of the Mar Thoma Church. Even as we thank God for the life and witness of Mar Chrysostom, we also need to thank God for enabling the Mar Thoma Church to midwife and mentor people like Mar Chrysostom. This article is an attempt to reflect upon the life, message, and witness of Mar Chrysostom and their implications for the renewal and reformation of the Church so that the Church will continue to inspire and mentor new generations to become radical disciples and witnesses of the Crucified and Risen Lord.

Theology, for Mar Chrysostom, is not a metaphysical and speculative discourse on God’s existence or God’s nature.

Rather theology is a profoundly this-worldly affair. It is in the materiality of everyday living experiences of the community that theology happens. Mar Chrysostom does not believe in the dualistic categorization of reality into spiritual and material.

Spirituality for him is a “divine blessing, and we experience it in the transformation of human beings into better human beings.”

In other words, struggles against dehumanization, and initiatives to uphold human dignity and human rights are profoundly spiritual. Spirituality does not mean to renounce the world.

Spirituality is the affirmation of the material, and we celebrate

Mar Chrysostom is a Church leader who has been criticized vehemently by Christians for his theological positions on God and religious pluralism. For those of us who consider God as Christian and people of other faiths and no faith as enemies of our faith, Mar Chrysostom is certainly a heretic. It is important to understand his perspectives before we make judgmental observations. Mar Chrysostom categorically affirms that “for me God is Christ. But for others God can be truth, justice and even nature.” He further believes that we ought to accept and respect diversity because diversity and reconciliation are part of divine nature. At the same time diversity should not separate us. “I believe that there is a God who created all. There is a God who sustains all. There is a God who loves all. I believe that Christ embraces all. That does not mean that salvation is only through Christ.”

Mar Chrysostom’s position on conversion and evangelism is instructive for all of us in the context of the institutionalization of prejudice, hatred, and xenophobia. “I am neither for nor against religious conversion. All of us have the freedom to practice and profess what we believe. We should not impose our faith on others. Instead our vocation is to transform the society in accordance with the Kingdom values. Unfortunately, we are cowards. We don’t have the courage to transform the society, because we are aware of the cost involved in it, and we are afraid of the consequences.” The fundamental question here is whether our lives will inspire others to change their lives; not their religious affiliations. If the Church gets this perspective clear, it will regain its vocation to be a transforming and therapeutic presence in the world.

Of course, we are open to discussions on inter-faith dialogue and engagement with people of other faiths. But how about people of no faith? How do we theologically explain Church’s partnership with the Communists in our mission and ministry?

Mar Chrysostom continues to keep the attitude of critical solidarity with the Communists. He has high regard for several leaders of the Communist movement. At the same time, he is critical of some of their policies. Metropolitan Chrysostom has an interesting theological explanation of “atheism.” “When

7 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

people say, there is no God, it is not that they categorically reject God. But they reject the God whom we profess and practice. When others reject the existence of the God whom we believe, it exposes our failure in living out our faith in the public sphere.” To put it differently, what we find here is not a rejection of God per se. Rather they reject the God whom we profess and practice through our life and witness in the public sphere because that God does not inspire them and hence not worth following. What a profound insight!

For Mar Chrysostom, theology is the faith response to the realities around us. Let us look at his reflections on some of the social realities, which demand responsible theological responses and interventions from the Church. Metropolitan Chrysostom, in his writings and reflections, is genuinely selfreflexive when he addresses the issue of casteism. Casteism is the original sin of India, and all our social relations are infected with the virus of caste. The subtle ways in which caste penetrates our minds and continues to determine our social relations and even the life of the faith community is narrated beautifully in the writings of the Metropolitan. His appeal is to recognize the prevalence of caste discrimination as a reality in our church and families. Annihilation of this sinful and evil ideology and practice is possible only through enabling the victims of the caste system to reclaim their identity, dignity, and humanity. Mar Chrysostom invites all of us to engage in the act of genuine introspection to be conscious and critical about our own racism, casteism, and caste supremacy.

Discrimination and inequality based on gender is a sin.

“Children should be taught about their basic human rights in the childhood itself. Daughters do have legitimate rights over ancestral property. Denying their due share is injustice.”

However, justice for Mar Chrysostom transcends equality. It is not merely equal share in the ancestral property; rather it is a just sharing based on the needs of the parties involved. Said differently, gender justice is more than reservation or proportionate share. It is a call to recognize the presence of injustice and evil in our society due to patriarchy, and to bring about radical changes based on the needs of the people. This theological position has implications for the role of women in the life of the Church as well. One of the tributes that we can offer to Mar Chrysostom on his birth centenary year is to celebrate the divine gifts of our mothers, sisters, and daughters by breaking the barriers that prevent them from having full participation in the total life of the Church including ordained ministry.

The conflict between Science and Religion is a hot political topic in different parts of the world. There are Christians who believe that science can destroy faith. They are also suspicious about teaching evolution in schools. There are also critical questions on bio-ethical issues where science and certain understandings of Christian faith contradict each other. Mar Chrysostom’s reflections on science and faith are instructive here. “It is through science that I was exposed to the mysteries of the world. I don’t know whether the world was created by God or human beings or it was self-created. I prefer to believe that God created the world. But I will not insist others to have the same opinion. I respect their convictions and their right to have a different opinion from me. There is no need to be fanatic and to worry about the differences between science and religion.”

The distress of the earth and her children is a reality that disturbs all of us, and Mar Chrysostom is not an exception. The long life that God has given him has helped him to critically observe and reflect upon the changes that happened to the eco-system. “We meet God in the Bible as a farmer. God created a garden, planted trees, and took care of them. God of the Bible is not a staff/employee of the temple/Church. God of the Bible is a farm worker.” What a profound insight! Human vocation, therefore, is to continue the divine vocation of tilling and keeping the earth. “The earth is part of my being. We cannot live without the earth. It is the exploitative system that destroys the harmonious relationship between human and nature.” So, the vocation to till and to keep the earth, in our times, makes it imperative on us to discern the life-negative exploitative systems and to participate in the ongoing struggles to redeem the earth.

Mar Chrysostom’s reflections on his decision to become a fulltime minister of the Church is worth pondering even as we reimagine our understanding of vocation and Christian ministry in relation to Church. “I became a full-time minister, not because of any vision of God or formal theological studies. It was in my attempts to respond to the challenges of social realities around me that I met God and heard God’s call. I have allowed myself to become an instrument for the needs and good of others. It was not my affinity and loyalty to Church that made me spiritual; rather I experienced spirituality in responding to the needs of the other.” It is in this context that we need to examine his reflections on prayer. “Prayer is meant to discern God’s will.

But we use prayer to make God cater our needs and interests.

For us prayer is our selfish plan to use God to fulfill our dreams.

That is not prayer. Prayer is an act of submission; submitting our lives to be used by God for the realization of God’s will.

Submitting our talents and resources so that God will make use of them for the blessing of others.” Here he underscores the importance of prayer in our life, and cautions that true prayer is subversive as it is system-threatening and it can uproot us from our comfort zones.

“I don’t have gurus and I don’t have disciples. But I have friends who correct me and I have friends who accept my criticisms and correct themselves.” This observation of the senior most Church leader from India invites us to introspect our attitude towards criticism and dissent within our institutions and faith communities. If we as a church truly love and respect our Valiya Metropolitan, his testimony about his sense of call and the recognition of that call by the Church and his self-understanding of his vocation and ministry should inspire us to rethink and revision our understanding and practice of ministry, its selection process and the nature of theological education. From blind loyalty to Church and the expectation to be defenders and protectors of faith and tradition, let us affirm the priesthood of all believers and re-imagine ministry as engaging in the mission of God by enabling the people of God to realize their full humanity. The greatest tribute that we can offer to our Valiya Metropolitan on his one-hundredth birthday is to affirm our resolve to continue the spirit of reformation so that the Mar Thoma Church will remain as a reforming church midwifing, nurturing, and mentoring new generations of Chrysostoms.

Editor’s Note: Dr. George Zachariah serves at the United Theological College, Bengaluru, India as professor and chairperson of the department of theology and ethics.

8 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Rehabilitation of the Noble Word ‘Pastor’ Dr. Zac Varghese, London Archbishop Desmond Tutus’ confession may be a good place to begin with: “I pray each day, I talk to Jesus, I live with Jesus, I want to be like Jesus, I want to learn from Jesus, Jesus and me are always together.” The title of this article is borrowed from a prophetic statement of John Stott, who was a Church of England priest, a famous author and preacher at All Soul’s, Langham Place, London. He was a very saintly person who brought many people to Christ through his Christ-centred living and ministry. He was a pastor of pastors. Thousands of foreign-students in the nineteen sixties onwards in London were attracted to his city-church and his engaging ministry. I have benefitted very much from listening to him and reading many of his books. He once with great pain said, “Rehabilitate the noble word ‘pastors’ who are shepherds of Christ’s sheep, called to tender and protect them.” He, as a ‘watchman’ and a prophet, saw dangers looming; he saw priesthood moving from ‘a calling or a vocation’ to a profession.

Therefore, rehabilitation is an urgent need because of the scandals of all shapes and size reported from all parts of the world. No one can stand outside these allegations and pretend that it is not about their church. We are all involved in this somehow and it is indeed our urgent need to repent, pray, and introduce total corrective measures–– lock, stock and barrel. It is this need which prompted the editorial board of the FOCUS to select ‘Priest and Ministry’ as the theme for this October issue.

The scandal of sexual and other abuses by ordained priests raise hard questions that are still left unanswered.

Pope Francis and other leaders of the Church have spoken about an approach of ‘zero tolerance’ and at the same time have asked us to practice compassion and mercy towards both victims and perpetrators. It is not about a cover up for providing protection for the people who have an addiction towards such heinous acts, but applying strict available legal measures to prevent such things to protect vulnerable children and other victims.

We need rehabilitation to recover the good name of pastors and their ministries. This means we must do everything to protect the vulnerable, and to prevent anything that could cause them permanent harm. We must not become complacent with expert-commissions and their reports to find out the root causes of these behaviours or of introducing guidelines for prevention. It is also a time for us to look into the formation of priestly order and at educators and seminarians for their roles as mentors in grooming priests and finding the right kind of ministry for each and every priest before ordination. There is a need to be more proactive in the mature development of priestly formation that results in healthy ministerial lives. A period of pedagogical pastoral care training with a

senior priest before ordination may also be a helpful measure to get a taste of what it would be like.

Priestly Traditions: Priestly traditions were instituted in the Old Testament (OT) times to worship and preserve the holiness of God, and to maintain the covenantal relationship with God and the Israelites to bring forth blessings to the whole of humanity. At Mount Sinai God told Moses, “Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19: 6). During that time, we see God constantly encouraging people to be holy: “Be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11: 45). Holiness was required for maintaining the covenantal relationship with God, which was mediated through the priesthood of Aron, his sons and the Levites. The priests became holy through sacramental rituals. Aron and his sons were priests of God, but were separated from common people: “. . . They may serve me as priests” (Ex. 28:1). Therefore, priests were separated from common people to maintain the holiness of God. In order to invest the holiness of God in the whole nation, Moses again and again reminds the Israeli community: “Be holy because I, the Lord your God is holy” (Lev. 19: 1). The quest for holiness became a major focus for the Jewish community in maintaining various codes of behaviours, purity laws, and social customs.

The thought of becoming a ‘kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ brought with it the need for separation from what they thought was profane. We see this very clearly in the attitudes of the Pharisees in Jesus’ time. The parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’ contained explicit reference to the priest and the Levite who in their pursuit of holiness fail to offer help to the wounded man. Jesus’ life and priesthood challenged the understanding of Israel as a nation with closed boundaries of holiness. Jesus broke these red lines of demarcation and strict observance of holiness; Jesus moves with sinners and cripples. For Jesus, holiness was not a matter of separation, but inclusion and table fellowship with sinners and outcasts. Jesus clearly indicated that it is the sick that needs a doctor: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt. 9: 13). Therefore, we see a sea change in the idea of holiness and priesthood in Jesus’ ministry. Jesus does not live in isolation in a holy sanctuary; instead, he becomes our ‘Immanuel’.

In the place of holiness obtained through separating oneself from sinful people, we see in Jesus sanctification obtaining through accepting the outsiders, and being with them in their situations. In Jesus’ ministerial relationship with the marginalised communities and sinners, God proclaimed Jesus to be a high priest in the order of

9 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Melchizedek (Heb. 5: 8-10). It is in this compassionate solidarity with victims of injustice and the marginalised; one becomes a priest for God’s ministry. Bringing people closer to God is the God-given mission of the priest; it is for removing all boundaries of exclusion between people.

The priestly kingship implied in the order of Melchizedek is a caring kingship. In Jesus we observe a servant king, a union of priesthood and kingship. The symbolic foot washing in John’s Gospel (Chapter 13) and the new commandment of love and Eucharist is part of the servant ministry that an ordained priest is expected to emulate. Priests who preside over the Eucharist are invited by Jesus to live the life of the Eucharist of taking God’s gifts, giving thanks for them, breaking them and sharing them with others. A gift that is not opened and shared is not a gift at all. This is the meaning of living the Gospel. Pope Francis often speaks of a people-oriented pastoral Church that focuses on the needs of others rather than the one that is preoccupied with institutional issues and prestige. Therefore, the mission of the Church is not building walls, but breaking them down to create an inclusive community. We need pastors for churches without walls. One of the active images of the priest is that of ‘a man of God for others and for all seasons’. In this role, the priest is called to lead a self-giving life after the model of Jesus Christ, a kenotic Good Shepherd.

