My Pride Too


They say Amherstia nobilis (Malayalam Simsipa flower) is the pride of Burma (Myanmar).It is said when Sita wife of Rama was taken to Lanka, she was seen sitting under this tree surrounded by Rakshasis (evil women. Of course for the Aryans those Dravidians were monkeys and those in Sri Lanka were Rakshasa and Rakshasi). It is a rare tree the flowers of which are really beautiful.

There was a news report about the plant in Mathrubhumi daily.

These images are from the net

I am proud to say that I have a Simsipa Tree in my garden and it blossoms once or twice a year. Here are two pictures

This information from Wikipedia:

Amherstia nobilis (Burmese:  [θɔ̀ka̰ dʑí]; the Pride of Burma, in the Fabaceae family) is a tropical tree with exceptionally beautiful[peacock term] flowers. It is the only member of the genus Amherstia. It is widely cultivated for ornament in the humid tropics, but is very rare in the wild and has only been collected from its native habitat a few times. It is native to Burma (Myanmar), hence the common name. The scientific namecommemorates Lady Amherst, as does Lady Amherst’s Pheasant. Another common name, the Orchid Tree, is otherwise reserved for members of the genus Bauhinia.

Advertisements

A Relevant Question and My Comment


Dear Thirumeni,
Hope you are doing well and in good health.

I am writing this letter to share my concern on how much our church capable of catering to the spiritual needs of the current generation and that are coming. The major problem I see is that the worship in our church is losing its life and becoming a dull practice. Most of the people see it as a ceremony rather than a spiritual experience.
I am a common man, not studied any theology. But I can see where the church lacks its ability to inspire and motivate people especially young to the God.
God is the ultimate reality. When we worship God, we should be in that reality otherwise we can’t experience his presence (John 4:24).
How realistic is our worship? In other words, how much spiritual is it? In my own experience and at least for some people I know, it’s not up to the expectation. People come to church out of some obligation rather than any compelling reason. Where we went wrong? Let me point out what my heart says.
1) Most of the songs we use in worship are unable to convey its  meaning. People are not singing but chanting these songs. I heard one Catholic say: ‘I didn’t understand your Quarbana’. Sadly we also don’t.
2) Use of Suriani is also has the same effect. Common people can understand and enjoy small words like ‘Amen’, ‘Halleluiah’ but beyond that it is meaningless, boring and thus incapable of filling with the Holy Spirit.
What we can do?
1) Re-phase/rewrite the songs used in Qurbana so that common people can understand and enjoy
2) Introduce new songs which are rich in meaning. (Psalm 96:1)
3) Persuade priests to use Malayalam than Suriyani
What happen if we don’t act?
1) People who take their spiritual life seriously go for other churches and fellowships
2) People who don’t understand spirituality a big thing but see things more pragmatic sense ceases to come to the church
3) People who stick with the church may become immature in their emotional, social and professional life I expect your valuable opinion in this matter
With Prayers,
?

