Resurrection and the necessity of the claim

The resurrection of Christ is a claim that lies at the heart of Christian thought. It is a claim that meets with a lot of questions. From historians, there is the question of is it true. From the theologian, the philosopher and the spiritualist, there is the question whether the truth of the claim is material to the idea of Christianity. It is the second question that I am going to write about here.

Many commentators from different disciplinary areas have admired the Sermon on the Mount and assorted sayings of Christ for its clarity, the continued relevance of the sayings to the present days and philosophical consistency. Often, they detach it from the claim of the resurrection and say that it is not material for our spiritual development. In this, there could be two categories of people. One, for those whom the speaker and the spoken are two different things and for others the spoken (and the done) are the only ways of defining the speaker and often the spoken is the speaker. For the latter, the saying from Christ, 'Before Abraham, I AM' is a strong indicator of his claim that he was indeed divine. For them, it has to be either true or false and if it is false, the questions about other things he said about kingdom of God, God etc becomes difficult to accept at face value because here was an intentional lier. And then the ethics that flows from it will have to be examined carefully. Clearly, I am taking a side on the issue of whether he actually said that. I am also talking specifically about taking the word of a person because you know him to be a truthful person. Not about applying your reason to examine what he said and then taking a call on the truth of it.

Now, for those to whom the speaker is immaterial and the spoken words are the only matters at hand, those who want to apply their reason.......it is to them that I have to make an argument and a claim. There is a part in Christ's statement about turning the other cheek. When faced with violent action, do not defend yourself, let alone counter attack. What is the basis for it? It is a clear call to adopt non violence as a principle and not merely as a principle. What can be the world view in which that is doable. When faced with the massive scale of violence of a Hitler, Winston Churchill called for arms against Hitler, Gandhi wrote letters to Hitler. What explains the difference. In my view, this one call from Christ to turn the other cheek is the clear marker of the boundaries of the temporal earthly kingdom and the glorious eternal kingdom of God. Without a glorious eternity, it is difficult to conceive a reasoning for turning the other cheek. Our history of the world does not give us enough reasons to do that. The demands of establishing peace and a reign of fairness and love in any time bound manner (whatever be the length of time) demands some form of violence to counter the 'violence of the evil'. The more massive the scale of violence, the less time we can tolerate. Which is why Barack Obama, in spite of his best attempts to adopt the Gandhian world view on non violence, had to concede that he cannot abjure violence as the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He chose to concede this when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

But when you do have a glorious eternity to think about, one has the option of turning the other cheek. Without the belief in a glorious eternity, one cannot cross the final frontier of the earthly kingdom and turn the other cheek. And I am not saying eternity. I am saying glorious eternity. For if there is no value for eternity, again one is left with no meaning or purpose for turning the other cheek. That begets the question, what is eternal. It is timelessness and what exists eternally. The only thing that is eternal is God. And God is glorious in himself. There is no cause for God's glory. He is uncaused and his attributes are uncaused. If there is a glorious eternal and it matters to us (if we take turning the other cheek seriously), then we must think of what is beyond death. And it is here that the Christian claim of resurrection comes in. There is eternity and death is not an end. There is a God who can transcend death. And the only basis we  have for that claim is the resurrection of Christ. In the absence of that, one questions the claim of eternity. When one questions the claim of eternity, one questions the sagacity of turning the other cheek. So for that saying of Christ to hold true, resurrection is his only argument. Of course, you can choose to apply your mind and pick what you want and leave what you dont want from what Christ said.

Compassion as the well spring of action

This has been bothering me for a few years now. The constant battle in mind between the idea of fairness and compassion. When I observe a waiter's error at a hotel and my mind goes into an over drive thinking of whether to forgive or punish in the interests of systemic improvements, the inherent sense of revulsion that I feel for a discussion on positive and negative incentives, when I find decisions on terminating an employee as a major cause of heart burn........

The primary basis for Christian action has to be  a  well spring of compassion and not really a framework of fairness. In fact, the framework of fairness has to come from that well spring of compassion. If the framework of fairness collides with the demands of compassion, perhaps we should change the framework of fairness and cede to the demands of compassion.

