Development, Traditional Values and Christian Responsibility

DEVELOPMENT, TRADITIONAL VALUES

AND CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY

Paulose Mar Paulose

Christians are a minority in Asia, and the Christian communities scattered all over in our vast continent can very well be likened to the small group of Jewish repatriates at the time of Nehemiah. I presume that is the reason I have been asked to deal with the topic under consideration in the light of the Book of Nehemiah.

Rebuilding An Identity:

We can have a graphic idea of the actual conditions of life of the Jewish repatriates in Palestine from the books of Trito-Isaiah (Isaiah 56-66), Haggai, and of course Ezra- Nehemiah.¹ We have to remember that the Jews, who, taking advantage of Cyrus' edict (II Chronicles 36:22ff; Ezra 1: Iff), set out for Palestine, were mostly common folk and members of the priestly groups. We also learn from the findings of archaelogical excavations that the rich and well-to-do remained in Babylon, where their descendants engaged in banking business. (As a matter of fact, excavators have unearthed the archives of Murashu, a Jewish family of bankers.) When the repatriates reached Palestine their hopes turned into disillusionment.

They were, to begin with, a minority in Palestine, and as such they stood in real danger of losing their identity and of being absorbed into the majority community. When Zerubbabel, Joshua and other leaders began to work on the temple, the Samaritans volunteered to cooperate, but their offer was refused (Ezra 4:1-3), and thereupon they turned hostile to the newcomers (Ezra 4:4f). The reason behind the refusal to accept the proffered help was fear of being absorbed by the powerful groups of the erstwhile kingdom of Israel.

There was also the danger of syncretism. The repatriates, convinced as they were, that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and their exile in an alien land were the punishment God inflicted on the Judeans for the sin of worshipping alien gods, were most touchy about having dealings with the Samaritans and the gentiles.

Economic considerations, too, were at work in the minds of the repatriates. In the years after the great catastrophe (587 BC), the country of Judah came to be gradually occupied by gentile groups coming from the south (Edom), the east (Transjordan, or Moab and Ammon) and the north (Phoenician cities). They were also the lower classes of Judeans who were left behind by Nebuchadnezzar and who gradually became landholders. And to these must be added the people from the northern kingdom who were following a syncretistic form of religion (II Kings 17:28-33). As is easily discernible, the landholders were not happy to have in their midst these newcomers who laid claims on the land their ancestors had been in possession of.

It is in the light of these factors that we have to understand the history narrated in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. We shall now consider a few details. There was the denunciation of mixed marriages by Ezra and Nehemiah. Not only the laity but also the priests and Levites entered into connubiality with the peoples of the land (Ezra 9: If), and this caused Ezra to protest vehemently (Ezra 9:3ff), and to force the people to send away their alien wives (Ezra 10: 3-11; Nehemiah 9:1-5). There were, however, individuals who did not comply with Ezra's orders (Ezra 10:15). The reason for this harsh measure – breaking up of marriages – was on the one hand the danger of syncretism, and on the other the threat to Jewish identity.

Nehemiah, on his part, narrates how he was moved to extreme anger when he saw "Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab" (Neh. 13: 23-31). He was saddened beyond measure when he discovered that the children born of mixed marriages were not able to speak the Jewish language (Hebrew/Aramaic) and were therefore employing gentile tongues. He had some of them beaten, and he even pulled their hair out! He also drove away from his presence one of the members of the family of Eliashib for he was the son-in-law of Sanballat the Horonite, a pagan potentate.

These threats to the community came from outside, but there were also dangers from within the community itself. The serious danger that came from within was the slackening of religious life. The priest Eliashib gave Tobiah the Ammonite one of the chambers of the temple where sacred vessels and offerings used to be stored (Neh. 13:4-9). Tobiah was a businessman. The house of God, eventually, became a den of thieves. We learn from the book of Malachi (1:8) that the priest had no scruple in sacrificing defective victims on the altar in the temple. The Levites were not given their portion, so they neglected their duties in the temple and went to work in their fields (Neh. 13:10-14).