Dear ?
Hope you are doing fine by the grace of God. Thank you for your patience.
I fully follow the issues and concerns raised by you.
Most of the traditionally accepted institutions and patterns are being challenged now world over, not only in religious sphere but in all political, economic and even ethical areas of human life. It is really hard to asses the situation for a final answer on any thing and make a change. The recent movie sons in Malayalam is a typical, of course in a peripheral level, example to this. The so called democratic movements and the political disturbances in counties show the same situation. Political parties also face the same crisis. What happens in CPM, the recent statements of Mr. V. M. Sudheeran in congress party, what happens in BJP etc. also are signs of this. The recent news reports related to Orthodox, Jacobite, Catholic, Marthoma, protestant Churches and their leaders in Kerala are no exception. The news we get about the leaders of the so called charismatic and pentecostal communities are also in the same line. All that you hear and see in the news may not be based on correct information, but certainly shows the mood shift in the society at large.
Yes I agree with you that the liturgical prayers, songs and symbols are many a time not so clear to common people. There are two things I would say related to this. One, religion itself has this incomprehensibility and mystery element in it and every thing will not be understood in that world. If understanding in its fullness achieved, even God will become irrelevant non-existent (I must say, you quoting Biblical passage will not impress me for reason of Biblical scholarship the world has achieved. on the other hand the issues raised are quite relevant without the reference). Second, these days people, with their changing environment and growing individualism, have expectations variant one from another. So it is really hard to come to a common understanding on any thing. There will always be a strong resistance to any kind of change that will be initiated in the Church. You can see this even in families not only with respect to spirituality but also of ‘lay man’s day to day life’ and hence families are getting disintegrated and divorce rate is rocket high. This of course is no excuse for any serious attempt on the part of the people to make sense of being in the presence of the divine. But it simply is a herculean task. I can testify that attempts in our Church, though in a small scale, are being done in various levels and areas. What I see in Sukhada in Kolenchery is one among them. There are others too who may be doing this or similar things. Of course it may not be up to the expectation of every one, even me for that matter. Again what these people are doing may not be in full conformity of the  common faith of the community (I do not say it does not, only saying ‘may not’ in its details). So what shall we do under the circumstance? I would say, find the footing where you are and then search for a fellowship within where you will be more comfortable while again continuously raising the voice for constant change. I can assure you will not find a perfect place any where in the world. But you will not stop creating a better world where you are right now. I, sure believe that I as a leader in the community has more responsibility than any lay person in the community, which I should be fulfilling. God help us in making His community a living one.
Regards and prayers
Thirumeni

Please Pray for H.G. Mar Pachomius


His Grace Paulose Mar Pachomius Metropolitan  of Mavelikkara diocese is hospitalized due to breathing problem. He has not been well for some time. He never regained his full health after that car accident he had several years back. Please remember H.G. in your prayers.

Question and Answer


Here are few questions and my answers:

Question 1

Respected  Yuhanon Mar Meletius Thirumeni….

Hope you are well….I have  some  doubt about our  prayer for  departed belivers...(Marichaverkku vendi ulla prardhana) We prayer  for them… especially on 3rd, 9th 30th & 40th day. shall I ask one  Question . As per protestant they say that Why we pray for them…..??? .If  we can save them( departed belivers)  by our prayer, we can also live in  in this  world in any way..Because  if  our family members & relative  will pray for us  to save  from hell….& they also  shows that In Psalms we read  .Psalms 88: 10.  “”Of what use are your miracles when iam in grave””……

I expect a good answer from you (based on Holy Bible.)

Answer

Dear

I have an article written on this matter and I am sending the text below. This was posted in my blog (WordPress) which you can get from this address along with other articles: https://yuhanonmilitos.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/orthodox-position-on-the-departed/

Hope this will answer your question.

Orthodox Position Regarding the Remembrance of the Departed

Yuhanon  Mor Meletius Metropolitan

The question of our faith regarding the departed has to be approached from two sides. One: explaining the matter from our position. Two: defending our faith against criticism.

First, by way of explaining our position we may say that our faith though is very much Biblical, not so much based on individual references. We believe that Church is the body of Christ and any one who is baptized will be part of His body.  As Christ lives eternally His body also should be living eternally. Jesus said “who ever eats of my body and drinks of my blood shall live eternally (John 6:54).  Life eternal can not be challenged by physical changes. Because physical is not eternal, eternal is beyond physical.  Death is only a physical change brought on humans.  Living means living dynamically. Eternally living is to be eternally dynamic.  In Christ being living and dynamic is to be being in participation. Participation of an organ of Christ’s body is participation with Christ the head and with other organs or members.  This participation also need not be physical.  Therefore, the paramount form of participation is that in worship.

The Orthodox believes that there is a celestial eternal worship that goes on in heaven.  All living and dead are participants in this worship. The classical example for this is the event at the transfiguration mountain (Mtt. 17:1 ff.).  Our worship in this world is a time and space bound participation in this celestial worship.  The priest in our Eucharistic worship exhorts: “At this time our hearts, thoughts and minds be in at the high and exalted above where the Son of God is seated at the right hand side of the Father”.  A worshipping community is a dynamic loving and caring community.  Love and care are not primarily physical and material phenomenon, rather they are spiritual and metaphysical. Our love and care can thus be better expressed in mutual prayer support.  We remember each other in prayer. When we remember them our love towards them make us wish they be with Christ and be remembered all the time.  All our prayers are placed before the merciful God. While we do so we present our wish also before Him.

