Sermon by Ajay Varghese: God’s Lost and Found

Today’s scripture lesson comes from the Gospel of Luke. We will be looking at the story of The Lost Son. This is one of many stories that Jesus told on his way to Jerusalem. Jesus used these short stories to teach the people of the day important lessons about Christian life, and we can still learn from them today.

This story starts off in verse 11 giving us the cast of main characters. Let’s start with the man, or the father; the father here is meant to depict God, the Father of all of us. The younger of his two sons represents a sinner who has found or returned to the Father. The elder son is set as a representation of the scribes and Pharisees of the day. Now that the cast is set lets take a look at the story.

The younger of his son goes and asks his father for his portion of his inheritance. The custom of the day was that at death a person’s estate or property would be split between his sons. In this case with two sons the elder son would get two thirds of the estate and the younger son or second son would get one third. Now sometimes a father would distribute his estate early so that he could retire, but that was an uncommon happening. So, the younger son goes and says, “hay dad can I get my portion of your estate now?” The father does this for his sons; he gives them each their portion of his estate. Now these are some lucky kids right? I mean they are young, now they have property, they can earn a comfortable living for themselves, well the older son does just that, but the younger son has his own ideas…

Now the younger son wastes no time, he gathers his belongings, sells his property, and heads off to his dreamland… Not quite, but verse 13 says that he “gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.” The young son has left his father, and his father’s rules to go do his own thing.

Now lets stop for a few seconds and think about the action so far. This young son has come into some money, and he is blowing it. This sounds like a familiar story so far, our Father, God gives to us each and every day. Do we use what we are given to honour Him, to glorify Him, or do we say “Thanks God, this is great, and go off and do our own thing.” I will be the first to stand up and say that the Lord has blessed me with much, and not so much has been used to his glory so far. So why do we do this, why do we stray from God; separate ourselves from God, our Father? The answer is pretty simple: Adam, Eve, a garden and a snake, I’m sure that you all remember the story. Our human sin nature separates us from God. It is not all that different than the separation of the young son from his father. When we are with God He protects us from sin, and He provides for our every need, but when we are separated from God we are on our own, which is where the younger son is now.

We catch up with the younger son in verse 14 in the far country, living life to its fullest, parties, women, what more could he ask for? All is well until the bottom falls out of the market in this country, and a famine takes over the land. Now guess what; it just so happens the young son runs out of money about the same time. Too bad for him, his money is all gone, all of his new “friends” split, and now there is no food to eat. What is a young man to do?

The young son decides he needs to find a job. Verse 15 says that, “he joined himself to a citizen of that country.” Meaning he was probably hired as a servant, or labourer for this individual. The task or job that he was given was to go out into the fields and feed the pigs.

Now lets stop and have a reality check here. What is the one thing that devout Jewish people can’t eat or even touch? If you guessed pork, you would be right. Mosaic Law says that pigs are unclean animals, so because of this Jewish people will not eat or even touch a pig or pork. There is another problem for the young son. While he is feeding the pigs the only thing he has to eat was what was left that the pigs wouldn’t eat. Depending on which translation of the Bible that you have, he was either eating the husks from corn, or the pods from beans, either way it wasn’t good. Now, for a Jewish person in this time period to be stuck feeding pigs, well, it must have been a very humbling experience. It was then that he realized that even his father’s servants had it better than this!

Have you ever found yourself eating with the pigs? We all have at one time or another: What did you do? Where did you turn for help? Well like we just thought our young son comes to his senses too. Now he realizes that what he has done is wrong, it is a sin. It tells us in verse 18 and again in verse 21 that, “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee (the father).” The light pops on in this kids head, this situation is not right, and I need to do something about it. Now this is usually the result of hitting a very low point in our life. We realize we are just kidding ourselves, if we think we can muddle through life’s problems on our own. There is only one place that we can get the strength and the knowledge that we need to survive, and thrive, and that is from our own Heavenly Father.