For St. Paul, his apostolic ministry was servant hood and not an office of power and privilege. Paul copied his ministry in relation to the lifestyle and patterns of Jesus. It meant that the Gospel of God shaped Paul’s own thinking and attitude towards his priestly ministry (Rom.1: 1). He knew that his calling as the bringer of God’s message of love and salvation was through the grace of God. He also knew that the message he carried in his life is more important than he as the bearer of that message. He became a powerful medium for the message through the mediation of the Holy Spirit. Ordained and lay ministers need to be transformed to become servant ministers and become bearers of the message. It is very important not to distort the message in anyway by the lifestyles of the messengers. The message is more important than the medium.

Responsibilities of Priesthood: It is good to remember five characteristics and responsibilities of the priesthood as described in Malachi 2: 5-7: 1. Every priest should remember that he or she is an agent and herald of God. 2. He or she should understand the will of God and make it known to others under his/her care.

3. S/he should quietly and honestly walk with God. This is the sole purpose of creation. Therefore, s/he should be

ever diligent not only to speak about God but also to maintain continuous communion with him.

4. Most importantly, s/he should guard against overfamiliarity with God, which results in a weakening of devotion. In everything giving glory to God should be the priest’s primary concern and preoccupation.

5. The aim and purpose of a priest’s life is to bring people to God and show them the right path. S/he should never be content with statutory worships and preaching.

If we, as lay people, are bold in claiming our ‘royal priesthood’, are we serious about our God-given responsibilities associated with this priesthood? Do we see God as one who understands our needs and is ready to help us? We should be able to listen to the ‘still small voice of God’; we often drown that voice with our discontent, rebellion and complaint. Therefore, we need to learn to be quiet before God: “Be still and know that I am God”. Cardinal Manning said that the problem of Judas was his over-familiarity with the holiness of Jesus; this can indeed be a problem in the mere ritualization of our worship.

Canonically ordained priests tend to be mostly conservative in their outlook and approach, attempting to limit the vision of God within the bounds of the institutionalised churches. These priests hold to a God of the past and a God of the Book, while priests with prophetic vision and trust in an infinite God worship the God who holds the future of humanity in His hands.

Prophets seek to understand God reading the signs of the time and expressing the will of God in all sorts of ways. We need partnership with ordained and lay priesthood for God’s mission for bringing God’s future to the present. The time has come to move the altar and the pulpit to the pews; we must remove boundaries and separations and at the same time keep the fear and the mystery associated with the sacraments. “Sacraments are outward expressions of the inward flow of grace.”

The Priesthood of Laity: The royal priesthood of the laity (1Peter 1: 9) and the ordained priesthood are interrelated; each in its own way shares the priesthood in Christ. Therefore, we have a corporate priesthood of the faith community. There is a need to sustain and nurture this mutual dependency and respect between laity and clergy. Laity has much to contribute since their experience within the family, professional, secular and religious life is the very attitudes and convictions necessary for Christian witness and mission. In many churches, there is a degree of neglect in providing pastoral care; existing models are not totally adequate. Therefore, we need to develop voluntary ‘Pastoral Care Teams (PCTs)’ in each and every parish to provide a partnership in mission with clergy. This need is particularly urgent in diaspora parishes of the Mar Thoma

10 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Church because of the discontinuity of pastoral care arising from the three-year cycles of the ‘hello goodbye ministries’ of parish priests. Parish executive committees are not PCTs; these structures are there to oil the nuts and bolts of the Sunday worship. Lay people need to wake up and assume their God-given responsibility in building our communities by caring for the spiritual needs of the present and future generations in partnership with ordained priests.

Many mainline churches including the Roman Catholics are beginning to realise that the Church in the 21st century would be a lay-centred Church. Therefore, a change in strategy is needed for moving away from the assumption that faith-related matters to be left entirely to professionals, clergy or professional missionaries. It is time to turn away from that view to the realisation that in the communities that we now live in, we are missionaries of Christ. Priesthood of all believers is an important concept, which gives us an authentic responsibility for expressing God’s unconditional love. One of the wonderful aspects of God’s graciousness towards us is that God raises us up to become co-workers with Him in a rescue mission for healing this broken world. It means that a layperson is a missionary, reaching out to others and adding his or her effort to this ongoing work of holding and healing. Part of our Christian responsibility is to ‘bear witness’ and to ‘walk our faith’ in the world or to become the fifth gospel in the process for the world to read. There are many different ways of doing this depending on our gifts and temperament, the people we are with, the circumstance of the occasion and so on.

The commonly available model of pastoral ministry from local and immigrant Churches is more concerned with caring for the sheep that are safe inside the fold than with searching for the lost. The end result of this is the development of ghetto parishes for looking after the interest of the same ethnic groups. Each of the four gospel ends with Christ’s command to spread the Good News to the ends of the world. To enable us for this mission, we have God’s assurance that He will be with us in the power of His Spirit. We are what we are today in different parts of the world because of people who have obeyed that command and believed in that promise. St. John’s Gospel takes us deeper into the mystery of the mission, when the risen Christ says to the apostles: “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” That is to assert, those who belong to Christ are united with Him in His promise of bringing God’s peace to the world. Therefore, mission is at the very heart of our identity as Christians. There is a sharing of Christian faith through the contact of everyday life - in the family, among neighbours and among people we work with. Laity is our greatest strength, but many of them need to be helped to gain greater confidence about sharing their faith and providing pastoral care. We need confidence in sharing God’s creative vision of seeing the

oak tree in the acorn and the butterfly in the caterpillar; this is indeed our God-given spiritual potential and it is in our spiritual DNA. Through our utter humility, weaknesses, impediments and overarching God’s grace others should be able to see Christ in us and read us as God’s letters to the world.

What does this mean for the priest today?

The person exercising that ministry has one fundamental task, which breaks down into a number of different responsibilities. The fundamental task is that of announcing by word and action in the middle of the community; it is about knowing what the community is, and where it is in relation to other communities and faith groups. The priest is therefore in the business of immersing in Christ's action of caring for the needy. In all this, we can perhaps see why and how the Eucharist is the central identifying act of the Church. This self-giving ‘liturgy after the liturgy’ should become the lifestyle of priests and parishioners. For this to happen in the ministerial life, according to Archbishop Ramsey1, the priest has to be a watchman, interpreter and a weaver.

These three functions make an ordained minister.

The Priest is a watchman. The point of being a watchman is that one has an opportunity of seeing what others don't see. This has two possibilities: one of seeing dangers and warning the people of the risks and safeguarding their interest; the second of seeing possibilities and encouraging the people to take risk for the sake of the Gospel. In some sense it is a prophetic role like some of the prophets of the Old Testaments.

Both Habakkuk and Ezekiel used the term ‘watchman’ for their roles as prophets. This means a priest having the right information about issues affecting the community and ability to speak to congregations and age groups in languages and styles they understand. They should become a listening post to detect vibes from within the community and without. The authority for this role should be given to them by the local community the parish. This local authentication is an important, but often forgotten, aspect of the priesthood; he is indeed the priest and the mediator of the community before God for the community. He should not have the attitude and arrogance that he is appointed by the bishop and he can do what he wants. Parishioners should have the absolute humility to accept the role of the priest as a watchman, a watchman of our whole moral and ethical conduct, and furthermore our relationship with each other. He should have the antenna to pick up cracks in relationships.

The second role is that of an interpreter. This is a bidirectional interpretation; it is of interpreting the prevailing culture and cultural conflicts to the members of 1 Zac Varghese, ‘The Christian Priest Today’, ECHO, Vol 3 (2),

2016, p 22-26.

11 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

the church and to explain the Gospel teaching to the parishioners and the world outside the church. He also should have the practical theological knowledge to contextualise difficult biblical texts and make it easy for people to follow. The Christian faith is God-given and grace filled, and there is no need to make it more complicated with difficult theological constructions, incomprehensible words, Greek and Hebrew phrases, and interpretations. A simple and humble approach is the ideal one than scholarly reviews. Jesus used parables to explain many things to His listeners. A priest should be able to read the signs of the time, his parishioners’ moods and modes, whims and fancies, weaknesses and strengths. It is in this understanding that he becomes an interpreter. In this, he also has an opportunity for seeking out the capabilities and talents of his parishioners and using them effectively as partners in his ministry. Building this partnership is an important measure of success. In the context of conflict within the Church, the priest as the leader charged with making a particular decision should remain neutral as far as it is possible. These controversies are mostly about liturgical symbolism and language, between conservatives and liberals, between young, the senior-established people, and could even be on financial management. Traditionalists often do not want to see any change, but young people may be interested in more vibrant singing and clapping. The priest has to remind everyone involved in such disputes of what and where they are on a particular issue in the context of the Gospel, and seek compromise through prayer and meditation.

This is part and parcel of interpretative skills; it is making everyone understands the issues involved and the consequences of divisions. Most of the valuable time of priests and bishops are wasted for settling disputes or creating more disputes in the process. Conflict resolution is an important skill to acquire, but it is even better if one could sense troubles in advance and prevent them.

The third role of a priest today is that of a weaver. It is a term from the industrial past as weaving is an ancient skill because it is now mostly automated and computerised. The Christian ministry is a ministry of reconciliation. The priestly task is a making of connections at many levels and bringing the alienated to meet each other. The priest may be connecting visions and ideas–building bridges between the gospel values and human concerns at the level of the family and community. Building or weaving relationships between people is not an easy task, one has to invest so much to weave a beautiful tapestry of relationships when so much of parish life is divided between interest groups such as Sunday school, women’s organisation, youth organisation, seniors, prayer groups, and evangelical groups and so forth. Everyone is so proud of their little organisation, but fails to see the fragmentation it brings to the life of the parish. These are hard realties and we carry on sleepwalking as if these divisions do not exist. Whose job is it to build bridges across this to weave a real

community? The one telling story is the Mar Thoma family conferences: people come together as families and then they break away as groups and they never meet together for conversations and discussions. The weaver may feel his or her integrity disappearing in the effort to create a living web of generous relationship in the middle of all these divisions. Much more seriously, we have divisions within the family life and it is not an easy area for a priest to get involved as a weaver of relationships. The question Joshua asked is relevant in this context: "Are you for us or for our enemies?" The answer was simply neither (Joshua 5:13-14). What does this ‘neither’ mean in the middle of our conflicts; it is indeed where we have an opportunity to see the holiness of God and His righteousness. People often think that they only need a priest to solemnise a baptism, marriage or burial, the rest is not up to the priest or the parish. For many the priest’s role is, as the Anglicans say, in ‘hatching, matching and dispatching.’

Weaving a community together is not an easy task; people are not inanimate fibers and hence it is a cooperative and participatory activity. Parishioners should become willing partners in weaving a community-oriented tapestry of life in the light of the Gospel. Priest has a role as a watchman and interpreter to make the dream of weaving a community together and providing hospitality for the stranger. I am constantly reminded of an Irish proverb: “It is in the shelter of each other that people live.” When we lose each other, we lose our shelter, the world we live in. Our familiarity of the face of Christ through the Bible, sacraments, prayers and Eucharist should enable us to see the face of Christ in others. Jesus Christ is the icon of God. He is the window to the mystery and the reality of God. It is in Christ and through Christ we realise the brotherhood and sisterhood of others around us. This reality, this vision is the tapestry that we are asked to weave together as a faith community. The face of crucified and risen Christ should haunt us to this reality of an infinite responsibility for building His kingdom on the earth.

The last part of this article is entirely based on the three ideas of priesthood––watchman, interpreter and weaver–– that I borrowed from Archbishop Ramsey’s2 book; therefore, it is right to offer his words for concluding this paper. “Today the ordained priest is called to reflect the priesthood of Christ and to serve the priesthood of the people of God, and to be one of the means of grace whereby God enables the Church to be the Church.”

Editor’s Note: Dr. Zac Varghese, London, was the director of Renal and Transplantation Immunology Research of Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in London. He is also a prolific writer on religious and ecumenical issues; he continues to work relentlessly for common good of the worldwide Mar Thoma Diaspora communities.

2 Michael Ramsey, ‘The Christian Priest Today’, SPCK,

London, 1972.

12 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Priesthood and Ministry Revd Dr. Valson Thampu, Trivandrum If I am not expected to repeat and re-validate the stereotypes in this regard, I could say the following-

hindrance; and the laity needs to recognize this danger for what it is.

The ministry is, or should be, a constant in its essence; though it is bound to adapt itself to changing needs and times. Its substance is divinely defined. But its strategy is humanly evolved insofar as the ministry is exercised by human beings.

Accredited or anointed; priests are human, nonetheless. So, it is natural if a cleavage comes about between priesthood and ministry from time to time. That cleavage calibrates the decay of a religion. Differences of religions apart, priesthood is common to all religions and the degradation of the priestly class has been one of the crucial issues in religions.

No religion begins with priests. Priests are a phenomenon that emerges in the course of the historical development of a spiritual tradition. In the early years of Christianity, there were only ‘disciples’. Gradually, disciples gave way to priests. By the time we come to the Laodicean church, priestly hegemony becomes a recognisable reality. The outcome is clear and it may be put as: ‘priests in; Jesus out’. Read the 20 verse of the 3 chapter of Revelation if you are not convinced. th

rd

The word priest is derived from “prevost” which means ‘one put over others’, or ‘one placed in charge’. But Jesus did not put anyone ‘over’ anyone else. It is contrary to the spirit of the way of Jesus. He was not over anyone. He was the Servant par excellence. He could not have been a party to creating ecclesial hierarchy. The best we can possibly do in this regard is to look at the insight Jesus shared with Peter, after his resurrection (ref. St. John 21: 15-19).

