In the Speech of the Subalterns, Echoes the Voice of the Divine

Listening to Luke 16: 19 -31
Lazarus Speaks

This parable consists of three characters, rich man, Lazarus and Abraham and not to deny a narrator of this story. Most of the talking in this parable is done by the rich man and Abraham, with some interventions of the narrator. It is interesting and surprising to note that in the whole of the parable not a single word of Lazarus is recorded, for Lazarus’ voice has been conspicuously silenced. It was the rich man who silenced Lazarus’ voice before death, and later it was Abraham who shadowed Lazarus and silenced his voice. Lazarus has been forced into speechlessness by the conditions around him in this entire narration. His poverty, his hunger, his homelessness, his powerlessness, his not being ‘famous’ in the society, his wounded self and psyche all paved to his (non)being as non-person, non-identity and non-public pushing him into the mode of speechlessness.

In such a context, the text challenges to employ a ‘decolonized hermeneutics’ to recover the voice and speech of Lazarus, thereby uphold the worth and value of his life, both before and after death. Can the subaltern speak? Yes, the subaltern can speak, for those that have ears will listen to their narratives.

“When we were dying out of hunger and poverty, here is a rich man who was insensitive to the needs of the people around him and lived a complacent selfish life in pomp and pleasure” remembered Lazarus who was at his deathbed due to a terminal ailment, for he lived as a homeless person at the gates of this rich man’s villa fed on the crumbs of this man along with dogs, for the dogs even licked his wounds.

Few days later Lazarus died, and since he was an outcast, no one came forward to bury his polluted corpse, leaving it to decompose without a burial. But fortunately, the angels carried Lazarus to be with God, where Abraham also found a refuge. Afterwards the rich man also died, for tens and thousands of rich people came to his ceremonial funeral service paying tributes to him, praising him for what he was not.

Eventually rich man was taken to Hades, where he was tormented, a price for his being rich and for creating poor around him. He looked up, saw Abraham at God’s place and was startled to see Lazarus by his side. “Can a dog licking wounded, homeless, poor ‘slum dog’ be at the side of Abraham, the father of the faithful?” exclaimed the once upon a time rich man. (For in the kingdom of God, rich man’s position is reversed.)

If Lazarus spoke in this text, all the evil things the rich man did towards the poor and homeless people would have been revealed, all the evil things that the rich man did to become even more richer by making the poor poorer would have been exposed. If Lazarus spoke, he would have narrated how he was pushed by the rich empire into poverty, homelessness and hunger. If Lazarus spoke, he would have testified what an impossibility it would have been for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. If Lazarus spoke, he would have disclosed that the real meaning of life is in sharing and caring for one another, for life cannot be quantified into monetary terms and conditions.

If Lazarus spoke, he would have said emphasized on the spirituality of dispossession, where each individual is called to give up greed and bridge the gap between rich and poor by identifying with the poor. If Lazarus spoke, he would have said, look for the divine among the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God. If Lazarus spoke, he would have called to practice what has been preached by Moses and the prophets. If Lazarus spoke, he would have emphasized that being grounded in one’s faith traditions like Moses or Prophet(s) makes the them to be inclusive, faithful and tolerant in looking for truths in other faith traditions. If Lazarus spoke, he would have called for repentance of the rich from poor, seeking reparations from rich to poor. so that the world would become a better place to live.  If Lazarus spoke, he would have affirmed in the continuation of God’s revelation in the activity of the life and death of Jesus Christ, who was sent back to life by God in resurrection. If Lazarus spoke, he would have said that he died while he was still living, and is still living while he was dead.  When Lazarus speaks, the divine is located in his voice, for in the speech of the subalterns, echoes the voice of the divine. Those that have ears, let them listen.

Rajbharat Patta,

24^th September 2016

(Sermon to be preached at St. Ninians URC Church, Manchester) 

If the Occupied Speak? Devotion to God is Dismantling Mammon

Postcolonial Reading of Luke 16:1-13

                               Reflection for World Week of Prayer for Peace in Palestine Israel 2016 

September 18 to 24, annually is observed as World Week of Prayer for Peace in Palestine Israel (WWPPPI) inviting churches and civil society to join together for a week of advocacy and action in support of an end to illegal occupation of Palestine and for a just peace in Palestine Israel. The theme for this year 2016 is ‘Dismantling the Barriers’, which is an echo to the previous year’s theme ‘wall will fall.’ On the other hand, our immediate context here at our Chaplaincy is a setting of welcome week for the freshers who will join Universities, coming to learn in newer settings. Dismantling the barriers and welcoming the others are part and parcel of Christian witness and commitment.

There are several barriers that hinder the welcome, and there are many forms of mammon that have become barriers and obstruct welcome. Idolatry of power, prejudice, positions, wealth, walls, occupation etc. are the manifestations of mammon and it is high time that we stand to break down, dismantle and despise mammon, which in itself is an expression of ones’ devotion to God. 