The Sabbath day was not being observed. On that solemn day of rest, the Jews were treading the wine press, bringing in sheaves and selling victuals, and the Tyrians (or Phoenicians) were importing fish and other merchandise selling them to the Jews (Neh. 13:15-18). Nehemiah took to task the Jewish leaders who were countenancing these abuses.

Some of the other serious questions that the community of repatriates had to address itself were the anti-social conduct, social injustice and the exploitation of the poor. The poorer sections of the community were forced to pawn their children in order to buy grain. Some had to mortgage their fields, vineyards and houses to buy food, and there were others who were forced to borrow money on their properties to pay taxes to the government. The most tragic aspect was that the economically well-to-do and the shrewd were fattening themselves at the expense of the less fortunate (Neh. 5:1-5). The governors prior to Nehemiah "laid heavy burdens upon the people, and took from them food and wine, besides forty shekels of silver. Even their servants lorded it over the people" (Neh. 5:15). Forty shekels (in current terms, it is approximately twenty-five US dollars) was an enormous sum at the time of Nehemiah.

Nehemiah's committed leadership inspired the Jews considerably to arrive

at a joint decision: "Let us rise up and build" (Neh. 2:18). Nehemiah considered physical security of the community as a priority, and therefore turned his attention to the re-building of the walls of the city, acting with speed and boldness lest his plans be thwarted. It is an achievement to build the wall in fifty-two days by mostly unskilled labor. (Its actual completion – reinforcing, finishing the battlements, gates and revetments – required two years and four months.)

All these were accomplished under incredibly difficult circumstances. It is a tribute to Nehemiah's energy and courage and the determination of the people that made this possible (Neh. 4:6). As mentioned earlier, he had powerful enemies who wasted no opportunity to put obstacles in his mission.

Nehemiah had introduced various reforms to bind the Jews into a close-knit community. When we remember the powerful pressures that threatened to destroy Israel's identity, it is clear that this policy was necessary, even though today we might look at it with disapproval. It was a struggle to preserve the identity of the people of Israel and the distinctiveness of Israel's faith in face of the tremendous cultural pressures at work during the Persian period. Therefore undue importance should not be given to the inward looking of Nehemiah. What matters here is the determination of the people to rise up with Nehemiah in the midst of threats and dangers, from within and without, in order to determine their destiny.

Christians in Asia Today

The conditions prevailing in the community of Jewish repatriates, as described by Nehemiah, are literally realised in the Christian communities in Asia today. We are a small minority, and is always in danger of losing the identity. We have our own religious traditions, which have for centuries been nourishing the religious life of millions of our brothers and sisters. The big problem the Churches in Asia have to face is that of integrating the Gospel into the non-Christian cultures of our continent. For this, it is essential to identify ourselves with the people of the land and participate in their struggle for fuller and abundant life, of course, keeping our identity. Christian theology, as elaborated by the different confessions, has not studied this problem, for the great minds of the West were not acquainted with the religions of the East. In the age of colonialism, western missionaries were, at times, quite contemptous of the eastern religions. The Gospel, which in the past became Greek to the Greeks, Roman to the Romans has not become Indian to the Indians, Chinese to the Chinese. ...On the one hand we cannot deny the basic tenets of our Christian faith, and on the other hand we cannot remain blind to the values of our own religious traditions. This is our problem.

What are the implications of the Nehemiah lesson for the life and witness of the Church in Asia today?

A. We are too conscious of our minority situation. We are a minority group in a land of religious pluralism, and we feel threatened. As a minority group we are not interested in the affairs of the society in which we live. We are afraid to get involved in the political, social and economic struggles of our time, and

we have not seriously considered our responsibility to join those who fight for the cause of social justice. We have taken it for granted that our goal is to reach heavenly Jerusalem, leaving behind earthly Babylon.