We know that Christ can forgive our sins. So we also pray that just as our sins others sins may be forgiven and be accepted in the company of all the celestial worshipers.  In this intercessory prayer we not only include those who are living in this world but also those who have passed away from here and joined the unseen members of the body of Christ. We believe that the departed can also do the same on our behalf because they are also part of the dynamic and eternally living body of Christ. Thus we become truly loving and caring members of the same body of Christ transcending time, space and physical boundaries.

Secondly, we can consider our defense against criticism from other communities.  Two things need to be said initially.  First it is not easy to answer all question raised against our faith as they work with a difference approach to Bible and Church tradition. They also adopt different methodology to explain faith.  Secondly, every thing we do in the name of remembering the departed and praying on their behalf may not be strictly on the basis of our faith rather will be related to cultural practices and for lack of proper understanding of our faith. It will be hard to defend many of such practices.  In such cases we need to be humble enough to accept criticism.

One of the major objections raised against the remembrance of the departed is, ‘how can God forgive sins done while alive after they are not in the body in this world’. Firstly our prayer for the departed is not primarily for the forgiveness of sins. We remember them since we know them and we love them and are concerned of them. It is for God to decide whether to forgive them or not.  Again, this is a question we also struggle with and is expressed in one of our prayers too. But on the one hand we put our trust in God and hope that He is able to do that if He wishes so. On the other hand our love towards them makes us pray even if there is only little chance of being forgiven.  Hoping and praying is not a bad thing to do.

A second question is based on the Psalmist’s words in Ps. 115:17 where it is said “The dead do not praise the Lord, nor any who go down in to silence”.  There is more than one response to this.  Basically a Christian faith can not be challenged by a passage from Old Testament which does not contain themes of many of the Christian faith affirmations.  If at all we take it as useful, we have to take the whole Psalm and continue to read verse 18 where it is said, “But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and for ever more”.  Here ‘ever more’ can be taken as a time beyond physical world. Further there is an instance where God asked prophet Ezekiel to talk and prophecy to the bones in the valley of death Eze. Ch. 47).  God through the prophet promises the bones that they will be brought back to life. Question is how can the bones hear what the prophet was saying if the dead can not hear the words of a living person?  Again Christ called Lazarus out of the tomb and called him to life (John 11:43).  If Lazarus can not praise God in death how can he hear the calling of Christ

The third question usually raised is, ‘can the dead be benefited by our prayers’? The first answer would be that we Christians do not do things to get some thing back or for a reward.  That is a utilitarian materialistic attitude which is contrary to Christian way of life. We do things because of our love and care. It is for God to decide the benefit. More over we do things because we have already received some thing great from our Lord which is Salvation and right to call God ‘our Father’.  Motivated by the love we received from our Lord, we try to express our love to others and remember them in our prayers without minding whether they are living or dead. We are not concerned of the benefit which is for God to decide.  We also believe that benefit from God is not out of what we do. It is God’s gift to us.

A forth question asked is, ‘do we have evidence in the Bible to support what we do in this matter’?  To an orthodox what we do in Christian worship and in life is not solely based on what we see in the Bible. We are guided by the basic principles we see in the Bible and also in the teaching of the fathers of the Church who witnessed Christ and His salvific work. Of course the second has to agree with the basic principles of the teachings of Christ. We do not think that loving the departed and remembering them and praying for their welfare is against Christ’s principle. There is no passage in the Bible which would suggest that remembering the departed is meaningless.  If we take the passages in the Bible strictly and literally even burying the dead would be against Christ’s teaching as Christ once said, “Let the dead bury the dead” (Matt. 8:22). Burying the dead is considered by every one as a humanitarian thing. Our love and concern for the welfare of our dear ones go beyond the physical world and that is not contrary to the teaching of Christ. As said earlier, we have evidence that Christ Himself remembered departed one when He was conducting a worshipping atmosphere at the transfiguration mountain. He invited not only Peter, James and John to that worship, rather also Moses who died some thirteen centuries before Christ and Elijah who died some eight centuries back. It is also noteworthy that these two were more active in worship that the living ones. At least Peter was concerned of the troubles and hard times waited on the bottom of the hill and was planning to build three booths for Jesus, Moses and Elijah. He found life up on the hill better than life in the valley. If Jesus can invite dead members of the Old Testament community to worship, how much more He can do it with the New Testament worshiping community? We only recognize that probability in remembering them in our worship. This is where we stand regarding our attitude to the departed.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