The gospel lesson chosen for this Sunday from Luke 16: 1-13 has been one of the problematic texts in the Scriptures for there have been varied interpretations, and sometimes not knowing how to interpret the rich man commending the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. It was interesting to see how the two ‘debtors’ in this text would have reacted and reflected the whole story. In that line, here is an attempt of reading that story from the perspective of the two colonized ‘debtors’ who have been either neglected or overlooked in this colonial paradigm. This is my own re-imagination of the parable, reading it from the standpoints of subalternity and postcoloniality.   A postcolonial subaltern hermeneutics of this text gives us a fresh understanding that ‘loving God means hating mammon.’

Then the disciples of Jesus heard this, “There were two families named Ashraf and Maria (in the literary texts of the scripture their names are both forgotten and never mentioned), who have been forced to become poor because of Roman colonization. Their struggles knew no bounds for they toiled day in and day out to feed their family and have been unable to find a square meal a day. The oppression of the colonizers grew intense as they levied heavy taxes on the poor by looting their money, resources and energy unjustly, cutting down their rations, implementing austerity measures and by stealing their own food and importing it to the centres of the empire, leaving this land with hunger and famine. Ashraf and Maria left no stone unturned in finding some food for their families but returned unsuccessful with empty stomachs and empty pockets.

There was a cruel manager in their quarter working for the empire, exploiting the people by extorting huge amounts. Ashraf and Maria went to this cruel manager to get some food on a debt to feed their family. Ashraf took on a debt 50 jugs of olive oil from this cruel manager. When signing the receipts of debt, the cruel manager got him signed that he had taken 100 jugs of olive oil, and stole the rest of the 50 jugs of oil to be sold elsewhere. Maria took 80 containers of wheat on a debt from him, and he like before got her signed for 100 containers of wheat, and pocketed the rest to make extra money. Both Ashraf and Mari in their vulnerability of being colonized and powerless and out of their need to feed the family had to sign on these wrong receipts. When they started repaying their debts by returning one container of wheat and one jug of oil per month, the cruel manager took them for himself as compounded interest and never updated the books. Ashraf and Maria remained helpless and returned grumbling against the unjust activities of the cruel manager.

When the books weren’t updated for a long time, and when the empire got to hear about the dishonesty and disloyalty of this manager, the empire called on for an emergency audit and summoned this cruel manager to bring the books for audit. This cruel manager was in a fix and knew that he will lose his job very soon.

On hearing this news all the people in the colonized quarter where Ashraf and Maria lived gathered together, for they all shared their experiences of how this cruel manager exploited each of them. They all agreed to the fact that ‘you reap what you sow’, that happens here on this world and this cruel manager is reaping to lose his job for the way he tortured and victimized several poor people. The people in the quarter knew that a change of a manager may not bring in any change, unless the empire which is the greater evil in oppressing people has to be defeated and crushed down.

The cruel manager then said to himself, “the corporate empire has now come to know of me squandering their moneys, so what will I do? I can’t change my trade for I am not competitive to work in other sectors nor can claim benefits as homeless for everyone know that I have extorted money from the poor and homeless.” On realizing that he will not only be fired by the empire, he will also be hated even more by the colonizers for his unjust acts, and in order to mend the situation and to be welcomed by the people in this quarter, he thought he will further summon the debtors and write off some of their bills so that he can at least be accepted by the community there.

The cruel manager then summons Ashraf and enquires how much does he owe the empire? Ashraf replied, “Actually I borrowed 50 jugs of olive oil, but it was you who asked me to sign on a bill of 100 jugs.” Manager immediately replied, “Take your bill, and write it off to 50 jugs of oil.” Manager thought this writing off the bill will win Judah to be his friend.

He then summoned Maria and enquires how much does she owe the empire? Maria replied, “If you remember, I actually borrowed 80 containers of wheat, but it was you who asked us to sign on a bill for 100 containers.” Manager immediately replied, “Take your bill, and write it off to 80 containers of wheat.” Manager was self-appreciating himself that he is winning the favour of these people, so that when he is fired from the empire, he can still be accepted by this community.

But Ashraf & Maria revolted back by saying unanimously,

“You son of a viper, you have exploited us all along, extorting our money, our energy, our land and our resources and have made our lives deplorable. When your true colour is exposed you want to do us favours by granting concessions on our bills. We are not going to keep quite at a moment like this. We want to raise our voice, we want you to repay us back four times for all the extortions you have done, we want you to be prosecuted criminally for all your cruel and unjust things you have done to us. We want justice and liberation. We want the cancellation of all our debts. We want the empire to leave our land and want this occupation to end. We want reparation for your acts towards us. Our devotion in God challenges us to despise the mammon of idolatry and injustice.”

The cruel manager was surprised to see the courage in these people and for the way they are standing for their rights. His plot of doing favours to these people boomeranged and he was further hated by all the members of this colony. The whole community saw to it that he was prosecuted and repented of his unjust activities.

When the empire came to know about this ‘doing favours’ to the debtors, they sarcastically commended this cruel manager’s shrewdness, for these acts expose the heights of his dishonesty and injustice. The children of the light wouldn’t do such shrewd activities like the children of this world.

