James Dunn explores the original meaning of Jesus’ call to discipleship in the early Church and then discusses its implications for Christians today? He states that call to discipleship in the early church was a call to faith in the risen Christ. The author focuses on the preaching of Jesus Christ, and his teachings about the Kingdom of God. This very preaching of him about the Kingdom of God drew the attention of the people towards him. Through his teaching he made evident that the Kingdom of God was active throughout his ministry. Jesus did not come with just a message of future hope rather; it was a message lived out before his eyes. His message about the Kingdom of God heeded attention because he made God’s rule central to his teachings, he lived and acted in such a way that Gods final triumph was evident in his own ministry.
The author states that the call to discipleship begins with the recognition of God’s rule. The author emphasizes that one should not forget that this message was brought by Jesus and it was he who issued the call to discipleship. This call has other implications also, it presses on the fact that this was a call to recognize that God’s rule is a reality pressing upon those who hear the message, beckon urgently to a decision without any delay. This recognition is the beginning of faith and inevitably requires repentance.
After this the focus shifts to whom this call of discipleship was directed and what does it tell about the character of the discipleship which we are called for? In analyzing Luke 6:20 the important features that crop up is that the discipleship of Jesus begins with the poor and the text of the first beatitude describes the first characteristic of discipleship. The word poor have two dimensions to it, it is not only “poor in spirit” but the same word also denotes material poverty. Jesus did not envisage a discipleship that disowns society and separation from real world. What was emphasized by Jesus was the social responsibility towards the poor and re-affirmed his own warnings against the perils of wealth. This implies that the non poor have a responsibility towards the poor. It will be the discharged and the marginalized that will be vindicated rather than the affluent.
In showing an acceptable attitude towards the poor Jesus saw his life and work in a diverse way. His mission was to invite the sinners and the marginalized to the banquet of God’s Kingdom. The contrast between righteous and the sinners is brought in such a way that it highlights the preference of Jesus for the poor. It is because of the reason that the righteous are confident about there status and acceptability but on the contrary the sinners are conscious of their social alienation. As a result the righteous are unlikely to respond as they are satisfied of their needs whereas the sinners are more cautious of their needs. In reaching to the marginalized and the sinners, Jesus breaks boundaries and crosses social and religious boundaries. Sin is not viewed as individual error but a failure to live according to rules defined by the so called righteous of the society. Jesus in his ministry questions these very boundaries, weather these boundaries are defined in terms of social intercourse or religious factor or gender. The discipleship to which Jesus called was discipleship for sinners, a discipleship which is ready to accept and ready to serve rather look to be served.
The focus of the author now shifts from the communal character of discipleship to draft down its main features. Jesus called a larger group to follow him which included the poor, tax collectors sinners and women. He also chooses a small group of twelve out of it and encouraged them to live according to the principles of his own massage. One features that stands out as the feature of discipleship is the centrality of Jesus. It was he only who proclaimed Kingdom of God in the present and operative through his own ministry. The twelve are closer to him and act as his missionaries. Anyone could come to Jesus and when someone even the disciples intervened they were rebuked therefore discipleship directly depends on Jesus rather than through others. The centrality of Jesus, and the immediacy and directness of the relationship of disciples with Jesus is an important feature of the community of disciples. The most striking feature of the community of discipleship was its openness. In this way Jesus widens the circle of discipleship and thus it became one of the most challenging features of Jesus whole ministry. The implication of this openness is that the disciples should be able to recognize and acknowledge the character of other disciples. Another main feature is mission, which is simply that of the testimony of a life, lived for God; a life that brings flavor to what is bland. Suffering was also a part of what mission entailed, Jesus describes it as a part of blessedness of being a disciple, and the way of discipleship is the way of cross. The one who has shared in Christ’s death will share in resurrection also.