I am reminded here of an incident from Israel's Exodus that needs to be commented upon. This is reported in the book of Numbers. Moses sent twelve men to spy out the promised land, one from every tribe, and each a leader. They travelled from the south to north and back again, and then they gave their report. This was the considered view of the majority of ten: "And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from Nephilim); and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." (Numbers 13:33)

The greatest problem of the church in Asia today is the "grasshopper neurosis" of those who serve it. We see ourselves as grasshoppers and so we are seen by those outside. We have lost confidence in the reconciling power of the Gospel, and we are paralysed by the fear of the sons of Anak.

Going back to the Exodus story, there was a minority report, this time from two members of the expedition sent by Moses – Caleb and Joshua: "Let us go up at once, and occupy it; for we are well able to overcome it" (Numbers 13:30). We need people of their calibre to respond meaningfully to the vision that has gripped this generation, and who will become participants in the creation of a new order.

But we hear an echo in the Asian church: "We are in our own sight as grasshoppers and so we are in the sight of those outside" giving undue thought to our minority status. We have not yet fully realised that as God's people we are responsible to God at every moment in history and that we are fortified with the spirit of God who created us and now governs us. The pertinent question is not whether the church is a minority or a majority. What matters is the right understanding of the purpose for which the church has been called out, adoption of a life style befitting that call, and readiness on the part of the church to take risks in fulfilling God's purposes.

B. We are too conscious of our unprivileged position. As a consequence, the churches in Asia are now too much preoccupied with the battles to safeguard their own rights and privileges. But, then, we have to remember that not only churches in non-Christian countries, or churches in the so-called atheistic countries, but also churches in the so-called Christian countries lose privileges. The church, losing her privileges or already without them, is a fact in our modern secularised world. In other words, churches all over the world are in an unprivileged position. In this situation, it would be tragic if the churches are preoccupied with their own rights and privileges, blissfully unconcerned about the rights and privileges of the human family as a whole. It would be a travesty of the church of Jesus Christ.

It would be deep misunderstanding if we look upon the unprivileged position of the church as a breach in a wall that we have to stop or fill in. It belongs perhaps to the blessings of the secular world that it has made a hole in the self-conscious walls of the church. The Church does not stand or fall through her security in society. Nor does it live by its numerical strength, number of institutions it sponsors or by the bank deposits and wealth it possesses. The

church lives only through her faith in Jesus Christ, her belief in the truth of his gospel, and through her service of love in His name.

The missionary structure of Christ's church in the world – where her task is not to dominate but to serve, not to claim a monopoly on truth but to be the humble servant of her Lord marks the very substantial character of this unprivileged character of the church. Here, for the church, to obey, to follow, to live according to Christ's orders means to seek the narrow gate, not the wide and easy way, to be the everyday salt with its preserving power against any kind of decay, and to function as sound leaven that must penetrate into the dough.

If we look back to the history of Christendom we observe that as long as the church belonged to the unprivileged minority in society she grew as a spiritual power. But as soon as the church in the Roman empire reached the status of privileged society, her spiritual power waned. The church with secular power pretensions and aspirations, the church which mediates not on service but on dominion, the church which struggles after recognition not for her Lord and Master but of worldly powers cannot fulfill its mission.

C. We, Christians in Asia, have been guilty of social injustice. True, economically speaking, we are not as rich as the non-Christian majority, yet we have been guilty of exploitation. Our institutions (which, we loudly proclaim, are meant to help the poor) have at times been the instruments of exploitation. Look at our educational and health institutions. Are they not 'elite institutions' which cater mainly to the socially and economically privileged sections of the society? Suffice it to say that the Asian Christians have failed (in much the same way as the Jewish community of Nehemiah's time) to live up to their commitment. It is time we develop a prophetic awareness and prophetic action.

A Call to Rise Up...

Christians wishing to take responsibility for the cause of the development of the people cannot work effectively unless they take into account the hopes and aspirations of the people for whom the services are being rendered. Today we are experiencing a great cultural awakening in Asia. People are questioning traditional values and are searching for new ones. They have begun to acquire a new consciousness of their selfhood and identity. They demand the fullest right of participation in the life of the society where power is exercised and decisions are made which affect their welfare. In other words, they want to be subjects of their own destiny and of history.