Jesus in a similar vein, sarcastically and mocking at the unjust manager and the rich empire says, “make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone they may welcome you into the eternal homes.” One might think that one is making friends by means of dishonest wealth, by unjust ways, by extorting money from the vulnerable, thinking that they might be received into their homes and places, but at the end they will be rejected, hated and will be brought to justice by the vulnerable victims.

Taking cognizance of Ashraf and Maria’s resilience and longing for justice, Jesus therefore says, “whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much, and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own? No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.’

Ashraf and Maria, therefore exposes the rich Pharisees and Sadducees who have been working as managers squandering and extorting money from the poor and vulnerable. It is an important learning that no one can serve God and Empire. For one has to love one and hate the other and there is no middle ground. Being faithful to what belongs to our neighbours is a key in being faithful to oneself. Loving God calls us to dismantle mammon.

If we have to serve God, let us not use God as a means of acquiring wealth for ourselves, or make God an agent of empire building. Love God and dismantle mammon

If you have to serve God, let us give up our dishonesty and unjust activities, especially with wealth, resources and money. Love God and dismantle mammon.

If you have to serve God, let us be faithful in little things, in simple things, in jobs entrusted to us, for God appreciates honesty and justice in little acts. Love God and dismantle mammon.

If you have to serve God, the Pharisees and Sadducees of our times, who extort money from the vulnerable, are to be exposed and brought to justice. Love God and dismantle mammon.

If you have to serve God, look for the divine among communities where Ashraf and Maria lives, for Jesus speaks on their behalf and brings good news to the poor by proclaiming bad news to the rich. Love God and dismantle mammon.

If you have to serve God, the call to cancel debts by capitalists on the poorer, liberating the neo-colonial captives becomes a gospel imperative. Love God and dismantle mammon.

If you have to serve God, allow the subalterns, the occupied, the vulnerable, the colonized speak, for the church is called to listen to the overlooked and forgotten voices of the subalterns. Love God and dismantle mammon.

If we have to serve God, we are invited to join in the advocacy for the liberation of people in Palestine from occupations, and see to it that all the barriers will be dismantled and justice is ensured. Love God and dismantle mammon.

If you have to serve God, we are called to dismantle the barriers of power, prejudice, positions and liberate the occupied by welcoming them. Love God and dismantle mammon.

To that end may the Holy Spirit grant us strength to be devoted to God by despising, dismantling the mammon of our times, and strive to look for God among those victims of debts. Love God, hate & despise mammon. Together we will dismantle the barriers and welcome the other to form a just, inclusive and liberated community. Amen.

Rajbharat Patta,

18^th September 2016

(Sermon preached at St. Peters Church & Chaplaincy, Manchester)

A Call Towards A Theology of Littleness: Hearing Luke 12:32

“To be faithful in little things is a big thing”

Big-ness & Big-Talks :

Have you ever heard of a Church named as 'little flock'? On googling I did find some churches named after 'little flock' but their mission statements forces us to probe whether they have ever lived as 'little flock?' Have you seen Christians of 21^st century calling themselves 'little flock?' The demography of global Christianity today is unevenly characterised on the one hand by the expansive nature of Christianity with numbers rapidly growing in some parts of the world, and on the other hand witnessing the shrinking numbers of Christians in other parts of the world. One of the visible markers of the expansive character of global Christianity is the growing culture of 'mega churches' where the founders and the followers of such churches take pride in the capacity capability of their Churches and boast of tens and thousands of people attending their worship services. Such mega culture of the churches speaks the language of capitalism, where the mega rich leaders of such churches proclaim that he or she is in the business of Jesus Christ, whose corporation is an 'Unlimited' enterprise. These churches encourage people attending their churches on becoming rich as being 'blessed' and preach on 'prosperity' as a blessing that follows those who believe in their teachings. The language and practices of these growing dominant mega churches are part of a colonial project where they colonize simple Christians by exploiting their vulnerability of faith all in the name of riches, wealth, blessing and treasures. This has a huge influence on the kind of God-talk and theology that these mega churches project and articulate. Out of this grand mega culture emerged the ideas of God as all powerful, God as almighty, God as King of Kings, Lord of Lords etc. for it is the rich who associate God conveniently to be rich, powerful and strong like them, and therefore talked of God in those expansive and expensive terms.

In the background of this context, we now read Luke 12:32 -40, where the gospel comes afresh 'Do not be afraid little flock for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.' (v32) , which comes as a call towards a theology of littleness, for church exists as 'little flocks' and God is located in 'littleness,' in contrast to the churches as 'mega churches' and God and God-talk in the vocabulary of 'bigness.' From the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:13-21, we acknowledged that Jesus' teaching as 'life is not in the abundance of riches or possessions' and 'life is not me, my and mine alone.' Luke presents in this chapter about Jesus' exhortations on wealth and earthly treasures, and intersperses it in the context of fear, anxiety and worry. In this particular text, we see Jesus calling the listeners as 'little flock,' and then explains about what it means to be little by way of selling the possessions and then linking it to slaves, who are the little ones of his times for they have been waiting for the Son of Man's coming. This text therefore helps us to unravel a theology of littleness, for it is a gospel imperative for our times.