So our young son decides the way to go is back to his father, and confess his sin, which is just what he does. The father in our story saw his lost son when he was still a “great way off” and he ran out to greet him. We need to stop here again… Am I wrong or does it sound like the father was waiting and watching for his young son to return? It is no different than our Father, God, he is always ready and willing to forgive a sinner and take him in. The young son tells the father that he has sinned against heaven and he is no longer worthy to be called his son.

The father doesn’t really hear a word that the kid says;............

*compassion - “filled with compassion” - to feel with empathy for what he had been through
Do we come to others and tell them what they have done wrong and what they need to change, or do we feel for the hurt and pain they have experienced, lovingly embracing them?

BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGY

Introduction

The interaction of technology and society may be the one thing more than any other that gives society a meaning and defines us human beings. In recent years it has become popular to point fingers of accusation at technology as if it were "autonomous" and driving us all to perdition. I take other view.

No doubt the uses of technology and society interact strongly. I think it is unwise and very naive to think of aggressive technology affecting a passive society to cart away the things that give society value and leaving behind a rusted shell. Admittedly there always is the potential for abuse or misuse of a technology, but technology is not inherently destructive, I argue.

This proposal is an attempt to make a connection between scripture and technology. Here I would like to highlight my views on technology from different perspectives of Bible.

Technology's Effect on Social Systems

Briefly, the extent to which a technology affects social systems has to do with basic patterns among social groups and the changing patterns of needs and need fulfilment resulting from technological change.[1] For e.g. industrial revolution made an impact on the society.

When the Industrial Revolution came about and particularly when the industrialization took place in the last century and first half of the present century, a number of social factors changed. Many of these changes impacted not only those directly involved in the process, but also those who chose not to be involved in the industrial boom.

Ethics in an Age of Technology

Dealing with ethical issues arising from technology and exploring the relationship of human and environmental values to science, philosophy, and religion shows why these values are relevant to technological policy decisions. "Modern technology has brought increased food production, improved health, higher living standards, and better communications,[2]" writes Barbour. "But its environmental and human costs have been increasingly evident." Most of the destructive impacts, Barbour points out, come not from dramatic accidents but from the normal operation of agricultural and industrial systems, which deplete resources and pollute air, water, and land. Other technologies have unprecedented power to affect people and other forms of life distant in time and space (through global warming and genetic engineering, for example). Large-scale technologies are also expensive and centralized, accelerating the concentration of economic and political power and widening the gaps between rich and poor nations. In examining the conflicting ethics and assumptions that lead to divergent views of technology, Barbour analyzes three social values: justice, participatory freedom, and economic development, and defends such environmental principles as resource sustainability, environmental protection, and respect for all forms of life. He presents case studies of agricultural technology, energy policy, and the use of computers.

Moral teachings and ethical questions about the creation and use of science and technology have been a part of religious and philosophical traditions from the earliest periods. Today, the challenges are more global in scope and are intensified by terrorists opposed to many dimensions of the scientific and technological world. New fields of ethical reflection--computer ethics, environmental ethics, communication ethics, and genetics--are emerging to deal with the world that science and technology have created.

Biblical Perspectives on Technology

1. Technology is the outcome of God’s mandate to human. There is nothing inherently evil in the nature of technology, as it is the natural outcome of the mandate which God gave to human in Genesis 1:27- 28. Human has developed science and technology in response to God’s commands to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over creation.[3] Science is human’s attempt to observe, understand, and explain the operation of the universe and its inhabitants. Technology is the practical application of the knowledge gained by science for humankind’s benefit, bringing portions of the universe under his control. We are stewards of all of God’s creation, and as such we are responsible to Him for both the preservation and the productive use of all the world’s resources to the benefit of human, and for the glory of God.

2. Technology is to be used for human benefit and for God’s glory. The first technological feat recorded in the Bible was the building of the Ark. This benefited not only the human race but also all the species of air and land creatures that God had made. It also brought glory to God manifesting His mercy and grace to sinful human.