Queston 2

Dear Thirumeni,

Why did Thirumeni and 2 other Thirumeni’s (Athanious Thirumeni and Nicholos Thirumeni) left Jacobite .Why we cant settle the conflict with Jacobite faction.Recently conflict is getting worse like attaching priest and why most of this happen in and around central Kerala.What is Thirumenis stand or opinion on this?

Answer

Dear

I am surprised that even after more than a decade after the order of the Supreme court of India in 1995 and a decade after its execution in 2002, still people have not understood the content and implications of the order. Please be educated that no one joined any other Church. The Church was one with one patriarch and one catholicos till 1974. In 1970s there started a dispute between two sections of members in the Managing Committee of the Church. This resulted in a split in the Church. Two groups the catholicos group and the patriarch group emerged. I was ordained a deacon just before this division started and when the Church was still one in 1973 January. Metropolitan Thomas Mar Athanasius was already a deacon and Metropolitan Abraham Mar Severius was a pries at that time under late Metropolitan Philipos Mar Theophilos of Angamali. The division became evident in 194 March when two priests of the Malankara Church got consecrated as bishops by the patriarch of Antioch. Of course there were related events and issues.

Malayala Manorama who was, to an extent, a reason for this division called one group the Orthodox group and the other Jacobite group. People of both parties without seeing the danger in the move sort of accepted these terms and let them be the official titles of the group. Of course Manorama had business interest behind this move. But common people started to think that these two groups are two denominations. But actually there was nothing either regarding faith, liturgy or practice that separated these two. The only question was how much power the patriarch of Antioch has in Malankara Church.

The official Church went to the court to get a verdict to the effect that the patriarch has no authority in Malankara Chruch and all Churches are to be governed by 1934 constitution and all parish Churches are owned by the Malankara Metropolitan. The patriarach party countered it by arguing that the catholicos is only  a subordinate to the patriarch. The case was finally decided, after two orders from the single bench and division bench of the Kerala High Court, by the Supreme Court of India in 1995. The courst said, the patriarch remains to be spiritually superior in the Church, but the Church has to be administered by the 1934 constitution and the catholicos, upon whom the patriarch had invested all his powers, will have all the powers of the supreme head of the Church in matters of administration and so the patriarch can not interfere without reference to the catholicos in Malankara Church affairs.

Both the patriarch and the catholicos accepted the verdict and reunification efforts began. The court in further order laid down parameters for the reunification. But half way through a section of the patriarch party backed off and started to call themselves the continuation of the patriarch faction and as the Jacobite Chruch. But we three bishops, Dr. Abraham Mar Severius, Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasius and myself said no to that and went ahead with the reunification efforts. The reunification was executed in a joint meeting of representatives of Churches from both former groups as the Malankara Association of the united Church. This meeting was convened by mutual agreement made in writing by both the catholicos and patriarch factions in the Supreme court and the Court assigned an observer, Mr. Justice Malimat a retired judge of the Supreme Court, on request of the patriarch group. All the Churches from the former catholicos group and about 120 Churches from former the patriarch group participated in the meeting. The matter was reported to the Court and the Court declared the Church united.  But the split away group of the former patriarch faction people convened a meeting which they called the Association of Jacobite Syrian Christian Association Church was convened simultaneously at Puthencruz in Ernakulam dist. and declared that they are the true descendant of the old patriarch group and they hold title to the Churches and properties of the old patriarch group. This was total violation of the order of the Court. We three bishops accepted the decisions of the court and the decisions of the Malankara Association of 2002 to get back as a unified Church putting an end to the old split and rivalry. Metropolitan Zechariahs Mar Nicholovos who was in US also accepted the order of the court in 2002 and joined the reunification process and attended the Association meeting. At the same due to pressure from the new Church Metroplitan Abraham Mar Severius who was in charge of Idukku diocese in the reunified Church left and joined the new Church. In short, the Malankara Church was one till early 1970s and unfortunately there occurred a split which was mended in 2002 and once again became one Church. We are glad we are back together to be in one reunified Church. Hope you now know what happened between 1970 and 2002. We Thomas Mar Athanasius Thirumeni and Zechariah Mar Nicholovos Thirumeni and myself who were part of the Church prior to the split happed to be in one group just as some others were in the other group, mostly not by choice, went along the common decision of the Church to be reunited. It was the naming of these groups by Malayalam Manorama that gave the wrong impression that these were two Churches.