Little Flock and Theology of Littleness:

Who according to Jesus are the 'Little flock?' For that would define the character of littleness. We need to see this question in three different perspectives. Firstly in the historical perspective, it were the disciples who were listening to Jesus as he was preaching to them. Therefore in the context of the multitudes following Jesus, this little flock of twelve disciples could have been the 'little flock' to whom Jesus mentions not to be afraid. In the context where Roman armies were counted in tens and thousands, Jesus' dozen disciples represents the 'little flock.'

Secondly, in the theological perspective, Jesus introduced himself as 'good shepherd' and mind you not as 'big shepherd,' by which he was always trying to locate himself in the 'little flocks' and affirm in their identity as being little. If he believed in mega flocks, he should have identified as mega shepherd, but he was a good shepherd, who had come to give life in all its fullness. 'Little flocks' represented the minority people in contrast to majority, for Jesus said elsewhere that, 'wherever two or three are gathered there he is present' for God in Christ locates among the littleness. Littleness theologically is further understood that Jesus became a human and took on the form of a slave, the powerless, for the sake of slaves to pitch his tent among them so that he is willing to struggle along with such communities ensuring liberation and freedom. Littleness of little flocks is further understood by his engagements with the outcastes, women and poor of his times. God in Jesus is born as a little baby in the little town of Bethlehem, God in Jesus has became a child refugee as he fled into Egypt and God in Jesus resided, identified and was crucified in all his vulnerability. Jesus therefore had to categorically say that unless a person becomes a little child, he or she is not eligible to enter the Kingdom of God. When his disciples were arguing among themselves who is the greatest, Jesus picked up a little child as a greatest, for he acknowledged that in the littleness exits God and god like-ness. 

 Pope Benedict therefore affirmed in the theology of littleness as he said, “The theology of littleness is a basic category of Christianity. After all, the tenor of our faith is that God's distinctive greatness is revealed precisely in powerlessness. That in the long run, the strength of history is precisely in those who love, which is to say, in a strength that, properly speaking, cannot be measured according to categories of power. So in order to show who he is, God consciously revealed himself in the powerlessness of Nazareth and Golgotha. Thus, it is not the one who can destroy the most who is the most powerful...but, on the contrary, the least power of love is already greater than the greatest power of destruction.”¹

Thirdly, in the eschatological perspective, no doubt all those who follow the values of the gospel that Jesus taught which include hard facts like selling of possessions, sharing of resources etc. will certainly be a small group, for in Jesus movement many left grieving on hearing such altar calls to go sell their possessions, to give up their riches etc. and therefore they will be little flock and little group any way, and as such Jesus was calling them 'little flock.' Probably that was the reason in Luke's second volume, which is Acts of Apostles, he mentions that the early Church gathered in houses and had everything in common, where they shared their resources among them. They were 'little flocks.' Jesus says, “It is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”32 verse says, not to be afraid of Rome, of any circumstance for Father out of his good pleasure gives you Kingdom. In other words, Kingdom belongs to the little flocks and little ones. Jesus else where picks a little child and says that kingdom of God is like them. Kingdom of God is of the little ones, for little ones by the God of little ones, for God in God's pleasure grants this Kingdom to the little ones.

Little Flock and Spirituality of Littleness

The calling to these little flocks is to sell their possessions and give alms, which is the first characteristic of littleness. God in Jesus is a God of littleness who calls not to build barns to store the possessions, but to sell their possessions and give them as alms. By selling the possessions one joins Jesus movement, who along with Jesus identifies with the homeless poor communities, who do not have a place to lay down their heads. By accumulating the possessions one distances from Jesus movement, for one cannot serve Christ and Mammon. Giving alms is not to a mere act of charity, but is a responsibility which is linked with selling of possessions. With possessions, one is big, strong and powerful, but by selling of possessions and giving alms one becomes little, weak, and powerless.

It was said of St. Theresa of Alva that she always displayed the spirituality of littleness. “When we think of Thérèse we think of a specific kind of spirituality - her Little Way. It is a way of trust and absolute surrender to God's intimate presence. Scripture is her source and inspiration. Three texts in particular bring into focus the heart of Thérèse's doctrine: "Whoever is a little one, let them come to me." Proverbs, 9:4 "For to the one that is little, mercy will be shown." Wisdom 6:7 "As one whom a mother caresses, so will I comfort you; you shall be carried at the breasts, and upon the knees they shall fondle you." Isaiah 66:12-13

In a prayer to Christ, Thérèse sums up her spirituality for us:

"O Jesus! Why can't I tell all little souls how unspeakable is Your condescension? I feel that if You found a soul weaker and littler than mine, You would be pleased to grant it still greater favors, provided it abandoned itself with total confidence to Your infinite Mercy. I beg You to cast Your Divine Glance upon a great number of little souls. I beg You to choose a legion of little Victims worthy of Your LOVE!" ²

Little Relevance:

• It is only the vulnerable, the powerless and the little who can speak of a God who exits among littleness, and therefore such an exposition has emerged out of that subaltern voices and communities who speak of a God like them. For it is the good pleasure of Father to give them the Kingdom of God. Mind you, Kingdom of God comes in such littleness, like in a mustard seed and not in the colonial expansive terms.
• Unless our churches become Sunday schools, kingdom of God may be a distant reality. By which, I mean unless we become like little children congregating and exploring God in our vulnerability, and in our marginality, our ecclesiology has less relevance.
• Let us stop building huge Church structures, towers and buildings with lavish comforts, for the church is called to identify with the homeless, poor, refugee and crucified communities, for only among them, among the little flocks and amidst littleness church happens.
• Are our churches willing to become like little flocks? Living out the characters of littleness, inculcating the spirituality of littleness.
• Theology of littleness – challenges us to sing not 'let the poor say I am rich', but other way 'let the rich say I am poor and let the strong say I am weak.'