“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” On Peter’s replying in the affirmative, Jesus mandates, “Tend my sheep”.

From this we have three essential features of priesthood. A priest is one who loves Jesus more than all else. He is also one who, for that reason, mandated to tend, or be responsible for the welfare of, Jesus’ flock. Third, a priest has no flock of his own; though it is now habitual for priests to think of the congregations they pastor as their flock (yente aadukal).

Consequently, many of them are ever on the vigil, looking for the wolves that prowl in the vicinity of their sheep. The image of a shepherd dog hovers somewhere above the heads of such priests. They are an interesting study in itself.

It is quite wrong to assume that ministry is what gets done by priests as a distinct class. At least since the time of Jesus, the special right of priests to monopolize the ministry has stood debated. Strictly speaking, all believers are priests. A contrary assumption lends itself to the inevitable corruption of priests; an issue addressed upfront by Jesus. He called the Judaic priests ‘whited sepulchers’, which is not exactly an expression of commendation.

Sociologically speaking, priestly hegemony, the like of which flourishes today, is a sign of spiritual decline. The priestly class, like all classes, has their vested interests. They need not correspond to the will of God, though the laity is apt to assume that priests represent, even implement, the will of God. Historically priests have stood between God and humankind.

There are two ways in which they may do so; either as bridges or as walls. It is not difficult to ascertain how a particular priest behaves and what effect he has on the people in this regard.

Priests as walls are out and out unspiritual. They are a spiritual

Readers may also note in passing that Jesus did not prescribe any uniform or vestments for his disciples. Even though his robe radiated light on the mountain of transfiguration, there is no evidence anywhere in the Bible that he subscribed to the doctrine of textile holiness in any context. On the contrary, there is a derisive rejection of such a puerile idea in the most vehement denunciation of priesthood found in world literature, ‘whited sepulcher’. The tragedy is that the garb of holiness serves to camouflage inner realities.

So, a quick word about the superstitious prestige attached to priestly attire. Clearly it is a class marker. Historians point out that in the hierarchy that prevailed in early centuries after the death of our Lord, priests enjoyed a position of prestige. The roll of social honour was: king, administrators, military leaders, priests, and sportsmen. In those days, the importance of a person or class was indicated by the distance maintained from the people engaged in manual work. The less you worked with your body, the more important you were, like Brahmins in India or, now, the educated class in general. Hence it is that even today all of us would be surprised, even disappointed, to see a priest who does ordinary chores as well. Priestly robes are so designed as to hinder a priest from doing manual labour. The cassock is a case in point.

13 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Now read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Why do you think Jesus brings a priest and a Levite into the story in the way he does? The elaborate costumes of these two religious functionaries would not have permitted them, even if they had the time and the inclination, to stop, stoop and serve. I doubt if even 5% of priests today are mindful of the symbolic meanings of holy vestments. They value them mostly for the class distinction they entail. The laity too endorses the same. They are visually so cassock-conditioned that if a priest is seen except in a cassock, they find it hard to relate to him, much less respect him. How important superfluities are in our midst!

We cannot imagine priesthood, unless it is swaddled in sanctified clothes, as if clothes are all.

Why is a problem, you may well ask. Well, let me tell you why.

This arrangement has driven a wedge between the word and the deed in church life. The ministry is associated almost entirely with words. In many instances the only ‘work’ that a priest does is ‘proclamation’ understood in a limited, verbal sense. This reduces the ministry of the Word to a mouth-to-ear ‘performance’, which is the last thing it should be. We get progressively alienated from ‘the Word become flesh’. The Word as mere word becomes a caricature in the mouth of priests. The community of believers stays afflicted with a deadly famine: the famine of the Word.

This brings us, I believe, to the crux of the matter. How are priests meant to ‘tend’ the flock of Jesus, the Good Shepherd?

Or, how are priests to exercise their ministry in harmony with the will of the One who has called them?

First, it is a major misconception. Most priests I know are under the impression, which is never re-examined, that the will of Jesus is identical to the will of the denominational church. The will of the church is then equated with the will of the episcopal authority supervening them. (In the political context we call it fascism.) The authority of Jesus is supposed to hide somewhere in this institutional charisma and in the liturgical propriety which assumes special importance on Sundays. For the rest of the time, it is the authority of the church, so to speak.

As to the authority of the church, the followingThe church is run mainly on the paradigm of maintaining the status quo. For all practical purposes, the church becomes the de facto assurance that God is in his heavens, as Robert Browning said, and all is well with the world. The idea of tending the flock of Jesus Christ is limited to scrupulous adherence to the liturgy, traditions, practices and administration of the church. Tending the flock becomes synonymous with liturgical finesse. What is forgotten in the process is that ‘tending’ means principally ‘meeting the needs of’. It is hard to see how the habitual adherence to set liturgy amounts to seeking to know the needs of the people in order to meet them. It is assumed, for reasons not wholly perspicuous, that all that the people need is to worship as a congregation once a week. It is possible, if you like, to justify this assumption by quoting, “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness; and all these things will be added to you.” This will work only if we assume that ‘seeking the Kingdom of God and his justice’ is nothing more than Sunday worship.

At this point I cannot help pointing out that our overseas congregations have had an extremely unfortunate effect on priesthood and ministry. The one thing that most priests covet, even above the bliss of attaining salvation, is an overseas posting. (There are hierarchies of preference within this larger category, with North American topping the list.) Such postings depend entirely on the sweet will of bishops, who use it like carrots or sticks to keep priests obsequious in demonstrated loyalties. Bishops thus become real masters, which is in utter violation of what Jesus envisaged.

I do not wish to be harsh on priests who are disposed in this fashion. What works at the bottom of this embarrassing scheme of things is the comparative poverty in which priests are maintained. They are ill paid. Except for windfalls of overseas incomes, not many of them stand anywhere near the prospect of retiring from service with a roof over their heads.

The reason why priests, unlike bishops, are kept poorly paid is nothing spiritual. Economic independence of priests is assumed to be (but never stated as such) a dangerous thing. It could make priests less amenable to control. The unfairness of it is justified by invoking biblical ideals from which bishops are deemed exempt. The luxuriousness in which most bishops live, and the wealth that married bishops accumulate, would have been a scandal to believers if they had not been conditioned to it over generations of exposure. As a rule, the higher one goes on church hierarchy, the greater the share, barring proverbial exceptions, of worldly tokens of power and indulgence.

We need not have bothered ourselves with all of this, if this did not have serious adverse consequences for the ministry. The prevailing state is largely responsible for the growing cynicism of the youth regarding the relevance and authenticity of church life. It seems a case of -to use a Malayalam proverb- the fence eating the crop it is meant to protect. We seem to have returned to the Judaic state of affairs that Jesus confronted.

Let us return to Jesus’ dialogue with Peter that I cited a while ago. Jesus should not be expected to instruct his disciples like a schoolteacher who tends to forget that his students too have endowments. Jesus does not tell Peter what it means to ‘tend’ the flock. He leaves it to the spiritual discernment, freedom and responsibility of that disciple. But that is done not in a vacuum, but within a richly transparent context, against the backdrop of three years of hands-on training and spiritual education.

It would have been superfluous on the part of Jesus to say to Peter, “Tend my sheep as I tended them.” That was best left to Peter’s inference. Stating the obvious is always awkward.

There is no ground for us to assume that Peter was in any doubt about this; else he would have asked, as he did on the occasion of the washing the feet by Jesus (St. John: 13). In the Jesus way of tending the sheep, the spotlight is not on material resources or professional expertise. The spotlight is on him.

That is because, in ministering to human beings, unlike to other animals, the foremost resource is the quality and stature of the one who serves. It suffices for shepherds of mere sheep to have natural and material resources. For shepherds of human beings, they need to be themselves the foremost resource.

That is because the quintessential need of all human beings is for God. All else is secondary. No matter what else is provided, if godliness is missing from the package, nothing has any value. It is this that seems to have gone out of focus in our

14 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

midst, even though this is the most obvious biblical requirement.

So, a priest, in its biblical sense, is one who grows continually; and grows even unto the stature of Jesus Christ. When the priestly calling shifts from the foundation of discipleship and morphs into priest-craft, the emphasis shifts from the spiritual stature of priests to the finesse with which priestly functions, understood in their strictly ecclesial scope, are discharged.

Ministry becomes, as a result, a profession.

There are two main resources for attaining priestly maturity.

The first of these is a deepening understanding of the Word.

The Word is also the sum total of the wisdom of life at any given point in time. It is not a fixed, but a fluid thing. I may sound heretical in saying this; but that is because of a prior heretical misconception about the Word, involving a lack of understanding of the dynamics of revelation. God, in his mercy, limits the scope of his revelation in tune with the development of a people. Secular and humanistic knowledge may have the potential to puff up and become agnostic or atheistic. But knowledge, per se, is not hostile to God; for it is He who makes its expansion possible by making humankind such a glorious creation. In my experience I have sensed a sweet and profound harmony between understanding the Word and keeping myself abreast, albeit to a limited extent, of the expansion of knowledge in diverse fields.

There was a time when the priest was the most educated and enlightened person in a community. Not long ago, priests were intellectual giants in Europe. From this pinnacle we have slipped down and crashed into the assumption that he who knows least is most spiritual! Intellectual aptitudes are widely believed to be inimical to spiritual wizardries. This trend equates mediocrity with piety, which is a great pity.

It is hard to see how priests can tend the flock by being inferior to them in any respect!

When they are, the consequence is that priests become glorified servants, servicing a community in terms of special occasions -like birth and wedding anniversaries, weddings, illnesses, auspicious occasions, special needs and so on- with a view also to augmenting church incomes. What is wrong about it? Well, nothing; as long as we don’t ask what is the core function and shaping purpose of priesthood, which suffer neglect.

The current understanding of priestly ministry is the main reason that priests sink progressively into mediocrity. As

compared to most other professionals, priests fail to keep abreast of developments even in their own fields. This is made possible also by the ‘traditional’ idea of congregational life on the part of the laity, which makes them parasitical towards priests. If congregational life is no more than adherence to a tiny range of routine activities, it makes sense that priests don’t waste time on scholarship, or even on going deeper into the Word of God. The question that arises is this: should the ministry -understood biblically and contextually- shape priesthood or should priesthood direct and delimit the ministry?

From the point of view of Jesus, the overarching purpose of the ministry is to lead the faithful to life in all its fullness (Jn. 10:10).

The worship life of the congregation plays an important and enabling role in this respect. But it is not envisaged to be the dead-end of this journey. To worship in spirit and in truth is to become fully human. It should never be misunderstood as paying the weekly or annual tax to God, lest we caricature the idea of the divine. God has no use or need for our flattery, though much of our prayer and worship in general is compacted of flattery. Flattery of God is conspicuously absent from the ‘model’ prayer that Jesus taught us. And we are required to pray and worship in that manner.

The shaping purpose of worship, as per the Lord’s Prayer, is to seek, know and do the will of God. St. Matthew describes this as seeking the Kingdom of God and his righteousness (Mt. 6: 33). The fullness of this cannot be limited to rituals, dogmas and liturgy, important and essential though they are. God’s will is to be sought. We are, as the Psalmist says, meant to ‘walk’ the way of God. Jesus reaffirmed it in his own inimitable way (Mt. 7: 13, 14). The dynamism of the biblical faith, its lifechanging, socially transforming power, is hardly experienced within church compounds. It is to be sought and realized in the larger context that involves the society and its diverse avenues of life and service. The ministry currently in force is indifferent to this wider horizon. Priests, as a result, have become, except in rare exceptions, irrelevant to the total life-world of the faithful.

This is not an obscure or fanciful truth. It stares us, especially priests like me, in the face to our disquietude. We experience the need, as a result, to resort to measures to compensate our growing inadequacies and irrelevance. The more irrelevant and fruitless we become in the larger context of life, the keener we grow to prove ourselves in church compounds. It is this that degrades the ministry into building projects. I remember being told by Padma Bhushan Sr. Metropolitan Philipose Mar Chrysostom when we met in the Mar Thoma Aramana in Long Island, NY, USA, several years ago, “My achens have no time to mentor the youth. They are busy buying big churches or building larger ones. In a few decades from now, there will be none to worship in them.” He wondered if I would be willing to help with the youth ministry of the church in North America. I agreed. The rest is history.

Victor Hugo, my favourite among French novelists, who is an exemplar in researching materials for his novels, talks at length about the characteristic preferences of the priestly class in his novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They are, he laments, alien to the poetry of the soul. Stone is the natural medium of their self-expression. Decades later Oswald Spengler in his controversial magnum opus The Decline of the West pointed out pithily, “They will prefer building to begetting”. What is

15 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

widely recognized as a spiritual perversion is hailed by us as the normative sacerdotal merit today. By that standard, Jesus was an utter failure. He did not put brick on brick.

As a rule, there is a relationship of inverse proportion between the material and the human. The greater the faith in, and obsession with, material resources, the lower will be the concern for developing human beings or, in the words of Jesus, ‘tending the sheep’. The fact that several congregations have mission departments does not prove the contrary. There is a radical difference between ‘funding’ missions and ‘doing’ missions. To be a Christian is to be a missionary. A congregation that fails to be the nursery for fostering the missionary outlook fails to be Christian. It may have successful priests, but it may not have a ministry in the true sense of the term.