Cricket and me

As someone who fell in love with the game of cricket long time ago, it is a shame if there is nothing on cricket on my blog. So here is something on it. It is about what I love about the game, how I look at organised cricket's recent set of controversies and why it does not really shake my love for the game.

This was written first on facebook as a response to a comment of a friend of mine which was in turn a response to my status update on the issue of 'walking' in cricket.

First the comment from my friend. Here it is.

"am reminded of my legendary school correspondent, who ppl say, used to strain his neck while in his car to see if any school students are playing cricket in some corner of a play field.. he considered cricket as a waste of time and there are instances when he beat up such children then and there..that's ridiculous and i'm not saying lets do that ... but commercial cricket that ppl were crazy abt (so intense that some fans died of heart-attacks while watching matches) ..where thr's also lot of money and controlled by an orgn that pays no taxes and once said the players don't represent the country.. the players who let us down.. these guys shd walk rather than wait to be shown the way out.. don't we have better things to do than cheer for fixed matches ..........."

And then my response to it.

People and their support for the game, the organisation that runs organised cricket in India which does not pay taxes, claims of not representing the country, and corruption. Those are the issues that I see in the status update.

First, the support thing. Cricket is a game for heaven's sake. Not something worth dying for. The average cricket fan has that perspective. It is only the story of the extremes that finds space in media. Let us not ourselves lose a sense of proportion.

The organisation that runs cricket in India does do its job well. Its side has won the highest accolades of the game. It supports its past players through pensions, has invested in development of the game through better grounds with improvements in spectator comforts, cricket academies for kids, negotiations with sports goods companies for sponsorships for upcoming players, remunerative system of tournaments for players etc. Not to mention organising games which provide entertainment to quite a few people. Even if it is not paying taxes, it seems to be doing a pretty job as far its institutional purpose is concerned. And I think there are other organisations which do not pay taxes but dont have any major impact.

I have personally heard ex footballers and atheletes who have played at district or state level lament the government of India's affiliated sports bodies which are not able to take care of them and how they admire the cricket associations taking care of its players. So clearly, BCCI seems to be getting a few things right.

On the issue of representing the country. If the Government of India says that whoever claims to represent India must be authorised by GoI, well I dont think I need that. The Constitution is about 63 years old. So is GoI. The last time I checked, the 'India' that I have in my mind has a history of at least 2,000 years. So I am good if BCCI says take a hike to GoI. There are organisations, institutions and cultures which GoI do not like but I call them Indian enough. And I see some of that India in the Indian team and the way it plays and performs on and off the cricket.

Now, my love for the game does not stem from some kind of 'nationalism'. Me watching the Indian team does not have anything to do with patriotism. I will wake up early in the morning and watch England play Australia. I will sit late at night to watch a Lara take on McGrath and Warne. My love for the game has to do with the design/structure of the game. Just to explain, I like the switch on, switch off format of the game, the time it gives a person to think and perhaps the test of concentration involved. Or the fact that the boundary is circular and not linear like in football, basketball or badminton which creates the necessity to trust a player's call about the ball crossing the boundary or not. In football, it is always the referee who takes those line calls, there is not much space for test of moral character of the player. I love the elegance of the bodily movements of a cover drive, the gentle curve of a ball swinging, mesmerising spin of the cricket ball....all of it. I like to watch all that. I love the game.

I am not oblivious to corruption in the game. I am as aware about corruption in cricket as I am aware about corruption in Government, Corporates, NGOs and in me. I have not discarded any of those and I am not discarding cricket or the cricket establishment on the basis of corruption.

Someday I hope to write something about cricket that is well researched, structured and elegant. Till then, something like this will have to do. 

Religion in childhood

This is primarily a response to the criticism against children being taught about their religion. Initially, I considered writing about religion in education. Then I came across the Parliamentary debates on teaching of religions in school education. It is a fairly convincing argument that public schools are not the best places to teach children about religion. For reasons of competence and feasibility. Not so much the issue of confining religion to private spaces.