Rajbharat Patta

1http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30344-the-theology-of-littleness-is-a-basic-category-of-christianity

2http://showcase.netins.net/web/solitude/vilma5.html

Pics Courtesy: 

http://www.jarofquotes.com/img/quotes/886b055f06b12fde88842fc7b45adc35.jpg

http://blog.littleflower.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/TheGreatestOfAll.jpg

Re-understanding Lord's Prayer

http://www.romanroadimchurch.org.uk/uploads/news/id310/24th%20July%20-%20Luke%2011%20vv1-13.mp3

Screening Theology: Engaging Faith & Film

Postcolonial Reading of Indian Jesus' Film Karunamayudu

On the day of Ramadan, when our kids were at home enjoying a holiday due to teachers' training day at school in Manchester, we as a family watched the revised version of the film Karunamayudu on our Xbox at home. Both me and my wife remembered watching this film as children in our childhood in local cinema theatre in our town in its longer version, and also watched it when the film was screened on a 16mm screen on the streets of our locality in India. The film had made an indelible impact on us as children, for visualization of the gospel narratives came alive for us from this film.

Now watching this film after a long time helped me to review this film from the perspectives of postcolonial theological positioning. The film becomes an important theological resource for those engaging in postcolonial enterprise, for the plot of the film, the characters of the film, the content of the film and the ethos of the film all depict a new flavour and genre to the gospel narratives in the Bible. The film was produced and released 38 years ago in 1978, the year I was born and has had a wide reception ever since then for it was dubbed in to several Indian languages and was screened on several village and remote streets of India over the years. The film is popular in Hindi as Dayasagar, in Tamil as Karunamoorthy and has been used for evangelistic purpose, though the intention of the film makers was commercial in character. The film locates Jesus story in a culturally contextual setting to India with Indian professional film cast performing the roles. The film brings out several postcolonial pointers, of which I will mention just two for our discussion here. Allow me to mention that film is a 'public text' that calls the audience to engage publicly in reviewing and interpreting it without limiting it with any conditions. The film is reviewed subversively and subjectively to screen theology. A profound theology is screened in this film, for this film becomes an important factor in the construction of faith.

1. A Subversive Postcolonial Hermeneutics:

The film's script provides a directive for subversive postcolonial hermeneutics, for the plot of the film was positioned in a colonial setting of Rome, where Palestine was subjugated to Roman oppression with Barabbas and Judas fighting for liberation through revolution. It was into that setting that Jesus sets his mission through love, justice and peace in order to establish an alternative kingdom called Kingdom of God in opposition to the Kingdom of Rome. Unlike most Jesus films in the West, which tries to film Jesus story from the written gospels with less or no relation to his own context, Karunamayudu brings in the message of the gospel more powerfully, for Jesus' story was located into his own context and was reinterpreted into the world views of the audiences in India. The film makers were bold to read between the lines and behind the lines of the gospel narratives and have used hermeneutics of imagination, hermeneutics of translation and hermeneutics of indigenization. “Where in the Bible did Jesus, Judas and Barabbas ever met?” asked my son as we were watching the film, and I thought that was the strength of the film for it courageously knitted the plot of Jesus story with subversive imagination. The film no doubt became a 'visual gospel' for many people, it became a 'visual Bible' for many people of different faiths who did have the luxury of reading Bible, appropriated the content of this film as 'scripture'. The film did play a role in the formation of faith in Jesus Christ. Cynics contested that the film did not hold the accuracy of the gospel texts and even questioned the authority of the extra canonical narrative plot of the film. On the whole the film employed a subversive postcolonial hermeneutics of interpreting the texts of the scriptures, particularly Jesus story, with a visual difference, helping the audience to revisit the Eurocentric notions of 'scriptures', and also calling the audience to enjoy the freedom of liberative hermeneutics embedded into the context and content of the film. Indian music, song and dance as projected in the film all bring Jesus' story nearer to the Indian audience. This Jesus' film in a way contests the authority of 'print tradition of texts' and helps to recover the tradition of 'oral texts' of the Scriptures which were forgotten and even erased.

Another important character in the film, my younger son's favourite character was Malachi, who was blind man but with profound theological perspectives, for a song has been filmed with him where he questions 'if God ever existed let him come down now to meet to the needs of the people.' He was eventually healed by Jesus and gets back his vision, and recognizes and acknowledges the political messiah in Jesus. There is a deep subaltern epistemology that was expressed through his character, for his non-conformist theological positioning reflects the goals and aspirations of the subalterns of Jesus times. This Indian Jesus' film provides new vistas in screening theology, which takes form and shape beyond written-ness of theology.