I wonder if it is because of the strong influence that Count Leo Tolstoy had on me that I feel strongly about these things. He has written extensively about the spiritual essence of Christianity. He makes a clear-cut distinction between rituals and dogmas on the one side and ‘the doctrine of Jesus Christ’ which, he insists should have absolute priority in our total life.

He rejects the false dichotomy between spiritual and secular aspects of life and calls for radical obedience, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did after them, in the life of the believer. He condemns priests for reversing this order of priorities. To Tolstoy, discharging priestly functions entirely in terms of the observances of the church -the sterile option of staying on the mountaintop if you like- is the foremost temptation that priesthood faces.

All of us agree that Jesus is the role model for priesthood. If so, what? He did not attach any noticeable importance to the socalled places of worship per se. Of course, he insisted on their purity and taught vehemently that they cannot be ‘my Father’s houses’ unless they are zealously pure. Mammon-worship has no place in it. Jesus rejected the discontinuity between the sacred space and the secular world. An idea of worship implying that a place of worship is a hiding place from the challenges and opportunities of the world was anathema to him.

I have no doubt at all that our present idea of priesthood is contrary to the teachings as well as the role model of Jesus Christ. Imagine Jesus in a cassock! Today a man is not a priest if he is not in a cassock. Our Lord and Saviour would have looked awkward in one. That, in itself, tells us where we have reached.

Jesus went around, covering the length and breadth of Palestine, meeting human needs. He was not bothered about who they were or where they belonged. He was free to see, acknowledge and admire what was good even in Gentiles. All were equally the children of God, not even the wicked and the degraded were excluded. He did not allow himself to be fettered by the religious stereotypes of the times. Instead, he ridiculed them. The parable of the Good Samaritan, most people don’t realize, was meant to ridicule the Jewish stupidity that made them insist that the Samaritans could not be recognised as ‘neighbours’.

Hence it is that Dostoevsky in his uniquely challenging story titled The Grand Inquisitor, (which is an extract from the novel

Brothers Karamazov) makes the Cardinal see Jesus as a plague on the church. “Thou shalt not utter a single word more,” commands the Cardinal. The hierarchy knows how best to run Christendom. Jesus, with his anarchic ideals and idiosyncrasies, would make a mess of all that has been built up, with unimaginable investments, over the centuries.

Perhaps, the Grand Inquisitor speaks for all of us?

I do not wish to sound cynical about priesthood and ministry.

The fact is that I attach supreme importance to both. The worst, however, is the corruption of the best. And that should worry us. Corruption reaches its peak with hardening of hearts, which makes the need for collective repentance -such as is projected in Jonah – a practical impossibility. Hardheartedness makes the mistake friends for enemies and vice versa. Yet, the most authentic proof of the residual spiritual vitality of every entity and establishment is the willingness to repent. To repent is to return to the original fountain spring of godliness. It is a homecoming, via discipleship, into the Kingdom of God (Mt. 4: 17).

I know how deeply and anxiously the laity in diverse churches is waiting for authentic priesthood and Christ-cantered ministries. I know what an unimaginable blessing the same can be for the world at large. I also know the anger welling up in the hearts of many young people who see through, and resent, hypocrisies. Unlike my generation, whose hallmark is habitual, unmeaning compliance, the youth of today demand to be convinced. They refused to be impressed or convinced by mere words or the grandeur of ceremonies or the magnitude of ceremonial splendour. They insist on authenticity; nothing less.

I remember interviewing a young candidate for admission to St. Stephen’s College. He was the nephew of a distinguished Christian priest in Kerala. He made it clear that he did not want to be bracketed with Christians, though that meant a huge disadvantage in getting admission. “I am not convinced that I want to be a Christian,” he said. “The hypocrisy of the church bothers me. If I don’t make it on my general merit, I am happy to be rejected.”

I gave him admission, respecting his integrity. I felt he was superior to me as a human being. Ironically, he ministered to me. Well, there is a ministry of that kind too. May be, it is too shocking to recognize it. But it is the sort of spark that worked its way within the inner churning of Saul and illumined his being, on the road to Damascus, opening his ears to the words of the Risen Christ. Who knows?

Editor’s Note: Revd. Dr. Valson Thampu is an ordained Minister of Church of North India; he is an educator, theologian, who was the former Principal of St Stephen's College, University of Delhi, from 2008 to February 2016. He is a prolific writer and has authored many books. He is also a translator of books from Malayalam to English, and has received prestigious awards. He was also a member of the National Minority Commission of India.

16 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

In Defence of Judas David Brand* For the events of Easter to unfold as they did, there had to be a Judas make no mistake, the New Testament clearly states in John Chapter 17 verse 12 “. . . and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost so that the scripture might be fulfilled.” another version “. . . none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.”

Knowing that there had to be a Judas, how many of you would like to choose to be the one to fulfill this scripture? It would take a special soul to be chosen for that role in order that Jesus’ mission to sacrifice himself for us would take place in the way that it was destined to be; no glory for Judas but utter condemnation.

The Sanhedrin had tried everything they knew, trick questions, set scenes like the attempted stoning of the unfaithful wife, arresting Jesus or stoning him themselves (allowed under Roman law for Blasphemy and events like the unfortunate wife as previously mentioned). His conduct in their opinion was not only discrediting them, it was challenging their power and ultimately Roman rule. This could have had disastrous consequences on them and the whole of Jerusalem possibly ending with destruction of the Temple (which ironically occurred approximately 40 years later) and all the benefits that went with it.

If Judas had decided to betray Jesus for just thirty pieces of silver he would have taken the money, disappeared and spent it without remorse. The Bible tells us that he threw the money away and committed suicide hardly the action of a betrayer successfully earning his reward and spending it. We will never know the exact truth, all we know is that it had been ordained and all we can do is to try and understand why it happened and what caused Judas to carry out this unimaginable act so ghastly that even his name is still used today to label acts of betrayal.

It would, as Christians, be charitable to explore possible reasons for his terrible action and the following is only one of many lines of reasoning. Judas would have witnessed the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, the huge crowd, the palms, the shouting and most of all the expectation of the removal of the Romans.

Now Judas was an honest man that is why Jesus made him the keeper of the purse he would not have given it to somebody he could not trust and he would have held that position for over three years so I find it difficult to accept him being branded a thief after the event of betrayal by a person or persons unknown.

His honesty and his lack of comprehending Jesus’ mission, along with the rest of the disciples could have caused his downfall, he was unable to conceive how Jesus would get rid of the Romans peacefully, and there was no army and no arms.

Once the excitement had died down and with no action what next? A frustrated mob would have taken it out on Jesus and in their frustration cause a major revolt which might have ended in a massacre as the Roman army would have entered Jerusalem to restore order and possibly remain there. So what could

Judas do to prevent the Romans from using this as an excuse to take complete control of Israel that would most likely destroy all that Jesus had created, by arresting him and scattering his demotivated disciples? Even worse the Jews would probably lose faith having felt themselves to have been betrayed by yet another false prophet?

In his concern for all those involved he might have gone to the Sanhedrin with the idea that if they detained Jesus for the duration of the Passover and then released him after the event was over, the chance of a riot and possible injury to Jesus would be avoided. If this was the case the Sanhedrin would have hardly believed there luck and may have suggested that Judas should identify Jesus at night with a kiss to make sure that the right person was detained with no fuss while the populace were fast asleep.

After this act was successfully carried out the Sanhedrin would have informed Judas that they had no intention of releasing Jesus but would hand him over to the Romans for execution as a revolutionary and offered him a reward for his nights work.

Judas would then have been horrified to realise that he had been tricked into betraying his master and ultimately be the cause of his death, mortified by his ghastly mistake born out of concern and love for others he threw away the money and killed himself.

If this had been a Bollywood or Hollywood script he would have delayed suicide for over three days and no doubt one of the first things Jesus would have done after his resurrection would have been to forgive Judas. And he would have gone on to be the greatest of all the disciples in the same way Peter was forgiven for denying him three times. However the good Lord has his own agenda which we are not invited to be aware of, but it is worth noting in both cases of Peter and Judas, Jesus knew what they were about to do and informed them in advance. If both Peter and Judas had killed themselves before the resurrection from grief due to their actions of denial and betrayal there would have been no rock on which to build the fledgling Christian Church.

There is a well-known saying that states “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions! “And poor Judas became another victim of this. Scripture is all about teaching and challenging and maybe this is another challenge and lesson set for us.

What is the worst act a practicing Christian can do? Is it betrayal or denial? This would have tortured many clergy in the past as England swung between Protestantism and Catholicism due to different successions of its monarchy.

Jesus was able to forgive the denial but clearly we have been challenged to truly forgive the betrayal and if you can get on your knees and pray for Judas you will have made a giant step in your journey towards God and all he represents. Finally, please remember, “to err is human but to forgive is divine “.

Editor’s Note: Mr. David Brand is an elder and a Lay Reader of the All Saints’, Harrow Weald, where the Sinai MTC conducts worship services. He is a retired electronic engineer with a very deep interest in spirituality.

17 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

The Other Side of the Faith Lal Varghese, Esq. Dallas What is faith? No better answer is given in perhaps all in the Bible than in the great eleventh chapter of the book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 11 shows that faith is so important because God’s people are confronted with weakness, poverty, trials and tribulations in their life. Verse says: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” The context for faith is a life in which things are hoped for but not yet seen or possessed. Faith grasps things that are promised by God but are so far unfulfilled in our life experience. We seek and hope for power in the midst of our weakness; we hope for peace in the midst of conflict and we seek for joy in the presence of sorrow. For all these reasons, God’s people require faith to survive in a difficult world. Faith is the belief in God’s Word in order to lay hold of things tight that are promised and make them real in our lives. Faith is the mode, or the manner by which we possess heavenly things on this earth. Is this faith a stagnant one to be kept within ourselves or within the four walls of our sanctuaries? No, it needs to move from the center to the periphery so that people living around us may recognize us as Christians witnessing and testifying the life and mission of Jesus Christ in our faith journey.

Hebrew 11 mentions about faithful fathers of the Bible. By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice because Abel's sacrifice was made by true faith. By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death. By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance.

And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel and the prophets, all those persons mentioned in Hebrews 11 took their faith to the other side and became God’s favorite people. Thus Hebrew 11 became the hall of faith where the story of people who took their faith to the other side without fear or disbelief and by trusting God fully by moving into the unknown territory and less frequented Samaritan wells.

We live in a multicultural society where the truth of the Bible is being questioned. Christians are not allowed to pray publically in schools, colleges, and public functions as they use to do in the past in the U. S. A. The number of people attending traditional liturgical churches is declining both in Europe and North America and elsewhere. The traditional churches are giving way to nondenominational individual-centric churches, where people go as individuals and returns as same individuals without even getting a chance or making an attempt to have interaction with others. The nondenominational churches shift the corporate worship to individual-centered worship.

Individuals attend such service look forward to what they get from such services including sermons preached from the

platform (and not from the pulpit as it used to be) in the dimmed light with background sound of musical organs.

But our post-Christian cultural shift heightens the church’s need to reclaim its historic emphasis on our faith. We need the weekly reminder of corporate belief more than ever. Spending six days a week in the wilderness of cultural unbelief, the church needs that seventh-day gathering to do what it was designed for: reminding us that we are not alone. We need a movement from me back to us, re-envisioning corporate worship as a place that purposefully points us away from individual experience toward tangible reminders of our shared faith. Moving from me to us requires re-evaluating worship environments. The use of stage lighting leaves the congregation in darkness for much of the service, and anonymity invades our worship. Only if we move to the other side of our faith makes these things possible.

What should be our faith and what form should it take to continue our faith journey is the question to be pondered by each believer who lives in a multicultural society. Our faith should not be confined within the four walls of our sanctuaries adorned by stained glasses. It should pierce the stained glass windows and should overflow into the less treaded roads and unfrequented Samaritan wells. We should be able to live a life, which reflects our faith and belief. Faith cannot be demonstrated by billboards or power point presentations or with the sound and fury of musical instruments. It should reflect the life we live and people who see us and interact with us must recognize our true faith from our actions and deeds. Taking your faith to the other side is stepping out of your own comfort zone into the hands of God, from not being a comfortable Christian but to be a disturbed disciple.

“On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” And leaving the crowd behind, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. Other boats were with him. A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him up and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” He woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” Then the wind ceased, and there was a dead calm. He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?” And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” Mark 4: 35-41.

Jesus asked the disciples to go to the other side of the sea.

What is on the other side of the sea waiting for them? The unclean Gentiles as per Jewish religious standard, a territory which Jews do not want to cross at all. But Jesus passed through the Samaritan territory before. That is where he met the Samaritan women and asked water from her. When she replied that how come being a Jew, you could ask water from me since I am a Samaritan woman. Jesus replied to her that if you knew that who is asking water, you could give him enough water without any hesitation. Jesus replied to her the water, which he is going to give her and if she drinks the same she may not be thirsty again. The fishermen who were called by Jesus left their nests and boats and took their faith to the other side in order to fish for men and women to become followers of Jesus Christ.

18 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

They lived their life by propagating to the ends of the earth, which resulted imprisonment and they all martyred except John who believed to be died of natural causes.