We can not settle the matter because we are dealing a group of people who do not respect Christian principle, law of the land, obey the orders of the court and do not have any sense of justice. What ever we may try, at the last moment they will topple it and create unrest and law and order situation there. This happens in Kerala because it is here they can manipulate the system with money and other unjust influences. They have not made any claim in any Church outside Kerala, but went out and formed their own parishes. But in Kerala they can resort to all kinds of unethical and unlawful means and can get away with it. There are politicians who back them, there are government officials who are corrupt and take bribe from them. There are Church dignitaries who openly support them. On top of all these, the news paper, who claim to be member of Orthodox Church work hard to keep the division alive. In the middle of all these there are innocent people who happened to be under their slavish custody who want to get out of that but not ready to do any thing. So it becomes our responsibly to work for them also.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

Question 3
Respected Thirumeni ,
My Name is – –  and I am  from Kumbazha St Marys Orthodox Valiya Cathedral (Thumpamon Diocese)… I like to see ur Clarifications on the doubts on our Faith and Belief. First of all, Let me, Say thank you for taking the opportunities to teach the younger generation about the true faith of our church.

I am coming to my topic,

We have started celebrating Centenary our Catholicate establishment  a few days backs at Kunnamkulam.. Then i got some interest to go over the history of the Establishment of our Catholicate. So i made a deep search for available resources in the Internet and some books and have seen something which is quite different and mismatching with what i have studied and heard..

The Main Mismatchings are,

1. Some of Our church officials arguing that in 1912, Only Catholicate establishment was taken place in Malankara not a re-establishment of the same. But most of our official church sites and electronic medias propagating, It was not just an establishment and indeed a Reestablishment.

2. Some of our church officials, including clergies arguing, The re-establishment of Catholicate was from Tigris. But our church websites saying that it was from Selucia Steciphon and some other showing Musol.. In some sites the word ‘Tigris’ is not mentioned even.

3.If that was a reestablishment, how a Maphryanite from Tigris became a Catholicate in 1912, as there exists only Maphriyanite in Tigris..not a catholicate. (As Tigris is the HQ of Maphryan)

4. Catholicose of East of the Persian Church is still present – HH Mar Dinkha IV who is presently headquartered in Chicago. Then how can our Catholicose claim succession to the catholicate of East and how can a Catholicate of east which is still present be re- established to India from Selucia Ctesiphon (?) ?

Why so?

I have asked the same query to some of our Priests and even to a metropolitan. But all of them donated different answers for the same question 😀 Till now, no one gave the correct answer for this Query. I am Expecting a clear answer from u Thirumeni..

From My side,
I made little deep study about this and came on  a conclusion…

Based on the preseumptions and assumptions, two options are possible.

1. Ours is a continuation of the Maphrianate of Tigrith which was also called Catholicate. The re-establishment theory is fully supported here because earlier this Maphrianate was discontinued in 1846 (or 1850  I am not sure ).

2. Ours is an independent Catholicate and in 1912, we established a new centre of Spirtual power in India. It is neither the successor to Persia nor to Selucia Ctesiphon.