2. A Subjective Postcolonial Christology:

Unlike the titles of many Jesus films in the West, which carry the triumphalist titles like 'King of Kings' or popular titles like 'Passion of Christ', this 1978 Telugu film was titled as Karunamayudu which means 'Compassionate Man', projects a subjective postcolonial Christological title to the film. No where in the Bible is this title used for Jesus like the Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, Lord, Master etc. though he was understood as a man full of compassion, and to entitle the plot about the life of Jesus in such a way, projects the subjectivity of the Indian understanding of Jesus. In a colonial context, where the whole Palestinians were longing for freedom, the longing for a political messiah was well projected in the film, for Jesus comes as Karunamayudu, whose politics are counter-cultural to the Roman empire and also to Barabbas-Judas duos violent strategy. Such a counter-cultural Christology suits to the Indian context, for there has been a yearning for such a political messiah who is an embodiment of compassion, who comes from among the community in addressing the unjust situations of our times. Jesus' portrayal as a carpenters son is to communicate that he is a boy living next door to the audience. Jesus' mother Mary teaches to read scriptures to him as boy, and when Jesus meets her he bows down to touch her feet, his meek outfit and body build up, all project the subjective Indian Jesus. Such a portrayal contests all forms of the macho- Jesus, who is all mighty and all powerful.

Dwight H. Friesen in his PhD dissertation on “An Analysis of the Production, Content, Distribution, and Reception of Karunamayudu (1978), an Indian Jesus Film”¹ expounds 'hybrid Jesus' in the film and argues that the cinematic Indian Jesus was so visualised to suit and meet the expectations of the audience of multiple religious traditions of India. He further expresses that this Indian portrayal of Jesus story is to 'diffuse his reputation of foreign God.' However the subjectivity has been of the Indianness, but which Indianness? According to Dwight's analysis the film reflects a resonance to the Hindu mythological portrayals, for example the ascension episode was projected with Jesus becomes bigger and bigger, dwarfing the human community. A Dalit assertion of Jesus would have been even more appealing to the audiences to express Indian subjectivity in the context of postcolonial theological enterprise. One has to be aware that the film has been produced and filmed by a commercial film company who were predominantly Hindu in 1978 to attract popular Indian audiences. Dwight's analysis of Jesus in the film as 'Indian guru' meets to the theological expectations of the inter-faith theological genre in India, but such a portrayal excludes the indigenous communities spiritualities and their aspirations for liberation.

The passion narrative of the film was also dealt with so much care, though there has been an element of over-romantisization of his suffering. Jesus was brought as a criminal to Pilate, where the religious leaders accuse him of religious crimes for which they demand crucifixion, and ultimately the release of Barabbas instead of Jesus, suggests the political naivety of the plot.

On the whole, the Indian film Karunamayudu provides a new terrain for postcolonial theological engagement, for it opens up a new conversation on texts, hermeneutics, epistemology and theology and encourages to construct theologies beyond mere written-ness or words. The hard questions that comes to the fore are, if such Jesus' films are projected as 'visual scriptures' how will people with visual disabilities receive and understand it? Does other films not carry and communicate the values of the gospel? There are some conservative Christians in India who deem watching films as something 'sinful' needs to understand that films are texts that have loads of meaning embedded in them and there is nothing unchristian about watching films.

After 1978, there are several other Indian Jesus' films that were produced and several English films were dubbed into Indian languages, however hardly any of them carried this postcolonial tenor of Jesus' ministry into their plot and contents. Bible ki Kahaniya (Stories of Bible) was an Indian television programme that was televised during 1993 to 1995 in Hindi language with huge Bollywood cast based on Bible. This programme received a huge response from Indian audience for it was televised on the national TV channel Doordarshan. However, it was stopped abruptly for several reasons and did not carry this postcolonial context into its plot.

This review is merely invitational for a more engaged conversation on film and faith. Faith and film should not be seen as opponents but be viewed as complimentary to each other, for there creative convergences between them that evolves and emerges. Faith certainly comes from hearing, and film provides that hearing aid with audio-visual effects. This Indian Jesus' film Karunamayudu opens up new horizons to construct Jesus' story and his gospel relevant to our Indian context, specially from Dalit and Tribal perspectives, for a post colonial lens of reading and re-reading of film, theology and religion from subaltern standpoints becomes immanent and necessary.

Rajbharat Patta

11^th July 2016

Full Length Film can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEhJxsAulx4

1https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/5805/Friesen2010.pdf?sequence=1

The Politics of Good Friday

When thinking of ‘good Friday’, I always thought, for the person on the Cross to whom Jesus said that ‘today you will be with me in paradise’, it was a ‘good Friday’, and to the other person who mocked Jesus it was a ‘bad Friday.’ What is ‘good’ in ‘good Friday’ has always been a perennial question that people of faith communities across the histories and contexts keep interrogating with.  How can the brutal killing of Jesus on the Cross be called ‘good Friday?’ What is the politics of ‘good Friday?’