The next technological feat recorded in the Bible however, was designed solely for human’s benefit, and not for God’s glory. The Tower of Babel was built by men for the purpose of making a name for themselves. It was an attempt at self-glory and perhaps even self-deification. Thus, it fully deserved the curse of God. But there is nothing wrong with a godly use of technology.

The lives of these pioneers demonstrate that modern technology is good and useful when it glorifies the Lord. Perhaps the most important invention that has facilitated the Lord’s work on earth is the invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg in 1450. One of the first books to be printed on his printing press was the Bible. The invention of printing has been one of the greatest blessings to the Lord’s work. Every one of us can now easily own a personal copy of God’s Holy Word and distribute copies of it to others. We can also have access to good Christian literature and articles through the printed page.

3. Technology must never replace God as the object of our trust. Psalm 20:7 brings this out very well: "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God." Chariots were one of the proud accomplishments of ancient technology, used both in transport and warfare. As no weapon was regarded in ancient wars to be more formidable than the chariot, many kings and generals put their fullest trust in chariots to guarantee their victory. Therefore we must be careful not to have a misplaced trust. Our trust should always be placed in God, who will never fail us. Technology has been known to fail countless times, because of human mistakes, and often with devastating effect. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 brought about a massive nuclear meltdown and hazardous exposure of thousands in Russia to radioactivity. The Bhopal disaster of 1984 resulted in over 15,000 deaths from methyl isocyanate poisoning.[4] Modern human mistakenly thinks that he/she does not need God anymore because he/she has now achieved a relatively high measure of security in life through technology. The fact is that technology is not worthy of our trust because it is imperfect, and it will always remain imperfect, as long as human is imperfect.

Personal Reflection

Thus, when we are faced with any problem in life, it is most important that we seek the Lord’s help first, above whatever available technological solutions, which are often very costly. It is true that the Lord may choose to use technology to deliver us, just as He used the Ark to deliver Noah, but without God, all the technology in the world cannot help us at all. And let us be careful not to become addicted to technology, filling our lives with all the latest gadgets and gizmos that open up new experiences and possibilities for us. While every additional technological equipment is supposed to enable us to do more things, and to have more time, very often we may find ourselves spending too much time trying to learn how to use all the fascinating and sophisticated capabilities of each equipment, in maintaining them in good working condition, and in looking out for the latest upgrades or enhancements for them!

What then should we do? We should always remember that modern technology is a good servant, but a terrible master. Let us therefore make good use of technology as a tool for God’s glory, and do not let it use us and distract us away from God.

Bibliography

Barbour, Ian G. Ethics in an Age of Technology. New York: Harpercollins, 1992.

Bonino, Jose Miguez. Toward a Christian Political Ethics. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1984.

Burtness, James H. Consequences: Morality, Ethics, and the Future. SCM Press, 2004.

Byrne, Kevin B., ed. Responsible Science: The Impact of Technology on Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Hopper, David H. Technology, Theology, and the Idea of Progress. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1992.

Stivers, Robert L. Hunger, Technology and Limits to Growth. London: SPCK, 1985.

---

[1] Hopper, David H. Technology, Theology, and the Idea of Progress.( Roger E. Timm, (1992)) 301-302.

[2] Barbour, Ian G. Ethics in an Age of Technology. (Harpercollins: 1992)

[3] Stivers, Robert L. Hunger, Technology and Limits to Growth. Mark E. Solyst, (1985) 451-452.

[4] Byrne, Kevin B., ed. Responsible Science: The Impact of Technology on Society. Timothy H. H. Thoresen, (1988) 97-98.