(An Eco - Meditation)

When these disciples failed to take their faith out of the boat when they were traveling with Jesus, He came to their rescue by calming the storm and the sea. When we fail to take our faith to the other side, remember there will be our Lord who comes to us to help us to be firm in our faith. When the angel announced to Mary that she will become pregnant and deliver baby Jesus, by faith she obeyed and kept everything in her mind. When Mary went and met Elizabeth, both of took their faith outside of their comfort zone by submitting to God and believed the promises of the Lord. If our faith is stagnant and does not overflow our mind and body it is in vain. The Canaanite women who sought help of Jesus to cure the illness of her daughter by having faith beyond the barriers of her race and religion was able to get the help from Jesus by curing her daughter. Again, the disciples who did not have enough fish and bread to feed the crowd, which accompanied Jesus, have taken their faith into unknown territory and were instrumental in feeding the thousands and was able to gather many baskets with the leftovers.

Revd Dr. M.J. Joseph, Devalokam (Kottayam)

In Philippians 1:13 Apostle Paul says even though he is bound, and imprisoned, but the gospel is not bound and his imprisonment has caused for the flourishing of the gospel. Saul who once persecuted the church walked to the other side of the faith on his way to Damascus by the intervention of Jesus Christ and became Apostle Paul. He testifies that all the suffering he has endured has caused for the spread of gospel in Rome. Faith is not something to be bounded within us, but it should flow from within us to the other, thus the other is enabled to recognize that we are witnesses of Jesus Christ. It should be reflected through our actions and not through our worship or preaching alone.

A very recent example of God using ordinary people to do extra ordinary things is the fishermen from the seaside of Kerala, bringing their large boats to rescue people trapped in their homes in central Kerala. What a daring example, forgetting the livelihood of their families, they moved their faith to the other side in order to help the people whom they never knew before.

This is the perfect example of God using ordinary people to do extraordinary things for the glory of his name. These fishermen folks were able to take their faith to the other side, but what about us? Are we daring enough to take our faith to the other side from our comfortable zones?

While we often think of sharing faith as something we do with strangers or non-Christian friends, but some of the most significant and impactful conversations happen in the familiar context of home. Teaching children the Good News is one of the most effective ways to follow Jesus’ instructions to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). Paul’s letter to the Romans instructs believers to claim what they know to be true about the gospel: namely, that the Good News of redemption is for everyone. He underscores his confidence in the believers in Rome who were “filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another” (Rom. 15:14). Similarly, parents, too, are competent to teach the gospel. It isn’t just another task—it is perhaps the one task that defines us as parents who follow Jesus, and the eternal importance of it brings great joy.

BAMBOO: JOY OF LIVING TOGETHER “Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works” (Heb. 10:24).

My name is BAMBOO. Let me introduce myself to you: I am called: the Nature’s bounty.

My height is about 40ft, yet I am classified under “grass” I am known in Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and the Latin America.

The Chinese make soup out of my shoots The Mizoz dance on my body I have an extended family of 1200 tribes I have become the nut and bolt of 2.2 billion people in Asia.

People make musical instruments out of me.

I have become the favourite musical instrument of the deity, Krishna.

I support the poor and the rich alike in India and Vietnam.

There are over 1,500 documented traditional uses of me.

I am also now known in tissue culture.

O bamboo!

You are the symbol of corporate living.

You live together in times of joy and testing.

The winds make you bend at its will for a day, You resurrect the next day by mutual support.

Your roots support each other when you pass through severe testing, Your call to live in mutual care makes me ashamed.

You have your own identity in times of joy and sorrow.

But your willingness to share your strength to the Neighbour is indeed great The wind will get ashamed, for it will not be able to bend you forever! * An Eco- poem dedicated to the flood affected people of Kerala

19 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

St. Paul’s Understanding of his Ministerial Offices Revd Dr. M.J. Joseph, Kottayam St. Paul's call, office and its demands belong to the total ‘Plan of Salvation’. He is conscious of his role in the scheme of salvation when he writes: “I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness . . .” (Col. 1: 25). By fulfilling his task, Paul fulfills the demands of his special charis. In the divine plan of calling, there is a process of preparation. The call came to Paul in an "unexpected time." But it was the "appointed time" of God. This act of God creates self-awareness in Paul and he gives expression to it in the realization of God's plan with regard to the Gentiles. The God who summoned Paul makes him "competent" to fulfill the divine mission. So he was equipped with the power of the Spirit.

A. Paul's relationship to God: Paul believes that he is 'called' (Cf. Rom. 15: 15), "approved" (1 Thess. 2: 4) and "made competent" (2 Cor. 3: 5) by God to fulfill his role in the "priestly service of the Gospel of God" (Rom. 15:16). In the following analysis we shall examine the titles, which clearly indicate his relationship to God who is the 'originator' of the mission.

1. Sunergos-"Co-worker" The word Sunergos means, "working together with, helping" (Cf. 2 Macc. 8: 7). In the LXX the word is rare. As a substantive, it is used as 'helper, 'fellow-worker' (Cf. Jos. Ant.16, 7: 346). Paul speaks of those who helped him in spreading the gospel as "his fellow-workers" (Rom. 6: 3, 9, 21; Phil. 2: 25; 4:3; Philem. 1, 2, 24; Col. 4: 11.) (The preposition eis- (Col. 4:11) indicates "the field in which cooperation takes place. Similarly since Titus continues the work of Paul in Corinth (2 Cor. 8: 23), he is called 'Paul's fellow-worker' in the service of the Corinthians. In 2 Cor. 1: 24 we read about Paul’s work with the Corinthians for bring them to joy because he is their "father in Christ" (I Cor. 4:15).

In 1 Thess. 3:2, Timothy is called Sunergon tou theou en to euangelio tou Christou because he shares the apostolic mission of Paul. The instrumentality of the person in the service of the Gospel is further supported by a reference in 1 Cor. 3: 9, where Paul makes explicit reference to his task in the divine economy of salvation.

He is a “collaborator” with God, because he was called by God in the service of the Gospel (Gal. 1: 16). In 1 Cor. 3: 10, he refers to his special "grace" as a "skilled master builder".

Since he co-operates with God, he is called "steward of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. 4: 1). This means that he is accountable only to God because God is the "supreme

builder" (1 Cor. 3: 6). The instrumentality of Paul is further noticed in Paul's giving of the account of his work to God. (Rom. 15: 17). As a. "skilled master builder in the plan of God", he takes much credit for his work. He claims that he worked harder than any of the apostles before him (1 Cor. 15: 10). This was possible because he believed that God had given him "grace" (1 Cor. 15: 10) as a permanent power to fulfill his mission as leitourgon christou Iesou (Rom. 15: 15).

Since God is the one who initiated the mission (2 Cor. 5: 18) and entrusted him the "ministry" and the "message" of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5: 18, 19) he only executes the mandate given to him as diakonos of God (2 Cor.6: 4) and fulfills the demands of the Gospel which was laid upon him as “necessity" (1Cor. 9: 16-17).

2. diakonos - Servant Paul does not call himself as diakonos Christou Iesou; but diakonos. theou (2 Cor. 6:4). The word diakonos originally meant one who waits at the table (Jos. Ant. 6, 22: Jn. 2:5, 6).

It was also used of king's servants (Matt. 22:23). In the Synoptic Gospels, the idea is found in the context of Jesus' exhortation to humility (Lk. 22: 26). Paul applies the term to his apostolate in a significant way. In Rom. 14: 8-9 Christ is called diakonos. To quote: “For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (Rom. 15: 8-9).

The text speaks about the dynamic character of Christ's earthly life and Paul links up his task to the role of Christ in the succeeding texts. (Rom. 15: 14-21). In the light of Rom. 15: 8-9 it can thus be argued that Paul relates himself to the mission of Christ when he calls himself "diakonos of the church" (Col. 1: 25). As "diakonos of the Church" Paul undergoes suffering for the sake of the "body of Christ" (Col. 1: 34). In 2 Cor. 3: 6 Paul thinks of himself as diakonos of the new covenant". Thus Col. 1: 25-26 and 2 Cor. 3: 5-6 make it clear that it is in the service of the "Gospel of God" (Rom. 15: 16) that Paul becomes the "diakonos of God" (2 Cor. 6: 4).

The nature of Paul's use of the title indicates that he applies it to his apostolate in two ways: (a) in the context of his apostolic suffering and preaching (2 Cor. 6: 4; Col. 1: 25-26) and (b) in relation to his special commission to preach the word of God (2 Cor. 3: 5-6). This shows that the title implies a functional relationship.

3. Oikonomos 'Steward' Another important term to express Paul's relationship to God is oikonomos. It is usually rendered as "steward". It means "inspector of goods", "estate manager", "house keeper" etc.

The word is found in the LXX (Is. 36: 3, 22; 37: 2). In the course of time the word assumed several shades of meanings, (1) "manager in a private position" (Lk. 12:42; 16:1; Jos. Ant. 12: 200). (2) One who is in charge of public property (Rom. 16:23; Erastus is called oikonomos tes poleos. (3) "Administrator of divine things" (in the context of -

20 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

cult associations) Murphy-O' Connor points out that the Serapes and Hermes-Trismegistus Cults furnish us with some examples to indicate the religious connotation of the term. (4) In the NT the word occurs first in the parables of Jesus. In Lk. 12: 42; it is used to denote the slave charged with the distribution of rations (Cf. Mat. 24: 25). In addition to the above use, Paul employs the term metaphorically in Gal. 4: 2.

The terminological discussion leads us to affirm that the term is used to indicate the discharge of a function whether religious or secular. The steward is responsible to the master who entrusts him with the function and he is expected to be faithful in the discharge of his duties. In 1 Cor. 4: 2 he regards himself as "steward of the mysteries of God". As "steward" he is entrusted with the treasure of the "gospel of Christ" (Rom 15: 19). In the discharge of his task, he is legally bound and is expected to be 'trustworthy' (1 Cor. 4: 2; Cf. Tit 1: 7). He has been entrusted with an oikonomia 1 Cor. 9:17; Cf. Eph. 3: 2). As God's 'steward' his task is to cooperate with God in the carrying out of the divine task. So he is obliged to give an account of his "labour" before God (Rom 15:17). Since he has not used his position for his selfish ends, he has reasons to be proud of his work (Rom 15:17) and he is accountable only to God, not to any "human court" (1 Cor. 4: 3).

Gentiles (Rom. 1: 5). As the agent of Christ engaged in the priestly service of the Gospel, thus the functional relationship consists not in enjoying a status with Christ, but fulfilling the task entrusted to him.

B. Paul's relationship to Christ Paul makes himself known to the Gentile churches in terms of his relationship to Christ in a variety of ways. His relationship to Christ is expressed either referring to some titles or alluding to his own experience as continuation of the redemptive work of Christ in its stage of fulfillment. We shall deal with the titles, which he employs to express his "functional relationship" with Christ.

Paul calls himself huperetes Christou to insist on the right of his position in the church for he had no wish to ' be adopted.

As the leader of 'a faction that would destroy. The unity of the church (Cf. 1. Cor. 3: 22f). Paul's relationship to Christ is so vital that he does not want it to be misinterpreted by the revival factions in the church. By emphasizing his relationship to Christ, he tries to pin point the legal relationship, which he has with Christ. The legal relationship implies a sense of authority. Paul enjoys this authority "for building up and not for tearing down the churches" (2 Cor. 13: 10). By linking himself directly to Christ, Paul links up his obligation to Christ not as the leader of the church, but as "the skilled master builder" in the plan of God.

1. Apostolos - Apostle Rabbinic Judaism knows the, office of Shaliah, which has some bearing upon the use of the term. In the New Testament, it can also mean 'delegate', 'envoy' 'messenger (Cf. Phil. 2: 25). Prophets are also like the apostles; messengers from God. Christ is called an "apostle" in Heb. 3:6 along with archeireus. In all these uses the idea of a mission is implied. It can be concluded that the expression has been borrowed to designate one especially commissioned for a task. In Paul the term is clearly cognate with the verb aposteillein to send away or out.

Paul believes that he has been sent by the Risen Christ to preach (1 Cor. 1: 17) the mystery of Christ to the Gentiles (Gal.1: 16; Eph. 3: 8). This means that Paul's apostleship is grounded in the fact of being called by God and sent to the Gentiles as his agent and that his relationship implies a missionary obligation.

The title apostolos Iesou Christou implies a "functional relationship" with Christ. The functional nature of his relationship to Christ implies an office although office and obligation are linked up. The missionary obligation implies two things: (a) It means that Paul is under "divine constraint" to carry the name of Christ "to where he has not yet been named" (Rom. 15: 19) or "to preach" the gospel by which to bring about the "obedience of faith" from among the

2. doulos - Slave Paul also calls himself doulos Christou Iesou. It was a functional title (Cf. Is. 44: 1; 41: 8; Deut. 7: 6; 43: 10). The title was used with special reference to the leaders of the Old Covenant: It is impossible to deny OT influence in Paul's self-designation as Slave of Christ (Cf. 2 Tim. 2: 24). It can be affirmed that "this usage evinces Paul's awareness of being the successor of the great instruments of God in the Old Testament." (Jerome Murphy-O-Conner) As a selfdesignation, the term occurs in Rom. 1: 1; Phil. 1:1 and Gal. 1: 10. In Gal. 1: 10 his self-awareness is linked up with his missionary obedience, as "not to please men" but "to do the will of God" (Cf. Eph. 6:62).