There have been theories on the etymology of the ‘good Friday’ for some have referred it to ‘God’s Friday’ for it synchronizes with the root meanings of ‘goodbye’ which means ‘God be with you.’ The day has always been referred to as ‘holy Friday’ like that of the rest of the week days in the ‘Holy week.’ In my local Church tradition, ‘good Friday’ is translated as ‘Maha Sukravaram’ (‘great Friday’ in Telugu language), where the emphasis of Jesus’ act on the Cross has been considered as great sacrifice for the salvation of the entire humanity.

On the one hand, we are aware of Plato’s theory of ‘Form of Good’ which is understood as the ‘ultimate principle’, for the ultimate ‘good’ illuminates all other forms, both in the empirical world and in the world outside of time and space. On the other hand, there are philosophies that profess that there is no such a thing as good and evil, and they are only as people desire, where ‘good’ is recognized as a ‘subjective value.’ All of these thinking direct us in our grappling with ‘good’ in ‘good Friday.’

‘Good Friday’ is not about ‘romanticizing Jesus suffering and his death,’ rather a call to locate God among the crucified.  There was a political bargain from the courts of Pilate, whom to crucify and whom to leave scot-free, and we know that the community chose ‘Barabbas’ (Bar Abbas in Hebrew means ‘Son of God’), which lead Jesus to his crucifixion.  Good Friday, the day on which Jesus was killed is highly political, for Jesus died a political martyrdom. Therefore, one cannot unthread the political aspect of Jesus’s death on Cross from his holistic act of salvation. ‘Good Friday’ also calls us to unpack it from the colonial enfleshments that it carries, for this ‘good Friday’ is also understood in contrast to ‘black Fridays’ (very colonial term) where consumerism is celebrated to its core. Here is a subversive reading of ‘good Friday,’ which serves as one perspectives among many, that helps us in problematizing the same for our times today.

1.      ‘Good Friday’ is about exposing the unjust political systems of the state that represses and criminalises Jesus for believing and professing in an alternative value system which is the Kingdom of God, for he was nailed on the Cross with an inscription ‘King of Jews.’ Jesus’ disapproval of a military state led him to be branded as a ‘political insurgent’ and eventually led him to be killed on the Cross. 

2.      ‘Good Friday’ is a day where an innocent Jesus was falsely implicated and was taken to be crucified on a Cross, along with two other bandits of his times, at a public criminal execution place, which was ‘outside of the camp.’ It was a place where the soldiers gambled on Jesus’ clothes, spit on him, and rebuked him with all possible insults. Jesus died as a political martyr.

3.      When Jesus cried ‘my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ many around his Cross mocked him saying that he was calling on Elijah for help and rescue. To that question, we see that there was silence from God’s side. We run a risk of translating God’s silence as God’s absence. The politic of this saying needs to consider that God joins in the suffering of people, where God grieves along with those that are suffering to lead them into the resurrection experience.

4.      The politics of ‘good Friday’ is always related to the ‘best Sunday’ to come, the ‘Easter day’, where God raised him from the death. It displays a politics of hope, for death and regimes of oppression are defeated and chained in the empty tomb of Jesus Christ. Resurrection of Jesus from death was a huge blow to the empire that believed that there is no opposition to their force, for on that day death died and was buried.

‘Good Friday’ therefore challenges us humanity to locate crucified Jesus’ among us, among our histories, among our contexts, who are opposing the repressive regimes of our times, and stand along with them in their struggles for justice, the highest good. ‘Good Friday’ finds its fuller meaning not in religious sanctuaries, not in our cosy comfortable zones, not in our parochial colonies but on the public streets where people are time and again crucified by the unjust systems of violence. ‘Good Friday’ comes alive and becomes meaningful ‘outside the camps’ of our times, in the veli vada (untouchable ghettos), in the refugee camps, in the excluded zones, in the prisons, etc. ‘Good Friday’ becomes relevant by disavowing hegemonic powers and principalities that suppress and marginalize people and communities and by standing for justice and peace of our times. The calling of our spirituality is to become politically sensitive to our contexts and attempt in relating our faith to the times of our times.

Wishing you all a meaningful observance of Good Friday.

Rajbharat Patta

Pic courtesy: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b6/fc/22/b6fc2293a751e215dc7f8c25af6441ba.jpg

‘Hosanna’ as against ‘Roman Mata Ki Jai’: Palm Sunday Challenge

The occasion of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem before facing Cross and crucifixion, which is observed by Christians as ‘Palm Sunday’ is an important event in the life and mission of Jesus Christ. It is important to know how the passage containing this palm Sunday story in Bible is named, particularly the passage from Matthew 21: 1-11 is titled as ‘Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem’ (NRSV), ‘Jesus comes to Jerusalem as King’ (NIV), ‘Jesus triumphant entry’ (NLT). All the titling is basically ‘interpretation’ of the people who have compiled the texts as different versions of the Bible, and therefore seeks verification. When I read this text from Matthew, I understand this text as Jesus’ contestation of triumphalism, and if I have to title this passage, I would like to title it as ‘Jesus’ anti-empire procession’ or ‘Jesus’ contestation of triumphalism’ or ‘Jesus counter-hegemonic ride’ or ‘Citizens shouts ‘Save us’ from oppressive regime’ or ‘Turmoil in the city’.