Please correct me if,I am wrong. I am waiting for your reply through MOTV Orthodoxy Page…

May God be with u and guide u…

Long Live the Apostolic Throne of St Thomas.

Answer

Dear

You are right, the talk about catholicate in Malankara is really confusing. Not many have a clear perspective about the matter. Let me bring to you few facts. First of all catholicate was established in the East as a parallel institution to that of the patriarchate due to the political situation existed in the East. That means it is an independent office which has all the powers and authorities of the patriarch. After a while, the who occupied the position of the catholicate embraced Nestorian faith. So the Oriental Churches de-recognized it and was left vacant since then. But to cater to the spiritual needs of the people in the East, the patriarch of Antioch established an office called maprianate in Tigris. This was not an independent office, rather a subordinate office to the patriarch of Antioch.

Indian Church was a national indigenous Church from the beginning until the Portuguese came with the petra do arrangement they had with the pope.  Of course we had ecclesiastical dignitaries coming from the East and we always welcomed them. But the Church remained rather indigenous. The Portuguese wanted to make this Church a Latin Church. Though they were successful initially, people revolted at the Coonan Cross and a then majority returned to the indigenous community. But they felt the need for help from the East to survive the threat from  the Latin Church. So they approached the Eastern Churches and it was Antiochean patriarch who responded. Thus we sort of accepted faith, liturgy and many of the practices of Antiochean Church ad made them ours. That was not a problem for us. But the problem started when the patriarch began behaving the same was as that of the Roman Pontiff or as an unquestioned authority of both spiritual and temporal affairs of the Church. This caused split in the Church. Some liked this attitude and some did not. It was at this juncture people like Vattasseril Thirumeni decided to while keeping the faith and liturgy of, and ecclesiastical relation with, the Antiochean Church (as a matter of fact the faith was common to all Oriental Orthodox Churches), to become independent in temporal matters. To achieve this goal, they thought we should have an office which was defined by the Ecumenical Synods as equal to that of the patriarch.

So they invited the patriarch of Antioch Abdul Messiah, who for some was not ruling because of the political situation in Turkey (the question whether political decision is the one that should be valid in matter of faith) who was the one installed first as the valid patriarch, to be the head of the Synod that installed the first catholicos. The term used in the constitution is re-establishment of the catholicate. Here we have room for an interpretation of the term re-establishment. It can be revival of the office or re-location of the office. To us, it is the revival of the office. We are not relocating the office of the catholicate established in Selucia Ctesiphon. We are using the same title as we intended the office to be parallel to the office of the patriarch which is in fact independent.  We sought the cooperation of the patriarch since one, in faith we are one community, two, in practice the catholicate represents the universality of the Church. This office was not the office of the Maprianate of Tigris. It was not the succession of the catholicate in Selucia Ctesiphon.

Thus I would go with your second conclusion. In that sense we can also say that the catholicate in Malankara was established in 1912. In any case it was not a continuation of the one existed in Selucia Ctesphon and also the one existed in Tigris, rather it was the fresh establishment of the office in Malankara, but the title was already in use for the one in Selucia Ctesiphon.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

Question 4

Respected Tirumeni

Thank you very much. I think it is the wisdom in Sant Rahim ke Dohe- Jahan kaam karai sui, kaha karai thalwari- where the needle is required, what can the sword achieve? -each to his own and his role.

I really enjoy my role as wife and mother.

But ‘Orthodox Psychotherapy’, & 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Tyrell’s Christotherapy etc. helped me a lot because I realized that every single second of my waking life is full of internal dialogues and chatter and most of these thoughts are based on fear. Fear of poverty, fear of disapproval, fear of illness, need for approval etc. My sister, asked me why I always act from fear and live anticipating the worst. It was what gave relevance to these books. I also see many others around who operate from ‘fear.’ – the point where we stand.

I am now much better and am able to recognize  moments when I act from fear- I tell myself that God the Father is the source of all and whatever the situation,He would give us the inner resources to live through . I can be more generous and free and less fearful. I acquired this fear psychosis over the last 10 years due to certain circumstances in our work situation and then it became a part of me.