In the last part the author comes to the part where he evaluates that how will all this be relevant to disciples of late twentieth century. At a time when Jesus is not around,
how his message and ministry be relevant for today? There is difference made by Good Friday and Easter Day not forgetting the Pentecost. The message of the disciples shifted in focus from Jesus’ proclamation of Kingdom of God to disciples’ proclamation of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and consequent offer of the gift of Spirit. History plays an important role in illuminating the Gospel. The Gospel should be used for the same purpose for which is used for the past nineteen centuries i.e. to provide instruction, illumination and an inspiration for the life of disciples in the present. The discipleship to which Jesus called was practical and which can be lived out. The discipleship was social and not merely spiritual, corporate and not merely for individuals and participation in the life of God’s new people. The discipleship to which Jesus called was both open and committed the discipleship of Jesus had an integrally charismatic character. Openness to others, mission as readiness to serve according to situation and remind that the people of God are pilgrim people.
Implication for Socio-Culture enviornment0f Punjab
The Christological thrust of the book is quiet radical as the author emphasizes on the need on the Gospel to concentrate on the social concerns. In a way I agree with the author in saying that the faith in which we believe is not static but dynamic. For making the faith more relevant what is required of the faith tradition is how it can address the problems that are faced by the common populace here and now. If the Gospel is able to do so then the faith becomes ever-growing, ever-empowering and ever-dynamic.
The Gospels stress of the life, work, death, resurrection and ministry of Jesus Christ and his proclamation for the Justice for all. As a result Jesus becomes a role model for all the faith community. The emphasis is on the Here and now of this world and how can we make it a better place for all. The need of contextual Christology arises mainly due to failure of existing Christology to meet the needs and the aspirations within the local culture.
The most pertaining issue in my place is that of religious pluralism. A state where the Christian population is less than two percent, a place where there are number of Christian institution and in whom more that ninety-five percent are non-Christians. The experience of the place is such that one cannot alienate oneself from the people belonging to other religious traditions. This diverse culture in which society is religiously plural what will be the implications of Christology for the Church and what will be the elements of such a Christology and how will it challenge our faith? These are some of the pressing concerns that need to be addressed.
Adding to that there are pertaining questions to be asked when we deal with religious pluralism. Can the church affirm its faith in Jesus as the universal savior and at the same time be open to other religions and regard them as, in some sense, instruments of salvation? What would such an acceptance mean for the Church's traditional faith in Jesus as the savior of the world? The answers to these questions have an inevitable impact on Christian self-understanding, and the understanding of the person and work of Christ. These questions demand an answer, especially from those who are engaged in witnessing to their Christian faith in multi-religious context.
In a pluralistic society it becomes imperative to have some knowledge about other religious tradition, as our partial knowledge may lead us into misconception or misunderstanding about their lifestyle or belief. Apart from this there are some social problems like AIDS, consumerism, globalization, domestic violence, ecological concerns and so on that pose a threat to all, not just Christians. Therefore rightly S. J Samartha points out that dialogue has three fold purposes[1] Firstly, to remove ignorance and misconceptions Secondly, to co-operate for common purpose in the society, particularly where human rights, social and economic justice, thirdly, to bring to bear deeper resources of religions on the basic problem of human existence.
Since religious Pluralism is inescapable we cannot ignore this fact in our mission. Dialogue is the fundamental part of Christian service within the community. In Dialogue Christian actively respond to the command to ‘love God and your neighbor as your self’, it testifies the love experienced in Christ. God in Jesus Christ himself has entered into relationship with person of all faiths, offering good news of salvation.[2] There is a promise of Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth; therefore dialogue becomes the means of quest for truth because Biblically truth cannot be realized in isolation.[3] Therefore dialogue becomes agent for fostering better relationships between Christians and the people of other faith; in the Love experienced in Jesus Christ.
Dialogue cannot be a matter of academic issue but it is a matter of relationship. In a pluralistic context we are not only called to be the witness of Jesus Christ and to his good news but we are also challenged to get into dialogue with the living faiths and ideologies and see how God is active in our world. James Dunn remarks that Christian Gospel has to do the first and the foremost with God, he does not negate the Christ of the New Testament but is critical about the fact that the worship should not stop at him, and it should pass to God through him.[4] To identify with the people of other faiths, supporting the, suffering and praying for them is the part of Christian mission.