1.      Jesus’ Counter-Hegemonic Procession into the City:

Jesus lived at a time when Roman oppressive regime was ruling them, for Jesus’s community were under occupation, and have been subjective to exploitation by rulers, governors, priests and other religious authorities. It was a usual practice of the Roman army to conduct a military parade with horses on the streets of Jerusalem prior to the festival of Passover as a sign of their authoritarian power and rule, for their arms and weapons were at public display to frighten and threaten people who are subjective to them. Year after year, the occupied people have witnessed these military parades of the army in the streets and have been frustrated with this kind of rule. Therefore, Jesus’s procession into the city is a march of counter-hegemony, contesting against the oppressive regimes, parading on a donkey with people holding palm branches, which was their yearning for the coming of an alternative kingdom as against the kingdom of Rome.

2.      Jesus’ Anti-Empire Procession into the City:

Jesus’ procession into the city was a pre-planned one, for he ordered the disciples to go and fetch the donkey and the colt and prepare for this ride. Jesus’ ride on the donkey is an expression of his anti-empire ride, displaying an alternative kingship, as against the pomp and royalty of the Roman emperors and the empire. This was a public march against the empire of his times. This was a march of the colonized against the colonizer. That is the reason there was ‘turmoil’ at the end of the procession as recorded in 10v. ‘When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil.’ This was a march that stirred the city, that was ended in a turmoil, which exhibits, the angst of the colonized against the oppressive empire. Towards the end, the identity of Jesus was revealed, which wasn’t in any way kingly, but it is recorded in verse 11, ‘the crowds were saying, ‘This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.’ Here is the Jesus movement, which is run by an ordinary man from a village called Nazareth in Galilee who was running an anti-empire procession in the capital city of Jerusalem, in which act, the crowds have seen ‘a prophet’ in Jesus.

3.      Citizens Shouting ‘Save us Save us’ over against ‘Roman Mata Ki Jai’:

Jesus’ political march in the streets of Jerusalem was well supported by the people, the citizens of that nation who were shouting ‘Hosanna to the son of David, Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven.’ These shouts are of prominence, for the citizens of Roman empire were compelled to shout ‘hail Caesar’ for rulers who were called ‘Caesars’ claimed themselves to be sons of God, who were sent by God to rule the empire. The other popular slogan during their times was ‘there is no other name under the heaven by which men can be saved than that of Caesar.’ In contrast to this empire slogans, the co-citizens of Jesus were shouting ‘Hosanna son of David.’ This was the genuine yearning of the citizenry as they were looking for ‘freedom’ from these oppressive political regimes. I guess the gospel writers censored the other bit of these shouts like save us from what? Or save us from whom? The shouts could have been ‘Save us from Rome’ Save us from Caesars’.  The empire in a way was forcing its citizens to understand it in today’s terms to shout, ‘Roman Mata ki Jai’ (Mother Roma be hailed), but citizens’ shouts ‘Hosanna’, ‘save us’, which depicts the peoples’ anti-empire cries and aspirations to save them from the rule of oppression. These may look as slogans or shouts, but they convey deep ideologies and belief systems. The crowds could have been booked under ‘sedition’ laws and would have branded ‘anti-nationals’ for shouting something radically different from their dominant rhetoric.  It was in such a context, the citizens of a small territory in Judea were subverting the whole understanding of empire and were shouting ‘Hosanna to the son of David’ and ‘Hosanna in the highest’.

In light of this reflection, the call for us this Palm Sunday is to commit our faith communities to join with Jesus on his anti-empire, counter-hegemonic processions, shouting ‘Hosannas’ ‘God save us from these oppressive regimes of our times.’ Jesus’ alternative kingship and his alternative to the ‘roman empire,’ which he inaugurated in ‘kingdom of God’ should be our public faith belief, narrative, aspiration and paradigm.

Join with Jesus, this Palm Sunday in creating a turmoil in the context of empires, manifested as caste, class, patriarchy, race, religious nationalism, etc.  Join with Jesus this Palm Sunday in the mission of liberation that he has embarked against Caesars and their policies and join with Jesus and his co-citizens who boldly and courageously shouted against the dominant ideologies and stood undeterred even to the extent of being blamed as ‘anti-nationals’. Join with Jesus in a procession against the ‘honour killings’ that keep happening unabated in the name of caste. Join with Jesus this Palm Sunday to publicly express our solidarity in action with ‘exiled citizens’, ‘refugees’, ‘migrants’, ‘undocumented asylum seekers’, ‘homeless’, ‘excluded’, ‘marginalized’ and join with them in their struggles for justice.

Wishing you a Meaningful Palm Sunday.

Rajbharat Patta,

18^th March 2016 

Picture courtesy: http://blog.youversion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/jesus-welcomed-into-jerusalem-1024x461.jpg