3. Hupretes—Servant The Greek word huperetes means "helper, assistant” who serves a master or a superior. It was originally used to designate the servants of a board or court or of the Sanhedrin. It was also used to denote a synagogue attendant the notion of official status is known in Wisd. 6: 4.

The above investigation on Paul's relationship to God and to Christ permits the following conclusions. The titles interpret the different aspects of Paul's role in the plan of salvation. It is the missionary obligation "to preach" that binds him to God and to Christ (1 Cor. 1: 17). The self-awareness of being the 'apostle', 'slave', 'servant' and 'minister' of Christ grows out of the strong conviction that Paul is "being controlled by the love of Christ" (2 Cor. 5: 14).

Editor’s Note: Revd. Dr. M. J. Joseph is the former professor & principal of Mar Thoma Theological Seminary, Kottayam & also former Director of the Ecumenical Christian Centre, Bangalore. He was a member of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Currently he is the convener of the Ecological Commission of Mar Thoma Church.

21 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Priesthood and Ministry: A Divine Calling Plammoottil V. Cherian. M. Div., Ph. D., Chicago Priesthood Priesthood is a sacred covenant with God to serve the Church preparing and leading the people to become members of the Kingdom of God. Members of the priesthood are ministers dedicated to serve the Lord in specific ministry of the Great Commission Jesus called for. A priest is a congregational leader ordained to perform sacred sacraments and more importantly as a mediator between humanity and the Creator God. The word “priest” is derived from the Latin for presbyter, the term serve used for elder (Revd 1:5-6; 5;9-10; 20:6). In the Greek concordance priest is hiereus, (ἱερεύς, heer-er-yooce’), meaning one who offers sacrifices to God. Metaphorically, a Christian priest serves Christ alone because he is anointed and ordained into the ministry of the church, and are called to dedicate their life to Christ. All who are called to priesthood must know that it is the divine authority God has delegated them to bring people to God for the eternal life, working hard for the salvation of the people. This is the mediatory role of the priesthood.

Ministry is the humble service offered primarily to the communities in a specific geographic region God placed us so that they would make disciples of all nations. A priest or evangelist on each day choose to accept God’s grace and anchor themselves on the cross of Christ, to disseminate the love of God to all people helping them to enjoy the abundant life and the peace Christ promised us, through teaching the Word of God which is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path in the rough roads of human life Who are the Ministers All believing members of the church are minsters including bishops, priests and laity, men and women. In fact the order should be in reverse because every priest and minster begins his or her priestly role as a layperson. The ministry irrespective of the cadre is to represent Christ and his Church, to bear witness to Him, wherever we may be, according to the gifts given us, to carry on Christ’s work of reconciliation in the world.

It is Christ himself who gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelist, and some pastors and teachers. according to the gifts given us we are to carry on Christ’s work of edifying the body of Christ through worship, and governance of the Church, till we all come to the unity of faith in the knowledge and full stature of Christ.

The work of the laity is in fact the work of the Church in the world. This is the most important aspect of the ministry of lay persons: they, not the clergy, are the Church’s agents, God’s representatives to the world (I Pet. 3:15), the ambassadors of Christ and ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5: 17-21), gifted by the Spirit for service to the Triune God. In 1 Corinthians 12:8-28 the holy Spirit endures the members of the body of Christ with spiritual gifts, whereas in Ephesians 4:11-13, Apostle Paul presents men guided by the Holy Spirit to carry out specific roles.

God Called out and separated Abraham from the Ur of the Chaldeans with the promise of a land because God hoped that his generation would be faithful and obedient to Him. “I have singled him out so that he will direct his sons and their families to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just.

Then I will do for Abraham all that I have promised” (Gen. 18:19). This verse implies that God’s promises to Abraham and his descendants will come to pass fully only if they keep the way of the Lord. When he brought them from Egypt after four hundred years of bondage carrying them as on eagle’s wings, he told them, “and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod.19:6). When Christ came for his earthly ministry, he was God with us being the Immanuel and taught many things. He was the High Priest of God, in the order of Melchizedek and gave priestly roles to all the redeemed (Ps.110:4; Heb. 5:6,10; 7:1-5). While Christ is the High Priest of God forever, the king of peace and king of righteousness, Apostle Peter reminds us: “you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter. 2:5). All true believers are priests to proclaim the Gospel of salvation and lead others to righteousness, enjoy peace and lead them to eternity Priests and Ministry of the Word Priests are to proclaim and share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. First, it must be the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I say it again because there are different gospels these days and many are hesitant to speak and share the true Gospel. One does not share anything if he doesn’t have anything to share.

When priests and evangelists do not have the right message and the true Gospel, they deliver made up jokes and if there was any message of the Gospel, it will be drowned in the laughter.

Priests are to share with everyone the truth of the Gospel to help them rejoice in the Lord always. A priest must have the truth to live by and help others live in that truth. We share the Gospel not only with members of our congregation but with non-believers and non-Christians. When I looked through the Church history, I came across some letters of St. Francis Xavier in which he stated that he was astonished to see so many millions teeming around him hungry for the Word of God in India, but there was none to tell them. Do all priests today boldly preach “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”? (John 3:16). Jesus had no reservation in telling Nicodemus, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is [1]

22 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘you must be born again.” Jesus was talking these verses to Nicodemus, a rich and powerful member of the Sanhedrin who changed his life and attitude to the Gospel, and developed the courage to ask Pilate the body of Christ for a proper burial. The message and power of the Gospel must be preached to all irrespective of position, in the society or in government, because the priests must show the way of the kingdom of God to the rich, the poor, the weak and the strong in the society.

Priests Must Show the Way of Eternity The most important aspect of priest’s ministry is to help people find the true eternal life. Since the latter half of the twentieth century culture has shifted not to accept Jesus Christ for what he is, the way, the truth and life. Many philosophers, psychologists, evolutionary scientists propagating the theory of evolution and humanists have contributed to this aversion and dislike towards God, Jesus Christ but developed a predilection to a godless culture. Jesus himself said, “The world cannot hate you, (us), but it hates Me (Christ) because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil” (John 7:7). Of course, Jesus speaks of the unregenerate world, who rejects God. The world doesn’t hate us as much as it hates Jesus and his teaching, because we project ourselves as of the world, and our conduct according to the worldly standards, because the norm is “When you are in Rome, be a Roman.” This proverb instructs that a person should mould up his attitude, behavioral pattern, habits and his way of life so as to fit himself while indulging in different circumstances, and many follows that. Whereas, Christ’s teaching is that “You are in the world, but not of the world” (John 17:14-16). Thus in the preset world there are many who are of the world, and few live in the world knowing that they are not of the world, about whom Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you” (John 15:18). The truth of the matter is those who live a life separated from the world will be hated just as Christ was hated.

[2]

Today under the secular culture many in the Christian religion, sadly even some leaders are not sure where Jesus is, who the “Father” is, or which is the “Way.” As his ministry on earth was ending, Jesus announced his departure from his earthly ministry and was comforting his disciples who were distressed on hearing that sad news (john 13-16). “Little Children, I am with you a little while longer” only. Jesus assumed that his disciples knew whence he came and to where he intended to go. “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And you know where I am going” (John 14:3). This assertion indicates that Jesus was under the notion that his disciples certainly knew the place, the way, and to whom he was going. Being with Jesus for so long, now three disciples by name did not know where Jesus was going, nor the Way to eternity, nor who the Father is. Simon Peter asked Jesus, “where are you going?”

(John 13:36). Thomas asked the same question revealing his ignorance of where Jesus was going as well as the way to go.

“Lord we do not know where you are going, how do we know the way” (John 14:5). Another disciple, Philip said to Jesus, “Show us the Father,” an open confession that he does not know Jesus heavenly Father (John 14:8). These disciples who were with Jesus, studied from him, walked with him, ate with him, seen the many miracles he did, yet do not know who Jesus is, where he is going and who the Father Jesus was referring to.

This is the present situation of many in the Christendom, and

many have a form of godliness denying the power thereof.

Priests then are to know the Lord intimately so that they can teach others the only Way to the Father.

Many have a form of godliness because we are in a multicultural pluralistic religious arena in the world and many Christians live like they are of the world, by the world and for the world, whereas the truth is we are in the world but not of the world.

Jesus replied to all the three who raised the questions, Peter, Thomas and Philip in the most affirmative to their doubts about the Way, the Place and the Father. “I am the way, the truth and the Life, and no one comes to Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen him” (Jn. 14:1-11). Those disciples who did not ask any question were wise like many of us so as not to reveal their ignorance. Today secularized seminaries teach there are different ways to reach the Father, and in a culture of “cut and paste” literature and philosophy we are teaching people to seek God through shortcuts and broader pathways of thoroughfare rather than the narrow, thorny, rough and difficult way of Calvary. There are not different ways to God, but only the Way through Jesus Christ, the Rock of Ages cleft for us.

The Aaronic priesthood did not recognize this, but failed and God decided to do away with them as described in Ezekiel 34.

Israeli priests had seen their kings install idol gods throughout the land from Dan to Beersheba since the days of Solomon, so they were confused and were running with the culture, feeding on the fat of the sheep they were shepherding. They did not know Jehovah, they did not know the power of El Shaddai, and they did not believe in the promise of God, of the Messiah, the Redeemer and the Holy One of Israel, the Saviour of humanity, thus scattering the sheep. While Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments up on Munt Sinai, down in the valley Aaron was succumbed to the pressure of the people in their urge to worship, and they themselves decided the image of God who carried them as on Eagle wings from Egypt to that of a golden calf. Perhaps Aaron had given in to the pressure and culture and thus he decided, if they would not go the way he led them, he would follow the way they wanted to go. That is a dangerous ministry. Do the churches give in to the culture and promote different ways to eternity or the only Way of Calvary?

The world is in total confusion and chaos as to true faith, true hope and true eternity. Therefore, the one and only goal of priestly ministry is to help those under their shepherding lead them to the source of eternal life though Jesus Christ. We cannot just preach what they want to hear, or what is soothing to their ears but the eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ that, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). If we are afraid to speak this truth emphatically, our ministry is in vain and those sheep under our shepherding may lose the eternal life, like the rich young ruler who found it difficult to follow Jesus, because of his love of the world, fame, pride and wealth in a confused world.

May the everlasting God bless all who are in the priesthood and ministry to carryout their mission faithfully devoted to the Saviour during these challenging times to show the way, speak courageously the truth, so that those who hear find eternal life.

Amen!

23 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Notes: 1.

2.

Letters from St. Francis Xavier to Jesuits at Rome.

Catholic TV. https://www.catholic-television.com/letterst-francis-xavier-jesuits-rome-from-cochin-india/.

Accessed August 29, 2018.

Cherian, Plammoottil V. (2108). Origins of the Universe, Life and Species: New Perspectives from Science and Theology. Covenant Books, USA.

Dr. P. V. Cherian is a retired professor of Life Sciences and a Scientist. From his fifty years of teaching and research in biomedical science, he is convinced that the complexities of life and of the universe are too precisely tuned and designed and that an unguided cosmic and biological evolution cannot account for the origin of universe, life and species, but they are created by Divine Design. He has provided numerous scientific evidences in his recent book, “Origins of the Universe, Life and Species: New Perspectives from Science and Theology” (2018) Covenant Books, USA. He is devoting his time writing books on Theology and Science, dispelling the theory of evolution, proving God as the cause of everything in the universe. He is the former Associate Secretary of the Diocese of North America & Europe. He lives in Chicago, and is a member of the Chicago Mar Thoma Church.

Book Release Plammoottil Cherian’s new book, “ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE, LIFE AND SPECIES” is a profound discussion connecting science and religion into one common thought.

Summary of the release: Recent release “ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE, LIFE AND SPECIES” from Covenant Books author Plammoottil Cherian is a compelling discourse that delves on the idea of God amid scientific discoveries proving otherwise.

Full release text: Plammoottil Cherian, a retired professor who received his education and PhD in Life sciences from Indiana State University with specialization in microbiology, immunology, parasitology, and cell biology has completed his new book, “ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE, LIFE AND SPECIES”: a propounding book about the unseen relationship between science and theology. Cherian shares, “Everyone knows the Genesis account of creation, but not necessarily the systematic order and details in which they were created as well as the ecological need for biodiversity to be created all at once for the proper functioning and maintenance of ecosphere.

And throughout the Biblical Scriptures, there are numerous passages that specify the creative work of the Supernatural Being whom we address as God. Having studied basic theology, Darwin could not have completely forgotten the systematics of creation unless he ignored these numerous grand references. During my academic career for the last fifty years, I was always tormented with the opposing forces of evolution and creation and contemplated whether scientific facts can corroborate the claims of the Biblical theology of God’s creative involvement in nature.” Darwin did not have any evidence from the important branches of science particularly genetics and molecular biology of genes which determine variation, adaptation and survival of each species in nature, because these were not fully understood in 1859.

Published by Covenant Books of Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, Plammoottil Cherian’s new book employs knowledge from all fields of science from astrophysics to zoology in appreciating the essence and nature of God and his profound influence in human life. This book presents astounding facts of science deciphered since the past 500 years, reinforced by biblical texts. It is an essential book for anyone who is interested in the true facts of the origin of the universe, life, humanity and the numerous species in the biosphere. Readers can purchase “ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE, LIFE AND SPECIES” at bookstores everywhere, or online at the Apple iTunes store, Amazon or Barnes and Noble.

Note: Covenant Books, an international Christian owned and operated publishing house in Murrells Inlet, South Carolina and specializes in all genres of work, which appeal to the Christian market. For additional information or media inquiries, contact Covenant Books at their phone: 843-507-8373.