The argument that religion should not be introduced to children until they attain an ability to judge for themselves based on reason is an often heard one. The basis being that beliefs are to be chosen by a rational mind. To begin with there is a practical difficulty. How does a parent then answer the question from a child, "Why do you go to the Church/Temple/Mosque?". But going deeper, what is the nature of beliefs, how are they acquired, what is the role of reason, can it be a choice. Secondly, what is religion and does it mean to introduce religion to children.

But before getting into, let me list what I understand as the reasons for criticising introduction of religion to children. One, it stunts thinking because it is based on beliefs. Two, religion leads to much strife because it tends to be exclusive of sections of society who do not subscribe to the same set of beliefs.

The oft repeated examples of religion and its impact on thinking are the stories of Copernicus (Heliocentricism and  Geocentricism) and Galileo. What is to be kept in mind in these stories is that what the Roman Catholic Church was defending was Ptolemy's propositions which predates the Church itself. And the criticism was in keeping with the traditions of scientific debate of the time. That opposition was suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church through house arrests and destroying records is condemnable in the interests of open debate. But can an honest evaluation of history say that it is only the Roman Catholic Church which has suppressed dissent? Second, is that the experience with other Churches? The Churches themselves have had rather strong debates on everything under the sun and God itself. What about other religions? Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism. They have also contributed to what we call as progress. We should not forget that the decimal system that we are so dependent on emerged is Arab in origin when religious beliefs were popular. Also, we do have periods of strong movement in disciplines like science, philosophy and literature even during the periods of religious dominance. The contributions of religion to the emergence of many universities and centres of academic pursuits cannot be discounted. So, to assume that religion stunts thinking is to ignore that history.

The second aspect of this criticism is the ascription of religion as the primary cause for strife in the world. Pray, I ask what was religious about World War 2 or World War 1 or the fight for supremacy between the capitalist block and the communist block? Mankind's history is replete with stories of violent elimination of differences. And that is not always religious differences.

So, the question that I have is why single out religion for all that is bad with the world.

Coming to the question of religion and children. Most religions are about the following aspects.

1. Description of a God (theism, deism, pantheism etc etc)
2. Man's origin and relationship with God
3. God's expectation from Man and conditions for achieving the 'eternal good life' (generally boils down to a moral framework)

These three aspects together contribute to the development of a world view and a disposition or attitude. The major religions having varying differences on these three aspects. That has very practical implications on how people behave or act when subscribing to different religions. Just like people of different ideological dispositions are likely to different in behaviour and actions. What is particularly remarkable is that the theological frameworks of most religions will have an impact on almost all aspects of human activity and social institutions. Therefore, to shield a child from the influence of religion seems extremely impractical unless we are presupposing the desirability of a non religious society and we are slowly moving towards taking religion out of society.

Assuming that the critics are not talking about a religion less society, we need to see how religion will indeed be taught. As mentioned earlier, religion is a world view. It is not merely a set of 10 commandments. Such a world view or attitude is formed over long periods of time. Beginning from childhood. It does not happen through reading alone. It happens through experiencing events, learning about events and through reflection, discussion and debate. The prayer and worship by another person, the views expressed by someone about a person from a different religion, the texts, the expositions, the acts driven by the religious framework, religious institutions - it is this whole cosmology which leads to the development of this world view and disposition.

While much of the development of the world view can happen subtly as socialisation, there are vast elements which require exposition. For example, why a Christian might take a position against capital punishment will require explanation. A discussion on that with a child will lead to religious conversations. Similarly, when a child sees a priest or a missionary do something and ask for an explanation, he will talk about God, Christ and salvation. Without which he cannot be true in his explanation. It is that explanation which will possibly make the child explore about it a little more. He will encounter concepts like fruits of the spirit  which are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. In the Christian world view, these are acquired through prayer and submission to God's will. There is a strong theological framework which supports this. I would assume that a Christian parent would want to talk about this to his or her child. And if he or she considers this to be true, can he not talk about it and deprive the child of this knowledge? Religion, when taken in its entirety, is not a specific set of beliefs that can be chosen like picking the flavour of an ice-cream. It is a world view and it includes an attitude. Saying that children should not be taught religion is akin to saying ban religion. It is a position that can be taken. But then express it as such.