The mission of the church in a pluralistic world is to participate in God’s continuing mission in the world, together with our neighbors of other faiths. Dialogue in this pluralistic world can be recognized as a welcome way of obedience to the commandment of the Decalogue “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” The personal commitment will make our involvement stronger and to enter into a dialogue will become mandatory of oneself. It requires taking of lot of risk, it is a hope towards creating a better human community. We have to risk our faith for our faith itself, because our faith in Jesus Christ is expressed all the way through living in community.
In a pluralistic context we are not only called to be the witness of Jesus Christ and to his good news but we are also challenged to get into dialogue with the living faiths and ideologies and see how God is active in our world. An inter-religious dialogue while affirms the lordship of Jesus Christ helps us to recognize the people of other faith, as our fellow pilgrims, who share the same existential problems as Christians. Therefore it can be said that dialogue is not an alternative to mission, but it is a plan to build and plant a new concept of witness and the new principle of the involvement of church into social realms, of which Christ is the guiding agent.
Pannikar points out that “the poor and the oppressed; two thirds of humanity are suggested to limitless oppression and never ending poverty. These oppressions are transreligious and transcultural.”[5] A dialogical approach will exercise critical scrutiny of the history of every faith recognizing both the positive contribution to the struggle of people for human dignity and negative roles of legitimizing unjust status quo. In every religion, it is possible to identify movements, which supported and revolted against injustice and repression. The Bhakti movement in Hinduism, religions like Buddhism and Sikhism were also the movements which came out against caste very strongly. There are also many negative examples such as the use of Christianity to legitimize feudalism, capitalism, racial discrimination, and sexism or the use of Hinduism to perpetuate the practice of caste discrimination and untouchability.
Therefore inter-religious engagements are not just a concept; it is a bond; it is people sharing the meaning and mysteries of human existence, struggling together in suffering, hope and joy.”[6] In a pluralistic context we are not only called to be the witness of Jesus Christ and to his good news but we are also challenged to get into dialogue with the living faiths and ideologies and see how God is active in our world. Thus we will affirm a Jesus that is open and missionary in nature. In dialogue we widen the circle of discipleship as we are able to understand our fellow human beings and respond to their needs. The missionary Jesus, who lived out his life transforming lives, restoring identity of the socially alienated, uplifting the poor and the needy and addressing social repressive structures, is affirmed.
The discipleship of Jesus teaches us to realize the needs and aspirations of others as a result the Church has greater task at his hand; it has to develop skills that explore implications for common humanity through biblical knowledge. The church has to move towards dialogical theology in which practice of dialogue together with human liberation will constitute both source and the basis of theological framework. The ministry of Church should be directed towards realization of a community that addresses existential problems, only then the discipleship and the missionary nature of Jesus will be put into practice and the Kingdom of God that Jesus was talking about will also be realized in here and now.
[1] S.J. Samartha ed. Faith In Midst of Faiths (Geneva: World Council Of Churches, 1977), 57-58.
[2] S. J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationship (Geneva: WCC, 1981), 11.
[3] Samartha, Courage for Dialogue …, 11.
[4] James D. J. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit (Michigan: Wm. B. Edermans Publishing, 1998), 386-387.
[5] Anthoniraj Thumma, Breaking Barriers: Liberation Of Dialogue and Dialogue of Liberation (Delhi: ISPCK, 2000), 117.
[6] D. John Winslow, Dialogue in a Religiously Pluralistic Context (Trivandrum: Bright Printers, 1999), 2.
- Bibliography
Ø Dunn, James D. J. The Christ and the Spirit. Michigan: Wm. B. Edermans Publishing, 1998.
Ø Samartha, S. J. Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationship. Geneva: WCC, 1981.
Ø Samartha, S.J. ed. Faith In Midst of Faiths. Geneva: World Council Of Churches, 1977.
Ø Thumma, Anthoniraj. Breaking Barriers: Liberation Of Dialogue and Dialogue of Liberation. Delhi: ISPCK, 2000.
Ø Winslow D. John. Dialogue in a Religiously Pluralistic Context. Trivandrum: Bright Printers, 1999.
No comments:
Post a Comment