24 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Book Review: Dr. Zac Varghese, London “Mission and Liturgy: Contest, Convergence and Congruence with Special Reference to the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church” by Revd Dr. Jameson K. Pallikunnil, is published by ArthurHouse Publishers, UK, 2018, Pp. 205, £11.95. www.authourhouse.co.uk. ISBN 978 -1- 5462-9373-6 This is a much needed, invaluable book, for understanding the intimate relationship between Liturgy and mission. This book comes with an intuitive preface and recommendation by The Rt. Revd. Dr. Geevarghese Mar Theodosius. The Most Revd. Dr. Joseph Mar Thoma Metropolitan commented: “. . . the Mar Thoma Church has a growing relevance in rediscovering the quintessence of its spiritual life by re-reading its historic liturgy. . .”

The reformation of the ancient St. Thomas Church, the Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, in India, in the 19 century was mostly a liturgical reformation because the sacred, divine, Liturgy is the centre of the life of the Church and its praxis. The translation of the Eucharistic liturgical texts from Syriac to Malayalam was an important first step in encouraging active lay participation in the worship; instead of remaining observers, laity became active participants in the Eucharist. Abraham Malpan’s reformation has resonance with Cranmer’s concept of corporate participation in worship by providing a liturgy of simple structure in the language of the land. It was in 1549 that the Archbishop Cranmer published the first prayer book in English for the use of both laity and clergy. th

Liturgy touches all spheres of Christian life and spirituality deeply, and it is considered as the source and fount from which the spiritual energy for the mission springs out. Commitment to mission begins with the liturgical life of the members of the Church. However, often liturgical worship and mission are seen as different aspects of the Christian life, but this book traces the history and the development Church’s Liturgy, its rich theological understanding, and its commitment to mission in its emerging multi-cultural contexts of a globalised Mar Thoma Church of the 21 Century with its expanding diaspora communities. st

Liturgy plays a vital part in the life of the Church. The regular worship gathers the faith community together. Liturgy keeps the Church alive and dynamic. Liturgy is to be understood as a practical process that gives the Christian life its purpose, shape and meaning in a given context. The Holy Communion is the central expression of the faith of the Church and remains as a mark of one’s Christian identity. The liturgical celebration of the Eucharist strengthens the members in their relationship with God and with one another. Thus, it creates a sacramental living in the world. The Church, the faith-community, becomes a witnessing community, carrying out an outreach ministry, which is her mission. Thus, the Eucharist and its Liturgy empowers the participants for the threefold mission of koinonia, kerygma, and diakonia. As stated by the author, “This book explores how the Church holds the scripture and Liturgy together in her spiritual journey and mission.” This book gives emphasis to the fact that “The Eucharist Liturgy affirms that the community gathered for worship must be dispersed for mission. It orients the believing

community to new responsibilities such as the preservation of creation, witness to Jesus Christ and service to society.” The mission of the Church is to become active participants in the Mission of God, ‘Missio Dei’. Professor Hainsworth in his preface to the book summarises elegantly what the book is all about: “The discussions had to do principally with the wedding of two fundamentals of Christian life, Liturgy and Mission, or, if you would, the meeting between community worship and outgoing activity, the vertical of prayer igniting the horizontal of outreach and embrace.” Thus, this book gives deep reflections on the mission and liturgy of the Mar Thoma Church and its intrinsic relationship.

The book is divided into eight chapters: the first two chapters gives historical overview of the reformation of the Mar Thoma Church and how her Eucharistic Liturgy and its Bible-centred faith formulations, and missionary ethos evolved through its interactions with East and West Syrian liturgical traditions, St. James Liturgy and the Bible-centred mission activities of the Protestant traditions and the CMS mission. Chapter’s three to Six of the book deal with the significance of the Liturgy in various cultural and geographical contexts. A detailed account of the development of the diaspora communities and its demands for liturgical modifications are also included. The seventh chapter describes how the Church keeps a balance between the Liturgy and Scripture in its life and mission. The final chapter has some proposals for liturgical revision and mission that are pertinent in the onward journey of the Church.

The author has tried to engage and instruct us about the concept on-going reformation which the Church needs to bring about to enhance the experiential appreciation of the Liturgical life of the younger generations of the globalised Mar Thoma Church.

The book has a systematic analysis of how various challenges were contested historically, how convergence developed gradually in the life of the Church and how congruence gives the Mar Thoma Church a significant place in its ecumenical relationships with other churches and for developing Eucharistic hospitality. Every statement in this book is referenced with adequate footnotes and has an extensive bibliography, which is very helpful for further studies.

This book helps to appreciate that the sacred Liturgy of the Mar Thoma Church––handed down to us by our Church Fathers and continually reformed under the power of the Holy Spirit–– is not a mumbo jumbo of mantras; it has a sacred past and a living presence and has an amazing energy for moving us toward a blessed future of bringing God’s future to the present. The beauty of the intuitively modified St. James liturgy is the weaving of these various elements of Liturgy sensitively to give glory to God; giving glory to God in worship and mission is the role of the Liturgy; this helps us to experience the abiding presence of God through the Eucharistic Liturgy in our daily living or in other words, for practicing ‘the Liturgy after the Liturgy’. This is simply a way of accepting God’s gift of life, thanking God, opening it or breaking it up for sharing it with others. This book is a rich tapestry of theological comments and discussions on Liturgy and mission. I sincerely congratulate Revd. Dr. P. K. Jameson and recommend this book. The readers will certainly benefit much by reflecting on its rich insights. May it become a source of inspiration for further reflections and study.

25 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

THE NEED FOR A NEW VISION IS REAL AND PRESSING - Part 1 Revd Dr. Valson Thampu, Trivandrum In 1970 Thomas Kuhn’s landmark work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, appeared introducing the idea of paradigm shift. For the next quarter century theologians all over the world -especially those frequenting Geneva- talked like parrots about paradigm-shift in theology. Soon it became clear that there was a world of difference between bringing about a paradigm shift and talking leisurely about it.

As a rule, those who work towards, and effect, paradigm shifts don’t talk about it. They may not even be aware that they are involving themselves in an epoch-making endeavour of that kind. Almost all of them in the past have simply followed a vision, a sense of personal destiny, a pressure of responsibility towards humankind. They aligned themselves to a flow of history, which, as Hegel would say, was guided by something more than human. Or, in the idiom of the Bible, they simply stayed fearlessly faithful. By the way, faith and fearlessness go together; and is especially so in biblical history. So, when Jesus sent his disciples out on their mission he told them, “Fear not . . .” To fear is to be brittle and vulnerable in faith; as in the case of Peter, in Caiaphas’s courtyard.

Let’s return to Kuhn. He observed that the need for a paradigm-shift is indicated by the incapacity of the reigning paradigm to account for emerging realities and challenges.

Contradictions multiply and threaten to break out of hand. Jesus lived in such a period of time. He looked around and found everywhere a malady that, especially in the religious context, betokens the need for a paradigm shift: hypocrisy.

Readers of New Vision are familiar with the teachings of Jesus.

So, they would recognize that of all human follies the one that invited maximum outright condemnation from Jesus was hypocrisy.

He was more tolerant of prostitutes than of hypocrites. The reason is often overlooked. Prostitutes are the victims of the existing paradigm, or scheme of things.

Hypocrites are the enemies of the new paradigm that yearns to be born. (St. Paul talks of the creation being in birth pangs.)

They are the shut doors, sealed under the authority of the status quo -like the tomb of Jesus under the seal of Rome- against the urgently needed shift in perspective. The sin against the Holy Spirit is hindering the birth of the new vision; for it is a crime against humanity as a whole.

To see, and accept, the logic for a shift in paradigm, it is necessary that the ills of the reigning paradigm are diagnosed, as Jesus would say, ‘in spirit and in truth’. To that end, a few words about (a) paradigm and (b) hypocrisy.

A paradigm is a central idea around which all other ideas and possibilities -the diverse aspects of lived reality- are organized.

The idea that the earth stood still, or that the earth goes around the sun, are both paradigmatic ideas. Moving from the first to the second is a paradigm-shift. The need for such a shift arose because the realities that came to light over a period of time could not be accounted for under the earth-centred scheme of things. Hypocrisy results from the parasites of the old paradigm passing off as the priests and preachers of the new paradigm.

They are not what they seem. They are actors. For actors, only three things count. The role they have to play in the given

context, the words and costume that go with it. None of these has any necessary correlation to who or what they are.

The essence of hypocrisy, however, is not play-acting, but violence. Play-acting is resorted to only for as long as it serves the purpose of preventing the outbreak of the new. When hypocrisy proves inadequate, violence is unleashed in all its fury. In the Gospel this is symbolized as Crucifixion. What needs to be recognized is that crucifixion is not a one-off event, but a repetitive, irreducible pattern, of which the persecutions of prophets are milder variants. Prophecy is the spiritual opposite of hypocrisy.

Jesus re-shaped history by effecting a paradigm shift. This was the very essence of his ministry. So, it seemed imperative to the custodians of the old order, sanctified by religion and tradition, to eradicate this flaming menace. They did it with all good intentions. The crowd that screamed, “Crucify him!” was not an unruly, insensate mob; but an army of the ‘faithful’. They deserve our sympathetic understanding, if not indiscriminate sympathy. Given the vision and mission of Caiaphas, and the comprehensive control his establishment had over their lives and outlook, the disposition of the crowd was a logical necessity.

Here I may point out, in passing that we have to be vigilant against the stereotypical misuse of biblical metaphors. I shall point out just one such as an illustration. It is offensive and objectionable on the part of a priest to think of a congregation as ‘my sheep’. It is dangerous because most priests have lost the ability to understand symbols as symbols. They treat them as literal facts. So, a congregation as someone’s sheep carries with it the idea that he can guide them as he wills and where he likes. He doesn’t have to be in partnership with them or seek the will of God for them. He doesn’t have to seek and find anything at all. He knows it all, just because he happens to be the shepherd to this flock. It is difficult to exaggerate the extent of harm befalling to the pastoral ministry from this state of affairs.

What was the essence of the Jesus revolution? A good starting point for seeking an answer is the ‘offence’ that Jesus was to the Judaic establishment (Mtt.11:1-5). The Pharisees and Sadducees were ‘offended’ at him, not because he was doing anything wrong or evil -which would have been tolerated- but because he ushered in something so new that they felt bewildered and endangered by it. What was that something so radically new?

Remember that brilliant, unrivalled metaphor that Jesus used in describing the Pharisees? Whited sepulcher! What is the power of this metaphor? It is its incisive truth. And that truth pertains to the tyranny of the surface over the depth, the physical over the spiritual, the temporal over the eternal. The shell of the sepulcher is all matter. Inside, where in the case of living organisms, there should have been life, or the spirit, there is nothing but putrefaction. We must understand this aright. So, a few more words …

Life involves a mysterious relationship between matter and spirit, surface and depth. One cannot be, or remain life-friendly,

26 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

without the other. Matter is not superfluous or irrelevant; for that too is a godly creation. Matter becomes problematic when it ceases to be what it is meant to be, and arrogates to itself a role and power it is simply not entitled to. Matter, when it becomes autonomous from the authority of the spirit -the Spirit of Truthbecomes shallow and oppressive of life. The condemnation of the whited sepulcher is not that it is white without, but that it is hollow and dark within. If it were teeming with life, its external whiteness would have been an embellishment.

Rome. (There are always exceptions. I am reckoning general trends here.) They revel in the pomp and power the office affords. They ‘lord it over’ all the rest; which Jesus explicitly said they should not do. The pity is that they are not even aware of the contradiction. They believe fervently that they will cease to be bishops if they conduct themselves in practice as shepherds.

The world is organized merely in terms of the material and the ‘natural’ (which turns out, in course of time, to be unnatural for that reason). That is why the world abounds in ornaments but is poor in symbolism. ‘Symbol’ denotes the co-existence of two realms -the spiritual and the natural. When Coleridge compares the bride to a red rose, he is not merely referring to her physical beauty but also to the transcendence of her beauty, which cannot be explained by any number of superlatives pertaining to the physical aspect alone. The merely physical is best described by direct description, not by symbols. A symbol stands with one leg planted in the physical and with the other poised over the spiritual.

What do all these things point to? I am far from wanting to blame or condemn anyone. But I am obliged to be true to history. Historically a great distortion befell Christendom with the conversion of Constantine in 4 century AD. Christianity became a state religion. It was re-cast in the mould of the Empire. The officers of the church and the officers of the state became nearly identical. The King had his regal robes; the priests, theirs. Over the centuries, the aberration got worse.

Priestly and episcopal vestments came to symbolize an office in its brutal, insensitive physicality and lost their spiritual aura. The sanctification of tyranny that happened in the form of the Papal Office -and, later, the institutionalization of extreme and diabolical cruelty in the form of the Inquisition which exterminated nearly hundred thousand honest dissenters- were a natural outcome of this aberration.

In the spiritually wholesome period of a religion, which produces core religious symbols that survive the test of time, the external accessories and accouterments are mere symbols. That is to say, they point to a reality that is beyond the physical aspects they denote in mere appearance. Let me explain.

From my point of view, the bishops and priests are all unwitting victims of this historical distortion. When Jesus said ‘you cannot serve God and mammon’, he was pointing out a paradigmatic opposition. They denote irreconcilable opposites. The only way they can be seemingly harmonized is through hypocrisy.