ETHICS (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)

Introduction

For Bonhoeffer, the foundation of ethical behaviour lay in how the reality of the world and the reality of God were reconciled in the reality of Christ. Both in his thinking and in his life, ethics were centred on the demand for action by responsible men and women in the face of evil. He was sharply critical of ethical theory and of academic concerns with ethical systems precisely because of their failure to confront evil directly. Evil, he asserted, was concrete and specific, and it could be combated only by the specific actions of responsible people in the world. The uncompromising position Bonhoeffer took in his seminal work Ethics, was directly reflected in his stance against Nazism. His early opposition turned into active conspiracy in 1940 to overthrow the regime. It was during this time, until his arrest in 1943, that he worked on Ethics.

Christ centered Ethics

Bonhoeffer's critique of ethics results in a picture of an Aristotelian ethic that is Christological in expression, i.e., it shares much in common with a character-oriented morality, and at the same time it rests firmly on his Christology. For Bonhoeffer, the foundation of ethical behaviour is how the reality of the world and how the reality of God are reconciled in the reality of Christ[1]. To share in Christ's reality is to become a responsible person, a person who performs actions in accordance with reality and the fulfilled will of God.[2] There are two guides for determining the will of God in any concrete situation: 1) the need of one's neighbour, and 2) the model of Jesus of Nazareth. There are no other guides, since Bonhoeffer denies that we can have knowledge of good and evil[3]. There is no moral certainty in this world. There is no justification in advance for our conduct. Ultimately all actions must be delivered up to God for judgment, and no one can escape reliance upon God's mercy and grace. "Before God self-justification is quite simply sin"[4]

Responsibility and ethics

Responsible action, in other words, is a highly risky venture. It makes no claims to objectivity or certainty. It is a free venture that cannot be justified in advance.[5] But, nevertheless, it is how we participate in the reality of Christ, i.e., it is how we act in accordance with the will of God. The demand for responsible action in history is a demand no Christian can ignore. We are, accordingly, faced with the following dilemma: when assaulted by evil, we must oppose it directly. We have no other option. The failure to act is simply to condone evil. But it is also clear that we have no justification for preferring one response to evil over another. We seemingly could do anything with equal justification. Nevertheless, for Bonhoeffer, the reality of a demand for action without any justification is just the moral reality we must face, if we want to be responsible people.

There are four facets to Bonhoeffer's critique of ethics that should be noted immediately. First, ethical decisions make up a much smaller part of the social world for Bonhoeffer than they do for Kant or Mill. Principally he is interested only in those decisions that deal directly with the presence of vicious behaviour, and often involve questions of life and death. Second, Bonhoeffer's own life serves as a case study for the viability of his views. Bonhoeffer is unique in this regard. His work on ethics began while he was actively involved in the German resistance to National Socialism and ended with his arrest in 1943. He fully expected that others would see his work in the conspiracy as intrinsically related to the plausibility of his ethical views. When it comes to ethics, Bonhoeffer noted, "(i)t is not only what is said that matters, but also the man who says it"[6] Third, like Aristotle, Bonhoeffer stays as close to the actual phenomenon of making moral choices as possible. What we experience, when faced with a moral choice, is a highly concrete and unique situation. It may share much with other situations, but it is, nevertheless, a distinct situation involving its own particulars and peculiarities, not excluding the fact that we are making the decisions, and not Socrates or Joan of Ark.

And finally, again like Aristotle, Bonhoeffer sees judgments of character and not action as fundamental to moral evaluation. Evil actions should be avoided, of course, but what needs to be avoided at all costs is the disposition to do evil as part of our character. "What is worse than doing evil," Bonhoeffer notes, "is being evil".[7] To lie is wrong, but what is worse than the lie is the liar, for the liar contaminates everything he says, because everything he says is meant to further a cause that is false. The liar as liar has endorsed a world of falsehood and deception, and to focus only on the truth or falsity of his particular statements is to miss the danger of being caught up in his twisted world. This is why, as Bonhoeffer says, that "(i)t is worse for a liar to tell the truth than for a lover of truth to lie"[8]A falling away from righteousness is far worse that a failure of righteousness. To focus exclusively on the lie and not on the liar is a failure to confront evil.