As a result of this new awakening, people's attitudes toward traditional values are undergoing rapid change. They think of this world, and not of a world to come. They live in a world come of age, or more accurately, in a world coming of age (in the sense the world has not reached maturity; it is in a process of getting matured). Let us examine three aspects of this new awakening:

A. The maturity (the world coming to age) is not the maturity of the wise old sage. Rather it is the description of a situation. Maturity marks the time of responsibility. By the use of reason people gradually discovered the laws by

which the world lives and is regulated, not only in science, but also in social and political affairs, art, ethics and religion; and with all intellectual honesty they no longer use God as a working hypothesis. They have been left with the world on their hands.

The modern secular person is living etsi deus non daretur (as if God were not given). This only means that the modern secular person is getting matured and has begun to take responsibility for the world. Though we are living as if God were not given, we are still living coram Deo (before God), because even if we attempt to run away from God, He follows us like the 'Hound of Heaven' (Psalms 139). In other words, our attention has been turned away from the world beyond, and toward this world and this time. It is in this sense that one is living in a world come of age. In the childhood of humanity, people thought of God as deus ex machina. Now that humanity has come of age, people think and live independent of God. The premises of the religion of the childhood of humanity has disappeared. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, "Living wholeheartedly in the world is neither an abandonment of God nor a revolt against God; rather it is accepting the freedom given by God with a sense of responsibility."

B. Another aspect of this new awakening is people's renewed understanding of the secular world. James Pike, the late Episcopalian Bishop of San Francisco, put it succinctly: "The secular (person) thinks in terms of life after birth, not in terms of life after death." This responsible interest in the saeculum has changed the secular person's attitude toward religion. People are no longer afraid of 'supernatural forces' which used to haunt them in the past, and therefore religious activities seem shadowy and unreal to them by comparison with secular activities.

This does not mean that they deny the reality of God. Rather, it means they affirm the temporal, this wordly character of their existence. The attention has been turned away from the word's 'beyond' to this world and this time. They become more concerned about the evil structures of the society and would struggle to bring about shalom in the society.

Due to this secular outlook there is a new emphasis "on the essential otherness of man from subhuman nature, making possible a scientific attitude of conquest and exploitation of nature by man; on the individual with fundamental rights to self-determination and non-conformity with the group and on the otherness of the world and society from God, making possible the autonomy of secular life from religion." (MM Thomas)

This outlook is strictly in the spirit of the Bible. According to the Bible, the world is entirely secular and is placed under the mandate of God's creation – the human beings who are responsible to God. The biblical hope does not betray the earth, and the biblical future cannot be understood as simply other-worldly. The biblical promise of the future applies above all to the afflicted and the oppressed, to the troubled and the burdened for the future the Bible speaks of is the future of the human community – of the people of God and the City of God. The new Jerusalem is related to earthly cities. It moves those who hope for it in the direction of a more equitable society.

C. The third aspect of the new awakening is, what M.M. Thomas calls, a movement from the concept 'world-as-nature' to that of 'world-as-history.'² Thomas brilliantly explains how much the spiritual ethos of the Asian countries differ today from what Marx described as the predicament of traditional Asian societies. "Karl Marx in his writings on India has described the spiritual ethos of traditional Asian societies as based on a belief in 'a never changing natural destiny' coupled with 'brutalising worship of nature'. For him the Asian village was a combination of a stagnant economy, vegetative social existence, and nature worship. It was incapable of pushing Asia forward out of a stagnation patterned after the natural cycle into the dynamism of a historical consciousness." But not anymore. In the cultures of many Asian countries "the idea is growing that the creativity and enterprise of freedom are good in themselves, even if they involve a large measure of destructiveness and disharmony." Apparently, traditional ethos was not at all bothered by contradictory values and structures found in the society, and it even permitted their co-existence. But "today when every historical event is fraught with significance and with a sense of movement towards a goal, ideological struggles demand decision, commitment and a fight to the finish."