The other aspect that I would like to point out is that there is an assumption somewhere in the criticism that children cannot apply their mind. Indoctrination is a form of pedagogy that hampers thinking. It is not restricted to religion. And importantly, religion is not restricted to indoctrination. Critical pedagogy and religion can go together. In fact, much of the methods of critical theory emerged  from the study of Bible. 

Abraham, Isaac, God and an explanation

There is a question that is often asked by those skeptical and dismissive of the Christian God. “How can a loving God ask for the sacrifice of the son of a believer just to test the strength of his belief?” A tentative answer to that question can be given by a Christian based on the meta-narrative of Christianity. This will be acceptable only within that meta-narrative. Outside of that, any answer to that question merely subjects the answer giver to the charge of speaking gibberish.

The first part of the meta-narrative is that while God is loving, he also created everything that we see and therefore has absolute right over everything. And the loving God also demands us to give glory to him, he has absolute distaste for anything being given more value than himself by any of his creations. A believer attributing allegiance to anything including his own son is not acceptable to such on omnipotent God. So there lies the grounds for a test of a believer's faith.(Why does an omnipotent God have to test to know? Because, there is a matter of free will.)

Secondly, in the meta-narrative, there is a concept of eternal life. So even if Abraham's son were to be killed, it is not an eternal death. Our body and our existence on earth is valuable only from the point of view of whether it sings glory to God. There is no other reason for our existence. If the act yields glory to God, that in itself is a necessary and sufficient justification. In short, in the context of an eternal life, a father sacrificing a son for the glory of God does not sound so untenable.

Now, this need not surprise any of us. We all, at least most of us including non believers, believe in a variant of this. In matters of public good, we all believe that the father son relationship is subservient to public good. For example, when a senior police official in Odisha tried to protect his son from prosecution in a criminal case (rape), we all shook our head in disapproval because here was a father who was shielding his son from the long arm of the law, the enforcer of public good. Now if we were to replace public good with God's glory, we will get the same hierarchy.

But all of this makes sense only in the context of God as the creator and the idea of eternal life. Else, it looks untenable and perhaps gibberish.

Another type of intelligence

The other day, when bowling at the nets, I managed to get some prodigious swing off an old ball. The reason why it is significant is that old ball generally does not swing that much. The next day I began by bowling rubbish. So someone who acts as a bit of a coach (he is a BCCI certified Level 3 coach) said, "You are a brilliant bowler. But you should not be thinking of yourself like that." When I heard the comment from the coach, I was thinking why did he use the word "brilliant". Normally that word is used for intellect I thought.

That night I was having a conversation with my cousin about how I could almost visualise and sense how my body was working and could predict what would happen to the ball when I deliver in a particular style. The next day I corrected myself and bowled a lot better.

Then I realised why the word "brilliant" is not as misplaced as I thought. There is an imagination, sensitivity, feedback analysis and corrective action. It indeed displays the characteristics of what we normally call as intelligence. We, as society, do appreciate this in sportsmen and pay millions for it. But we do not when it comes to kids and others who do not often go on to become big name super star sports persons.  There, it is seen as a second class intelligence and does not receive the credit it should.

I was reminded of the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of learning (Bloom's Taxonomy). We celebrate the first, grudgingly acknowledge the second (Emotional Quotient) and  ignore the third. It is time we brought about a better balance in that.

The meta narrative of Christianity............

Every now and then there is the question that people ask. Why does God permit injustice and inequity on earth? There have been many attempts to answer the question. The one that I can recollect is the Harold Kushner book, 'When bad things happen to good people.' (I have not read the book. And interestingly Wikipedia does not have a commentary on the book either.) But those answers simply do not either reach people or convince them.

Some religions have answered this question through their core stories. For example, in the Hindu tradition, the 10 avatars of Vishu are answers to this question. Vishu comes as an avatar when evil reaches its pinnacle of influence and destroys them. This is direct action by God.