Take the vestments of a priest. His girdle is meant to symbolize self-control. His white cassock symbolizes purity. And so on.

During the spiritually wholesome phase of Christianity, they were cherished as such by priests. If not by all priests, at least by those who took their spiritual vocation seriously. But, over a period of time, priestly vestments became mere uniforms. Just as the students of a school are identified by the uniforms they wear -even if they don’t endorse the motto or culture of the institution- the priests come to be identified with a religion by their sacerdotal uniforms. There is no symbolic overtone to their vestments in their self-awareness. They cease to be, in fact, vestments and are deployed as identity-markers or status symbols.

Here is my experience of the church so far. Take it or leave it as you wish. But here it is.

I have, in the recent years, ceased to don the priestly vestment mainly as a test case. It is amazing how shocked and disoriented my fellow priests are at seeing me without a cassock and girdle especially on a Sunday. It is the Sunday uniform, you see. I am not a priest, if I am not in priestly attire.

My inner reality does not matter. It is essential that I be a whited sepulcher. Every imaginable merit depends on this, and on this alone.

Or, take the case of the bread and the wine. What do they symbolize to the celebrant and the communicants? When I was in Bishop’s College, Calcutta (as it was then named), the sacrament used to be referred to by the seminarians as the ‘magic’. But, the same persons, as they got into the Eucharistic celebration, and were in the designated costume, sustained a different make-believe. They seemed to radiate divine mysteries.

Take the case of bishops. A bishop is called the chief shepherd of the flock. “Shepherd” is a symbol. It is a physical thing pointing to a spiritual reality. Where is that spiritual reality today? Bishops have modeled themselves after the Caesars of

th

I haven’t seen or known many instances in which matters in the life of the church -including the election of bishops- has been truly guided by the Holy Spirit. I have heard the Holy Spirit invoked a million times. But I have not experienced a single instance -including my ordination- in which the Holy Spirit was the guiding and decisive principle. If anyone else has, I am happy for him and wish him well.

Again, I am not blaming anyone. Not even myself. I did not know then. It took me over four decades to stumble towards what seems to be the truth now. But, truth to tell, even today I am not cocksure if I have got the thing aright.

The point I am making needs to be stated again. As St. Paul says, when it comes to spiritual things, we can only ‘know in part’. Now we see darkly, like in a mirror. It is this impossibility of sure knowledge on the part of the common man, insofar as he is spirit embedded in the natural and physical dimension of life, that keeps the doors open to make-believe and institutionalized hypocrisy. It is this that makes extreme vigilance -Jesus said, ‘watch and pray’- a spiritual duty. The godly relationship between the physical and the spiritual, the natural and the super-natural, can be upset any time. Once the physical gets mastery over the spiritual -as it indeed did in Judaism at the time of Jesus- the symbolic aspect of a spiritual tradition withers away and what were once spiritual symbols become no more than religious signatures.

Editor’s Note: Part 2 of this article will be published in the January 2019 issue of FOCUS

27 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

PRIESTHOOD and MINISTRY: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

Revd Dr. Martin Alphonse, Portland, U. S. A. Difference in Perception: The terms ‘Priesthood and Ministry’ have created a functional dichotomy in the minds of many Christians who consider the two terms as mutually exclusive. It is mainly due to some specific functions priests are assigned to perform in the church.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word priest as: “an ordained minister of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican Church, authorized to perform certain rites and administer certain sacraments.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes a priest as “one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God; specifically: an Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic clergymen.” In traditional and mainline churches, these specific priestly duties refer to the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Holy Communion, marriage etc. These functions belong exclusively to the clergy, set apart by ordination, and being referred to as priest, minister, pastor, vicar, or presbyter and so on.

While Priesthood is exclusive, ministry is inclusive in nature. It can be and is being performed by both the ordained clergy and the un-ordained laity. There are a variety of ministries carried out by both the clergy and the laity such as, Children’s Ministry, Youth Ministry, Men and Women’s Ministry, Christian Social Service of various kinds, missionary work etc.

In fact, priesthood is itself a form of Christian Ministry. Yet, the functional exclusivism of priesthood as understood and practiced in many churches makes many Christians to think that the two are mutually exclusive. Are they? The answer to this question depends on how one views the functions of priesthood as presented in the Bible.

Functions of Priesthood: In the Old Testament, God set apart the tribe of Levi through Aaron and his sons for sacred priesthood (Exodus 28) and gave instructions on the specific and exclusive functions the priests were to perform. This was necessary at a time in the History of Israel when all activities of the people, both spiritual and social, revolved around the pivot of worship of Yehovah in the Tent of Meeting/Tabernacle/Ark of the Covenant to begin with, and gloriously culminated in the Temple of Jerusalem. The priest alone could enter into the presence of Yehovah in the most Holy place in the Tent or the Temple and make various kinds offerings to Him on behalf of the people. The most important offering was for Atonement for the forgiveness of sins. See Leviticus 4:1-35; 2 Chronicles 29:21.

In the New Testament, with the birth of the Church, Priesthood was given a new meaning altogether. Jesus Christ came for the complete fulfillment of the priestly functions of the Old Testament. He was prophetically described in Psalm 110:4 as the “priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” who had preceded the Aaronic priesthood and was honored by Abraham himself (Genesis 14:18-20).

In the New Testament, Christ had now become the fulfillment of both Melchizedek’s priesthood (Hebrews 6:20; 7:1-21) as the Priest of the Most High God. Christ also fulfilled the

Aaronic/Levitical priesthood, which made offering for Atonement for Sin. Christ offered himself as a sacrifice on the cross for our atonement. (Hebrews 7:22-28). Although, the salvific function of priesthood was perfected in Christ on the cross, He has still commanded all of His children, both men and women, to carry out some other functions of priesthood as a distinct, unique form of Christian ministry. This call of Christ to both Priesthood and Ministry for all is embedded in the important biblical concept of Priesthood of All believers.

Priesthood of All believers: One of the most vital teachings of reformer Martin Luther in the 16 century was that both clergy and the laity are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 2:9 says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation 1:6: “(Jesus Christ) . . . has made us kingdom of priests to serve His God and father”; Revelation 5:10, "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings." Again as Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:1: "No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God." In fact, Luther’s arguments were also rooted in Exodus 19:6 where Yehovah spoke of ‘all’ Israel as “you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”. The reformers enlightened the Church on certain important functions of priesthood, which are binding both on the clergy and the laity to perform. th

a)

Mediators/Reconcilers

One of the exclusive functions of the priesthood, as pointed out by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is to be ‘a mediatory agent between humans and God’. This was the prime function of priests in all the ancient pre-Israelite religions. Even in Israel, the Aaronic priesthood was set apart by Yehovah to perform this function. Most religions of the world today have assigned this mediatory responsibility to the priest. In the New Testament, Apostle Paul makes a strong case for the ministry of reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. Some might interpret it as though Paul has made the ministry of reconciliation as something, which belongs exclusively to the Apostles as “Ambassadors of Christ”, and through them to the Priestly Order of the church. However, the main objective of preaching the Gospel is to bring reconciliation between God and humans.

It is not only for the priests to preach the Gospel. The laity is also called upon to preach the Gospel of Reconciliation to the world. In fact, the laity who preach the Gospel and thus function as mediators between God and humans outnumber the clergy in most nations of the world. b)

Intercessors

A main component of the act of mediation between two parties is for the mediator to intercede on behalf of the weaker one to the stronger one. The Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are the chief intercessors on our behalf before the Heavenly Father (Romans 8:26-27; 34). What a glorious and powerful priestly function it is!

However, Christ has also commanded through the teachings of His Apostles that all of His followers to be intercessors for the redemption of the world. Matthew 9:37-38 “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask (intercede) the Lord of the

28 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”

Paul urged, in 1 Timothy 2: 1-4, that intercessory prayers should be lifted up in the church for salvation of all the people including kings and higher authorities of the land.

Conclusion: While the clergy continue to perform certain priestly functions in the church as ordained servant leaders, there are other priestly functions as shown above which both the clergy and the laity are called upon to perform without any difference in their ranks.

While Priesthood may still be considered as an “exclusive” Ministry for some, Priesthood of All Believers is an “extended” Ministry for all the members of the Church.

We and Us: Prejudice and Pride Mini Krishnan* Writing this in the month, August 2018, which marks yet another year of our Independence, reminds us of physical borders that were marked off in different parts of Asia and Africa in the last century. It gives us a chance to think about walls of different kinds in our physical world while the ‘www’ of Internet operates in ether. Natural borders like the Himalaya have caused different kinds of linked societies to develop over millennia but have man-made walls done well? The Great Wall of China did not. Nor did the Berlin Wall!

break down. Most people feel safe in communities that subscribe to the same beliefs and norms and right or wrong cling to the same patterns of social behavior. Surely therefore the ultimate border is the human skin: the wall between the inner and the outer self, which is the border we can’t seem to get rid of. All spiritual quests have been journeys of the mind to get through this final emotional frontier, the fence of the self. Surely ‘independence’ is to control

strong personal prejudices and communicate meaningfully with the other. Editor’s Note: * Mini Krishnan is Series Editor, Living in Harmony, Oxford University Press, India.

Carmel Mar Thoma Center, Atlanta The Diocese of North America and Europe purchased 41 acres of property with 110,000 sq. foot facility including a 2,500 seating sanctuary at Stone Mountain in Atlanta, GA. The facility is named as ‘Carmel Mar Thoma Center’ and will be used as a mission center for various mission activities of the Diocese. The purchase was possible due to the able leadership of Rt. Revd Dr. Isaac Mar Philoxenos Episcopa, who is the present Diocesan Bishop. Revd Manoj Idiculla is the Diocesan Secretary and Prof. Philip Thomas, CPA is the Diocesan Treasurer.

Ever since the Stone Age people have lived in “trust”, groups of 15 or 20 with whom they hunted or traded; or with whom they had children. Even a casual look at patterns of life in villages and small towns shows us that this has not changed very much. Why? Because people are by nature clannish and tribal. The reason large groups of strangers (or any stranger at all) are viewed with suspicion is because we immediately feel threatened with disruption or wonder, which way things might go. Since it is a better policy to be safe than sorry we “wall” off the stranger or strangers.

Paul Salopek, who undertook to follow the “Road out of Eden” traveling from Africa on foot, outward into different parts of the world, was recently in India where he found the borders between India and Pakistan utterly artificial. True there were Hindus amongst Muslims on one side and Muslims among Hindus on the other, but “People on both sides are Punjabis. They grow the same crops, like the same music, eat the same foods and dress similarly.” Salopek also dwelt at some length on the sociology of walls and borders saying that if you traveled at great speed over geographic terrain in a car or train or plane you never really come into contact with people except in artificial environments like airports.

As Salopek travels from country to country, culture-to-culture, he finds people to be pretty much the same. “I don’t see colour or language any more. Whether it is a Bedouin nomad in Saudi Arabia, a photojournalist from Turkey or a brilliant scientist in Georgia, they all talk about the same things — family, jobs, governments, climate change, about what they have or don’t have. Worries are the same; so are their hopes. “Geographical borders are fluid; they might change with war, policies or famines but the border that divides our inner and outer selves is the ultimate border that should really concern us. They are walls of prejudice, of ignorance, of fear and worst of all pride in being all of these things. They give us a false sense of security and safety.

Possibly because the world seems to be shrinking with electronic communication creating a borderless world, the walls in the mind are gaining strength. Do we still surround ourselves with fences and walls? Of course we do and the invisible ones are the hardest to

29 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Three Amazing Silver Jubilarians of the Mar Thoma Church dates three bright young priests of the Church – Revd Joseph Jacob, Revd Thomas George and Revd Dr. A. I. Isaac – responded to a ‘Divine call’ and became Rambans and Episcopas after their consecration by His Grace Most Revd Alexander Mar Thoma Metropolitan. Revd Joseph Jacob received the name Rt. Revd Joseph Mar Barnabas Episcopa, Revd Thomas George became Rt. Revd Thomas Mar Timotheos Episcopa and Revd Dr. A. I. Isaac received the name Rt. Revd Dr. Isaac Mar Philoxenos Episcopa. Therefore, the Church is thanking God for the ministries of these three talented bishops and celebrating their Silver jubilee. FOCUS Movement is particularly grateful for the blessings that they have showered upon this Movement over the years and we offer our thanks to them for all that they have done and continue to do in various Dioceses of the Church and for the Ecumenical Movement.

Rt. Rev. Joseph Mar Barnabas Episcopa – Thiruvananthapuram – Kollam Diocese

Rt. Rev. Dr. Isaac Mar Philoxenos Episcopa – Diocese of North America and Europe

Rt. Rev. Thomas Mar Timotheos Episcopa – Chengannur – Mavelikara Diocese August 31, 1993 and October 2, 1993 are important dates in the annals of the history of the Mar Thoma Church. On the above

These three bishops have identifiable unique servant ministries for glorifying God’s name and His Mission. They specially take note of the noble traditions of the Church. Their sweet and pleasant behaviour coupled with simple lifestyles make their personality and ministries very noble and exemplary. They have their own special signatory commitments and ministries for helping the needy and vulnerable people irrespective caste, creed and gender. They exhibit all the necessary grace-filled streams of thought to develop spiritual fervour in the people through personal relationship and dialogue. We are a blessed people because of the blessings they shower upon us. We pray for their health and wellbeing for their continued ministry for the spiritual growth of everyone under their stewardship.

The Editorial Board

30 | P a g e F O C U S O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8