People have begun to reject any form of servitude that would reduce them to a means at the hands of an owner. They know that the decisive productive forces of history are themselves in all spheres of creative activity. This is to say that the driving force of history is within history itself. History is not made from outside, neither by a destiny such as Greek thought posited, nor by a providence extrinsic to human activity. One of the most important aspects of the awakening of contemporary Asia is this new sense of history, of historical dynamism and historical mission. Trying to overlook the distinction between natural events and what people create by their free decisions would be disastrous; it would paralyse them completely into inaction and irresponsibility.

Thus, the modern cultural awakening in Asia involves radical changes in the traditional values, bringing in their wake, a new awareness of responsible self-hood, a renewed understanding of the secular world, and a new sense of history and human creativity.

...And Build Together

Development, in its local and global aspects Should be accorded a high priority on every Christian organisation's agenda. It is something that is being widely debated today, practically all over the world. As a matter of fact, there is no dearth of literature on the development debate. We have had a number of conferences, consultations and seminars in the last two decades in different parts of Asia under the auspices of, either religious or secular organisations; and they have produced vast amounts of literature on the question of development. All these have emphasised that the purpose of development is the wholeness of the human being. Organisations like the WSCF can become an even greater force in helping developing nations move towards the kind of society which enables every individual to achieve his/her full potential.

In Asia where there is a large percentage of poor people this debate is concentrated on the problem of poverty. The popular view is that poverty is one's fate, and prosperity a blessing of God. According to this view, we cannot alter God's plans, and all that we can do is to reduce the sufferings of the people with charity and relief works. We can also pray for the conversion of hearts of the rich people!

But we know that giving alms and doing relief work serve only the purpose of a social anaesthesia, i.e., only temporary relief is achieved. It is easy to do some social service and feel self-satisfied. As a matter of fact, the charity approach comes out of a static world view, i.e., it is taken for granted that poverty is a natural part of the world, that is how it has always been, and that will be the case in the future as well; and therefore, let us do whatever we can to alleviate the pain of the poor. This attitude will not help to achieve the kind of social change we need.

Today, there is much criticism from various quarters that churches do not use the resources at their disposal for social change. This criticism becomes more poignant when the critics allege that relief work undertaken by the churches are not altogether altruistic in nature, instead they are intended either to make profits or to make their annual reports look more colourful. Perhaps, there is an element of exaggeration in that statement, nevertheless it should not be left unnoticed. If these critics enable us to awaken us from our lethargy and dogmatic slumber, we should salute them!

Some others think that poverty is due to overpopulation. One cannot agree with this, except in a secondary sense. China sets a striking example of successful demographic policy. The world's most populous country, ravaged by long foreign occupation and civil war, has succeeded in eliminating famine, class exploitation, unemployment, and a servile national consciousness. The key to China's success is the overarching network of incentives and motivations that activates the entire society. This is not to say that over-population does not pose real problems. But the advocacy of population control by dominant societies is used as a mask to cover more fundamental issues, namely, the structure of domination and the existing world economic order founded on the principle of profit maximisation by the richest and the strongest.

The position of the governments regarding poverty is something quite different. According to them, poverty persists due to backwardness in productivity, technology and industrialisation; therefore, the nation should be enriched with technology, industrial development and agricultural progress. There is only half truth in this position either. Take, for example, the case of India. Since Independence, India has made tremendous progress in science and technology. Today, India ranks seventh among the world's nations as far as scientific and technological developments are concerned. Technology of increased productivity has indicated the possibility of liquidating poverty. And yet, in India more than half the population subsists in abject poverty and destitution. It has become clear that the reason for poverty is not backwardness in productivity, technology or industrialisation.

From this brief analysis it is evident that each of the views expressed here does not get to the core of the problem. The problem of poverty in Asia is essentially a historically created condition. It is created by the unjust structures of the society. It is the by-product of wealth, the fruit of exploitation and injustice.