Nevertheless, the central concern of traditional ethics remains: What is right conduct? What justifies doing one thing over another? For Bonhoeffer, there is no justification of actions in advance without criteria for good and evil, and this is not available.[9] Neither future consequences nor past motives by themselves are sufficient to determine the moral value of actions. Consequences have the awkward consequence of continuing indefinitely into the future. If left unattended, this feature would make all moral judgments temporary or probationary, since none are immune to radical revision in the future.

Likewise, Bonhoeffer argues, the enthusiasm of the moral fanatic or dogmatist is also ineffective for a similar reason. The fanatic believes that he or she can oppose the power of evil by a purity of will and a devotion to principles that forbid certain actions. Again, the concern is exclusively on action, and judgments of character are seen as secondary and derivative. But the richness and variety of actual, concrete situations generates questions upon questions for the application of any principle. Sooner or later, Bonhoeffer notes, the fanatic becomes entangled in non-essentials and petty details, and becomes prone to simple manipulation in the hands of evil.[10]

Ethics as a Philosophy

Bonhoeffer replaces philosophical ethics and its pursuit of criteria to justify action in advance with an ethics grounded in the emergence of Christ as reconciler. The cornerstone of Bonhoeffer's ethical world is social/moral realism. In any given context there is always a right thing to do. This reality is a direct result of his Christology. The reality of the sensible world, with all its variety, multiplicity, and concreteness, has been reconciled with the spiritual reality of God. These two radically divorced worlds have now been made compatible and consistent in the reality of Christ.[11] Through Jesus the reality of God has entered the world.[12] If an action is to have meaning, it must correspond to what is real. Since there is only the reality of Christ, Christ is the foundation of ethics. Any Christian who attempts to avoid falsehoods and meaninglessness in his or her life must act in accordance with this reality.

Conclusion

The strength of Bonhoeffer's Ethics lies not in its systematic resolution of problems facing the church, but rather the acknowledgment that life is complex and that all systems outside of humble submission to the Word of God are doomed to failure. As unsettling as Bonhoeffer's Ethics may be, it is a refreshing call to the contemporary church to repent and return to a life characterized by prayer, the traditional mark of the early church.

Bibliography

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1995.

William Kuhns, In Pursuit of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, Image Books, 1969.

---

[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1995). p.198

[2] Ibid., p.224

[3] Ibid., p.231

[4] Ibid., p.167

[5] Ibid., p.249

[6] Ibid., p.267

[7] Ibid., p.67

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., p.231

[10] Ibid., p.68

[11] Ibid., p.195

[12] Ibid., p.192

BIBLE AND ETHICS IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

Introduction

Bruce Birch of Wesley Theological Seminary has written extensively on the relationship of the Bible and ethics. The best known of his previous books is one coauthored with ethicist Larry Rasmussen entitled Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life. Birch and Rasmussen set out to make their new edition a more inviting text for basic courses in Christian ethics in colleges, universities, seminaries, and church. They substantially enlarge their earlier treatment of "the basic working concepts of Christian ethics." "Charting the Moral Life," introduces the vocabulary of morality. They also furnish new chapters on decision-making and on character and social structure that would be excellent material for any ethics course. The scholar-by-scholar review of ways of relating the Bible and Christian ethics has been scrapped, but the insights of those writers as well as more recent contributions to the discussion are woven beautifully into the tapestry of their treatment. In fact, the weaving was too good at times; the reader should not have to turn to the endnotes to find out who is speaking in quoted material.