My interest is in Christianity and therefore, I shall write in detail on that. In Christianity, the narrative is a little different. There is only one instance of direct action by God. That is the flood in the times of Noah. In the rest, it is always a case of God taking his shield off his people, namely Israelites, and letting them face the ire of their enemies. But these are not really addressing issues of inequity and injustice. They seem more about establishing primacy of God's will and the demand for absolute obedience. The only instance where one gets very close to an explanation on Why God permits injustice and inequity on this earth is in the story of Job. Here, the answer from God is more like "I made you, you have no right to question me, I have my own reasons which I am not answerable to reveal to you."

Having said that, I think it is possible to formulate an answer to the question by putting together various ideas presented in the Bible. It may not satisfy every man, but it will have a logic. Only if one accepts some fundamental axioms. If one is looking to establish the existence of God through an answer to this question, then he or she will not be able to.

The first part to the answer is the meta narrative of Christianity. This is absolutely critical. That there is a God and that human life is only temporal. That human life is not an end in itself. But it is only a means to achieve eternity. That human life is only a means to establish God's glory and victory over evil. The moment one accepts this, the rest becomes logical. The moment one rejects this, the rest sounds like mumbo jumbo.  So if you reject this, go no further. If you are willing to consider it, then let us go a step further and see what it implies for human conduct.

The first part above has to be taken on faith. There is no way anyone can prove it. However, the next part is more amenable to reason. That all human beings are of sinful nature. The very fact that all of us are susceptible to temptations of various kinds and we do fall into some of them once in a while (anger is possibly the most common one), should convince us of our sinful nature. This is where there is a difference between Hinduism and Christianity. In the Hindu tradition, there are good people and bad people. In Christianity, there are only bad people. This immediately makes the question of justice a little tricky. In effect, bad things dont happen to good people. Bad things happen to only bad people and all people are bad.

So where does that leave us? In between a rock and a hard place. Well, it is not all that bad. God does give us a way out. He does not use sin against us. He forgives and transforms us. Moses, David, Peter, Paul, Mathew etc should convince us of that. None of them were quite saints. They had their share of faults. The first was a murderer, the second was an adulterer and murderer, the third was a betraryer, the fourth was an oppressor of the weak, and the fifth was supposedly corrupt and an extortionist. So now what do we do. That is where one has to read the following verses and piece together the answers.

1. Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

2. Isaiah 53:7 - He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet he opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. (This is Isaiah's prophecy about Jesus Christ and his crucifixion.)

The first one is on account of the sinful nature of ALL human beings. The second is a clear directive on how to model our life. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the ultimate message of Christianity  as it embodies the central tenets of the Christian beliefs. It gives us a living real example of what it means to be a Christian.

While the picture of a lamb to the slaughter conjures up an image of passivity, it is a misleading imagery. We only need to think of how the lamb ended up being taken to the slaughter. Jesus' life was not one of inaction or passiveness. If he were passive, would his detractors waste 30 pieces of silver, their vocal chords and their scheming minds on his extermination. It was more a result of evil sensing danger in what Jesus was doing and working to eliminate the threat through Jesus' detractors. Now, there is gross injustice that is being inflicted on the person of Jesus' and what does he do. Submits meekly to the ire of his detractors and accepts the punishment that is inflicted on  him.

What was his explanation for accepting the injustice being meted out to him? My guess is he was holding on to the axioms and the meta narrative I had mentioned earlier. God, his Father was in control and he was using Jesus as a pawn in his battle against evil. He was not to be tempted to react in anger, not tempted to sin. The final triumph over evil is to be by God. Not by man. Man can only be a pawn in this game of chess.

It is important to note that it is evil acting THROUGH his detractors. And God acting THROUGH Jesus. It indicates the necessity to surrender ourselves to God and also provides the basis for why we should forgive others if we feel they are acting against us or doing evil. Because it is evil acting through them and not they acting. Free will? Not quite I think. You have the Free Will to submit yourself to God and seek relentlessly and passionately His Grace to live like Jesus Christ. Beyond that, it is God's game.

One can ask, what does one do when one sees injustice being inflicted on others. The Biblical answer would be to throw in your lot with the oppressed. This is what Jesus had in his mind.

Then Jesus, looking at him loved him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow me." Mark 10:21

I think this is what the women in Chipko movement were also shooting for, their treasure in heaven, when they decided to embraced the trees that were about to be cut down.