Educating the people and equipping them for organised action are essential to restructure the society. If poverty is to be eradicated, people should not be considered merely as the objects of charity; but they should become the agents of change; People's participation in the transformation of society is crucial. This means making people aware of their situation and the organised efforts through which they become responsible participants in the new society. This new society would not, however, be a consumer's paradise. As Erich Fromm argues "alienation in abundance" is no less dehumanising than "alienation in misery". Also worth recalling is Spanish philosopher Unamuno's cry that he would rather be an anguished human being than being a contended pig!

I would dare to say that the worst problem affecting many of the Asian countries today is not hunger or poverty, but the fact that people are not aware of the burden they are forced to carry on their backs by heartless societies. It is extremely important in this context to conscientize them and make it possible for them to throw away that burden by themselves. Hence the debate on development should not merely be confined to poverty. The questions of development, liberation, social justice, and human rights are interrelated. Development, certainly, has to do with matters of poverty, population, aid, investment, agriculture, and human resources, to name a few. But above all, it is related to a new kind of historical consciousness, with a new set of values to guide the shaping of societies undergoing change, the choice affecting the use of resources, the attribution of social costs of change, and the mode of decision-making.

The purpose of development is to create conditions, both material and spiritual which enable the human being to attain wholeness, to become his or her best. As V.V. Giri, the former President of India, put it while inaugurating the All India Christian Consultation on Development in 1970, "development is much more than simply economic progress. It is the full flowering of the human personality which will enable man (sic!) to realise his true potential as a human being." In other words, development is the liberation from the influence of economic, political, religious and cultural values which helps only to maintain the status quo. It sometimes means rebellion. At a given and decisive point in history people decide to act against those conditions which restrict their freedom as human beings. Unless we participate actively in the rebellion against those social structures and economic systems that condemn people to poverty, humiliation and degradation, we become irrelevant institutions; and we become identified with injustice and persecution.

The Dual Challenge of Rebuilding and Christian Mission

The mission of the Church should be the continuation of Jesus' mission.

Jesus pointed out succinctly what his mission was in the Nazareth Manifesto (Luke 4:18-19). It was a mission of rebellion against those forces which dehumanised the people of God. The basis of Church's participation in development work also should be the same. It is in the purpose of God that this world should be a place of divine and human gladness and glory for all people at all times. Everyone should be able to live an authentic human life. The development work of the church should be for the fulfillment of this purpose of God.

If the development task of the church is to be relevant it should be ready to evaluate its work critically. Disturbed by the apathy of the Church toward the pressing problem of the Jews, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian, criticised the church from his prison cell in these words: "Our Church which has been fighting in these years only for its self-preservation, as though that were an end in itself, is incapable of taking the word of reconciliation and redemption to mankind and the world." These pungent words, written over three decades ago, still hold true as far as the Asian churches are concerned. On another occasion he said: "Only he who cries out for the Jews dare permit himself to sing in Gregorian." Unless the Church today is ready to come out of its stagnation and risk saying and doing controversial things, it cannot proclaim the Gospel to the world meaningfully.

I would like to point out some of the hurdles that stand in the way of the church in taking a correct stance in our approach towards development of the total human personality. Some of them have been dealt with in the preceding sections of this paper, nevertheless, for the purpose of clarity I would like to reiterate them. In my opinion, these hurdles are:

a. Instead of arraying ourselves under God who is the centre of our hope and the creator of the future, and participating in His work of transforming this world into a better world, we are more interested in looking back to the old Constantinian era when the Church used to enjoy special privileges, thus leading a nostalgic life.

b. Today the tendency in the church is to make its physical growth more visible. The numerical strength, the number of institutions it runs, the wealth it possesses, the pomp and grandeur of its celebrations etc., are considered as the hallmarks of a growing church.

c. Under the disguise of minority rights, today many churches are fighting for their own rights instead of struggling for human rights. The result is very pathetic. We create religious communities instead of human societies.

d. We fail in deciding priorities when we plan the program of the church. In many churches there is not even any planning. Instead of fighting the forces of darkness which promote an oppressive society, we take seriously issues which are not urgent or important.