The rationale for this collaboration between a scholar of Old Testament and a Christian ethicist may be easily summarized on the basis of the authors' own conclusions:

1. "Christian ethics is not synonymous with biblical ethics";[1]

2. "The Bible is nonetheless formative and normative for Christian ethics."[2] And the difficulties of the task implied by these propositions may be readily perceived from the authors' own examination of the various issues attending (and in a sense prior to) the use of the Bible in Christian ethical reflection.[3]

The Role Of The Scriptures

The first issue has to do with the role of the Scriptures in the task of Christian ethics. If, as Birch and Rasmussen contend, there is an emerging consensus between biblical scholars and Christian ethicists that the Bible is somehow normative,[4] what is the nature of that authority? In a 1965 article Edward Leroy Long established a typology of what he sees as the basic response to that question.[5]

analysis

With clarity and precision Birch and Rasmussen examine the central concepts which chart the moral life. They invite the reader to approach moral problems in the manner of the early Christian communities--to consider the moral life within the life of the community of faith. Indeed, their examination of the concept of moral agency and its communal context is reason enough to commend this book as an introductory text. It is lucidly written, with obvious sensitivity to students who are new to these issues.

1. The authors express their appreciation for recent trends in theology and biblical studies,[6] most importantly the hermeneutical theories associated with feminist and liberation theologies. Yet they fail to examine the many criticisms which may be made of these positions (e.g., a "hermeneutics of suspicion") and, in particular, fail to consider their implications for theology as a science.

2. The authors observe that our decisions are necessarily informed by a variety of extra-biblical and nonreligious sources, most notably the natural, human and social sciences.[7] And they recommend that we remain open to these authorities. Yet they fail to examine the claims of these secular authorities and so neglect the serious difficulties which attend them. How can such sources determine our moral obligation, for instance, to the human fetus or to the urban poor?

These difficulties are remarkable in view of the authors' professed confidence in the power of the Bible to form the Christian community and inform its actions.[8] The implication is that Birch and Rasmussen are bound by certain assumptions of modern scholarship which prevent them from mending the divide between biblical studies and theology. Indeed, they advance their own proposals on the use of the Bible only by ignoring their warrant in theology. They object, for instance, to some theories of inspiration on the ground that they restrict the freedom of God; their concern is that such theories may blind us to the activity of God in the present. But how is divine agency intelligible? How does the God of the Bible speak to us today? Of course, there are no easy answers to these questions. The difficulties will only pass when the wall that divides theology from biblical studies is surmounted.

Reflection

Birch and Rasmussen remain true to their earlier commitment to aid the community of faith "in traversing the distance between the primal documents of the faith-its Scriptures-and expressions of the faith in daily life" without claiming that biblical ethics and Christian ethics are synonymous. Coupling their twin major themes of community and moral agency, they explore the formation of moral selfhood in community in a probing and powerful way using specific historical examples and also making specific suggestions about how the church should use the Bible as it practices the morality of faith in its corporate life and its wider social involvements. In their discussion of "the moral world," they treat the ethics of virtue, of value (social consequences), of obligation, and of vision. Each ethic makes a needed contribution; each has biblical expressions; and moral vision is critical for the other three. I only regretted that, after treating justice as both a virtue and a social value, they did not explicitly discuss it as principle. The authors are not loathe to point directions regarding specific moral problems, but their project does not attempt to address the impressive list of various issues which has to be in the course of spelling out implications of the presumptions.

Birch and Rasmussen immerse us in the life of the Christian community, with a nod toward the supplementary value of a juridical ethic espousing rationality unbiased by provincial shortsightedness.

Conclusion

What should Bible-oriented Christians and Christian scholars do when they run into moral issues that the Bible does not and cannot address with clear moral injunctions?

This is a question that has occupied the attention of a number of biblical scholars and Christian ethicists in recent decades. An entire sub-literature in these two overlapping fields has developed in order to explore the broad question of how the Bible should be interpreted by Christians in shaping the moral life, and the more narrow issue of how to employ the Scriptures in relation to moral challenges not addressed in Scripture.

Birch and Rasmussen help define ethics terminology and how the pieces fit together. Even more helpful are their insights about how to use the whole Bible appropriately when engaging in ethical reflection. Birch and Rasmussen focuses their attention to both personal character and the decision-making process in view of prevalent tendencies to neglect one or the other. The Birch-Rasmussen treatment of "moral vision" as fundamental to both our being and our doing as moral agents plays a similar role in their new analysis. They also delve more deeply into the dynamics of the community matrix of Christian ethics.

---

[1] Bruce C. Birch and Larry L Rasmussen, The Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), pp. 45-46.

[2] Bruce C. Birch and Larry L Rasmussen, The Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), pp. 45-46

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Edward Leroy Long, Jr., “The Use of the Bible in Christian Ethics,” Interpretation, 19/2 (1965), 149-62.

[6] Bruce C. Birch and Larry L Rasmussen, The Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), pp. 35

[7] Bruce C. Birch and Larry L Rasmussen, The Bible and Ethics in the Christian Life (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), pp 44-51

[8] Ibid., 104

A Review of Worship in Pentecostal Churches with Suggestions for Improvement

“Lives are changed through mere words - may be that is the only way we ever change” – William Willimon[1]

I. Introduction

Stephen Neill calls the emergence of the Pentecostal Church and their mission as the “most startling phenomenon of the Church History of the twentieth century”.[2] According to Robert Maps Anderson, the many millions of Pentecostals around the world together would form the fastest growing branch of Christianity today.[3]

There are broadly three kinds of Pentecostals in the world today. There are Classical Pentecostals who have their separate identity and are not affiliated to any mainline churches. Secondly there are Neo-Pentecostals who constitute the traditional mainline churches and thirdly there are Catholic Charismatics who are members of the Catholic Church who are having the Pentecostal experience.[4] Four words may be used to describe the Pentecostal movement. It was a Restoration Movement, Renewal movement, Protest Movement and a Liberative Movement.[5]

In this paper the methodology used is to analyze the common features, Positive elements, concerns and issues not addressed in Pentecostal worship is followed by few suggestions for change and concluding with a critical evaluation.

II. Characteristic Features in Pentecostal Worship

The common features of Pentecostal worship in my analysis are the following:

1) They are Bible based and to a large extend are Bible saturated messages;

2) There is a lot of emphasis on the theology of Heaven and Eternal Life;

3) There is also a portrayal of Christian life over against other life;

4) Defence of faith is other major Characteristic in the preaching;

5) Faith as a way of life is reinforced;

6) In Christian life, we are bound to suffer (Theology of Suffering);

7) Holy Spirit is given great significance;

8) Water Baptism and Holy Spirit Baptism also gets importance;

9) Scripture as offering all the solutions to the ills of the world, society, family and individuals is emphasized.

10) Bible Prophecy especially on the last days has given prominence.

III. Positive Elements in Pentecostal Worship

The major positive elements in Pentecostal worship and preaching are:

- the use of Bible;

- the use of imagination;

- the use of arguments;

- the use of illustrations;

- emphasis on holiness and

- the element of hope.

IV. Five Major Concerns

The Pentecostal Preaching in my view has to come to terms with the following five realities if it has to be relevant and challenging in the society:

1) The reality of Poverty;

2) The reality of Pluralism;

3) The reality of Ecumenism;

4) The reality of Social Justice and Human Rights and

5) The reality of Inter-Religious Dialogue.

If the Church has to be the ‘salt and light’ it has to address these issues seriously.

V. Issues Not Addressed in Pentecostal Preaching

There are seven major Issues which are not generally addressed in Pentecostal Preaching and which cry for remedy. They are:

1) Dalit Issues;

2) Role of Women;

3) Issue of Material Sharing;

4) Practice of giving and taking of Dowry;

5) Christian Unity/ Ecumenism;

6) Response to Religious Fundamentalism;

7) Citizenship and Christian Role in Nation Building.

VI. Suggestions for Change

I want to conclude this paper by giving 10 suggestions to the Pentecostal Churches with regard to its preaching ministry. They are:

1) Need for Pentecostal pastors not to be too other-worldly but to address the text in correlation with the context.