As I said earlier the development task of the church is to fulfill God's purposes for human beings. This cannot be done merely by building a few houses for the homeless or by opening some technical training centres, or new universities. The fundamental goal of development in the Asian setting should be to emphasize human dignity, freedom and integrity. Society should not become

enslaved to material goods and technological power but should be built on "respect for human personality." Here we have to follow Jesus' style of life. Jesus knew that because forces of evil are at work in the society, human beings are not able to enjoy the "image of God" which God granted them.

What is the image of God and what are the forces of evil? God created human beings in his own image. Among other things, this means that God gives each person a unique and equal dignity and worth. Beneath all the inequalities of skill, intelligence, and physique there is a basic equality of worth which outweighs all other things. This gift of fundamental equality does not level down natural and cultural differences, but affirms the equal worth and value of each person in his or her uniqueness. If this gift of fundamental equality-in-uniqueness has real meaning, it must have social, economic, and political consequences. The God who so loves each and every one of his image-bearers can hardly be indifferent to the way they divide his good gifts of food, water, minerals, land, housing, knowledge, leisure and energy, to name but a few. If equality of worth is taken seriously, it will be reflected in the division of wealth and in the structure of society.

The forces of evil are not just the natural calamities or ghosts or supernatural powers but the organized injustice and exploitation found in the oppressive and unjust structures. The forces of evil have great strength. That is why St. Paul calls them "principalities and powers."

Jesus' mission was to defeat these forces which stood against the purpose of God, and to restore human beings with their lost humanness. Jesus' clarion call to the people was to rise up from all sorts of servitude and to participate with God in the task of transforming this world. The nature of the development task of the church also should be to fight the forces of evil found in the society and to take sides with people in this fight.

The hopes and aspirations of the people, especially of the oppressed and downtrodden are given expression to in their struggle for the basic rights to bread, equality and freedom. The poor are not asking for charity, but they are challenging us to join them in the struggle.

The church must respond to the aspirations of the people because these embody the will of God making itself manifest through the people. To understand the will of God and carry it out, the church must be in tune with the people. If the church fails to listen to people's yearning for social justice, it fails in its essential mission of teaching the gospel, for it is not following in the direction that God is leading. Since it is the people who determine historical change, the church should not try to lead. It should support both financially and morally the organization of peasants, workers, and other sectors directed toward changing the social structure. It should not sponsor movements for the poor, but should assist organizations of the poor, so that the poor and the oppressed, through their own efforts and decisions, become free and independent.

But our wrong understanding of spirituality withdraws us from the on-going struggles. Ordinarily our spirituality has nothing to do with the realities of life.

For us it is a very individualistic and pietistic matter. This is contrary to the teaching of the Bible. We are asked to go into the room and shut the door and pray to the father in secrecy not to withdraw from the struggles of life, but in order to gain strength to face them. It is by standing in the midst of the problems that we become the light of the world. True spirituality is exercised by participating, with God, in the process of transforming the world, to build a new human society, and thus making history fulfillment of justice and love. This kind of understanding of spirituality is necessary for a development concern. A spirituality which shows detachment from the concern for the problems of the world is a dangerous one, because it gives sanction to oppressive and unjust structures.

The Bible speaks with unmistakable clarity about our partisanship with the oppressed and downtrodden. When there is grave injustice, the God of the Covenant is not neutral, but takes the side of the poor and the oppressed, in the words of Charles West, God's justice means "not the balance of civil claims or the enforcement of contracts but outrageous partisanship for the poor and helpless, a concern to lift them up, to empower them as equal members of the community, to give them their humanity in the covenant." When Isaiah puts the nations' leaders on trial before God, Yahweh appears not as the impartial judge, but as the prosecuting counsel: "The Lord comes forward to argue his case and stands to judge his people. The Lord opens the indictment against the leaders of his people and their officers; you have ravaged the vineyards and the spoils of the poor in your houses" (Isaiah 3:13-15).