2) There is a lack of interest in Biblical exegesis in preaching which needs to be remedied;[6]

3) Preparation and Presentation both need to be given more time and energy;[7]

4) Be sensitive to the local cultural, social and religious realities;

5) Open for dialogue with other traditions both within the church and outside the church;

6) Avoid theological bias and a need for level of teachability;

7) Need to address issues like Human Rights and Social Justice apart from favourite themes like Sin, Salvation and Eternal Life;

8) Prophetic task of the church needs reinforcement;

9) Need for theological training for pastors and preachers to be made compulsory and

10) Urgent need to involve in the modern media and avail this opportunity.

VII. Critical Evaluation and Conclusion

Our Lord Jesus’ ministry has been described in the gospels by the evangelists as three-fold: Preaching, Teaching and Healing. Hence the need for the church to be more conscious of its preaching ministry. The preaching of Martin Luther aroused the medieval church from its slumber for thousands of years. It is also my firm belief that ‘the credibility of the preacher matters the most when it comes to preaching’.[8]

I want to conclude this paper with two critical comments. Firstly, along with making proper theological training mandatory for Pentecostal Preachers, the church should also find means and ways to train the inadequate and untrained existing preachers and pastors through short-term-in service training. Secondly, the Pentecostal church had an egalitarian vision in the beginning and its biggest challenge in my view is to rediscover that vision and the best way to reinforce it is through preaching. Pentecostal Churches need to realize that we are called not to create just a society but a just society.

“Our problems are large but our heart are larger, Our challenges are great but our will greater, Our failures are endless but God’s love is boundless” - JIMMY CARTER

Bibliography

· Anderson, Robert Maps. “Pentecostals and Charismatic Christianity” in The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. II. Mirecea Eliade Ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987.

· Carnegie, Dale. How to Develop Self Confidence and Influence People by Public Speaking, New York: Pocket Books, 1956.

· Carnegie, Dale. The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking, New York: Pocket Books, 1977.

· Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. Harmonds Worth: Penguin Books, 1964.

· Robinson, Gnana. “Communicating Christ in India Today” in Siding With the Poor, Madras: CLS, 1989.

· Stephen, M. Towards a Pentecostal Theology and Ethics. Kottayam: Christava Bodhi, 1999.

---

[1] Willimon, William. “The Power of Mere Words”, A Voice in the Wilderness: Clear Preaching in a Complicateed World, ed. by Steve Brown, Haddon Robinson and William Willimon, Multnomah Press, Sisters, OR, p.23.

[2] Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (Harmonds Worth: Penguin Books, 1964), p.459.

[3] Robert Maps Anderson, “Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity” in The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. II, Mirecea Eliade ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), p.229. M Stephen claims that, “The Pentecostals constitute around 300 million people all around the world and there are around 15 to 20 lakh Pentecostals in India today”. See M. Stephen, Towards a Pentecostal Theology and Ethics (Kottayam: Christave Bodhi, 1999), p. 1.

[4] M. Stephen, Towards a Pentecostal Theology and Ethics (Kottayam: Christave Bodhi, 1999), p. 1.

[5] It is a Restorative movement because it restores the apostolic elements such as holiness, baptism in the Holy Spirit and Charismatic Gifts such as prophecy and healing. It is a Renewal movement as it upholds repentance, brotherhood and sisterhood, love, unity and faithfulness. It is a Protest movement as it reclaim the Biblical principles which accept the inerrancy of the Bible, salvation through Christ and challenges the institution of Pope, worship of Mary and papal infallibility. It is a Liberative Movement since it promotes an open community in which people from any caste, class or religion could join the movement. It is interesting to note that a large number of oppressed groups became the members of the Pentecostal communities in different parts of the world and this is true of Latin America and India.

[6] I personally believe that it is a sin to bore people with the word of God.

[7] Here I am reminded of an anecdote where a senior pastor told his junior who did badly with his sermon that “ Either there should be fire in your sermon or you should throw your sermon into fire”.

[8] Gnana Robinson, “Communicating Christ in India Today” in Siding With the Poor, Madras: CLS, 1989, pp. 56-57.