Our new understanding of the gospel also compels us to take sides with the poor. Ordinarily we interpret the gospel as the message of reconciliation. But the danger of interpreting the gospel only as a message of reconciliation is that it is readily invoked to avoid the realities of conflict in human life and the costliness of the struggle for justice, freedom and human dignity. Popularly interpreted, the ministry of reconciliation may suggest the role of uninvolved mediator, the third disinterested party, whose job is to bring together the alienated opponents and help them arrive at a workable compromise. There is, no doubt, a place for such a mediatory role in every society. But such an understanding of the church's ministry of reconciliation would cheapen the New Testament proclamation. The gospel Jesus proclaimed and embodied recognized the hard way of the cross, of death and resurrection, as the only road to genuine reconciliation.

Hence the gospel of freedom cannot be neutral or indifferent to the historical struggles of people. It creates partisanship towards the poor, the afflicted, and the humiliated. The Church of South India Synod Seminar (1974) in its final statement has brought out this point clearly: "To continue merely helping the victims of the present systems, however necessary this help might be, without consciously working, at the same time, for the transformation of the whole system is criminal irresponsibility in the face of the radical demands of the fullness of the love of Christ. To be on the side of the oppressed, to be involved in their struggle for justice, to look at life and orient it from the point of view of the poor in the light of the gospel ethic, is the primary calling of the Church

in the present context. For, the Church is called to be a sign of the Kingdom of God where the chief values are justice, peace, love and brotherhood." When the church loses the courage to stand by the poor and the powerless, it automatically becomes the religion of the rich and the mighty. God has chosen to accomplish his work of liberation and reconciliation by befriending the outcasts, by embarrassing the ungodly, and by ministering to the sick and hungry. The church cannot remain a silent spectator while confronting such a situation. It must take a strong stand, however risky it mighty be. To refuse to do so is not to remain neutral but to stand by default on the side of the mighty.

To sum up: If the proclamation of the gospel is to be meaningful in our time it must be closely related to the present struggles for justice, because that is the arena where the people find themselves today. In other words, the gospel should be proclaimed to men and women not in isolation, but in their social solidarity. For the church to proclaim the gospel in a world where the forces of evil are in operation will always mean suffering. Of course, the church can always avoid this suffering by a stoic unconcern for society, and by being preoccupied with its own little religious group. But that is to deny its own call and nature.

Our religious convictions compel us to take our stand on the side of the poor, the powerless, and the oppressed. This is how we understand our obedience to God in this hour. This means, in effect, a commitment not merely to bring immediate relief to the suffering, but also to work toward the creation of global structures which will ensure basic dignity and human existence for all people. This also means taking a stand against the present structures of society which prevent the Kingdom of God breaking in.

So, the question before us, from a theological point of view, is not whether the church can start new development projects so that the economic condition of the poor will be improved, but whether the church is ready to pay attention to the hopes and aspirations of the oppressed and downtrodden, and to stand beside them in their struggle for the fulfillment of their hopes and aspirations, For various reasons this is a difficult task for the church, since the church is more used to playing the role of the benevolent master than that of the suffering servant. Only if we experience the condemnation of the existing order by the standards of the gospel, and go through a proper metanoia (repentance) by participating in the sufferings of God in the secular life, will we be able to change the existing order.

Notes

1. The majority of modern scholars take it for granted that Nehemiah the lay leader preceded Ezra the priest and the scribe, and that his first mission commenced in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I, i.e. 445 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1). He returned to Susa in the thirty-second year of the king, i.e., 433 B.C., after an activity lasting twelve years (Nehemiah 13:6). There took place, too, a second mission of Nehemiah 13:6f).

2. Towards a Theology of Contemporary Ecumenism, C.L.S., Madras., 1978