Life has improved a lot since I have started to operate from faith instead of fear. I think, this would help me stick to my newly adopted lifestyle also and that my diabetes would be cured. (Thomas Vaidyan’s diet of Ragi, Chama And other millets has drastically reduced my blood sugar and he says I can be cured in 2 years if I stick to it. Latest medical research has confirmed that the Pancreas can be reactivated through diet.) There is both inner and outer healing involved.I believe that. There is healing in Christ. All of us desperately need it. Especially healing from the image of a vengeful, unapproachable God who would punish us for every word and deed-however small.

I have also seen people healed and at peace outside the Church and though I feel afraid to affirm this, I cannot disbelieve that the Hindu also speaks of the same Father in Heaven and that people like, Sri Sri Ravishankar etc have some bits of truth that has helped people to live in the present and be relaxed, comfortable with their lives and live usefully and joyfully.

So I think they are  not ‘un assumed’, but are saved. AM I wrong?

I am happy about my being able to operate less fearfully,  but I am happiest to know that our Church cares about insignificant people like me. I had thought that it was a huge monolith- stony and uncaring.

I was also afraid of Bishops because I was told that angering them would invite curses on our family. When my husband broke his leg about 35 years ago, it was said that his father had joined the group against the then Bava about some church property and that is why it happened. Recently one of our parish was hit by a car while he was standing by the roadside and had severe multiple fractures. People say that this happened because he did not get up when our Thirumeni came into our church and also he had raised some questions. (I am not sure what.) So to me this seems little better than a regime of fear.

But our own Bishops died in Road accidents.

Please forgive me for raising this issue, but if people should come closer, this fear must be allayed, should it not?

Did not Jesus imply that curse is not His Way? (Even my brother in law has stopped active participation in church matters because my sister in law said why should we invite curses?- many do this)

Please do not be angry.

Answer

Dear

Yes I admit that fear should not have any room in Christian life. Fear began in the garden of Eden when human felt that he/she is estranged him/herself from God (Gen. 3:10). This is why when ever God or angel or messenger appeared to humans, the first word uttered was ‘fear not’. There are people still under fear and they say ‘you have to fear God’ which is actually anti-Christian. Salvation Christ brought primarily talks about free from fear. So Christ taught us to address God ‘father’. This closeness and relationship takes away fear. I do not think that we have to distinguish between ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ cure. It is the cure of the person. The thought that there is this dichotomy itself is part of the fear. If God created us, we are as humans contains both inner and outer combined. So we can henceforth talk about the person and not compartments of the person. The fruit that Adam and Eve ate affected the person not only the inner person, but also the outer person.

There is a famous saying, ‘it is not a valid question whether Christ is there or not, the valid question is whether you are recognizing Christ’s presence or not’. Christ’s presence can be recognized where ever salvation is experienced. God has no boundary for his activity, we may have. How ever, I should also be warned against phony charismatic individuals who claim they represent joy or God.

To address the other question, I do not believe that any one in this world has been given authority to curse any one. Of course we may not agree with others. If this is seen  positively, that opens room for dialogue. If even after genuine dialogue difference exists, then again to look at it positively, can say we agree to disagree. We can say my idea has nothing in common with yours. So we are not related and I have nothing to do with you. But when I say , my idea is absolutely right and yours is absolutely wrong, that person will be making him/herself a god. I do not think that God is a primary school teacher who keeps track of every small thing to find a reason to punish people. Some meet with bad times because of their own fault on that matter, some because of other people’s fault at that time. Getting up when some one arrives or not getting up are all cultural things and God is not bound by cultural things. Again the same element of fear is working here too. I hope I addressed your note.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

Meditation on John 6: 47 – 59


This was originally posted in ICON

Meditation on John 6:47-59 (Gospel Lesson for 8th Sunday after Pentecost)

There are two things to be considered initially before we enter in to any talk about the passage. First, the text is given by the Church for reading on a Sunday after Pentecost. Second, Jesus was talk­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ing to a crowd which received enough food He gave them from five loaves of bread and two fish (6:1-14). This act is presented by John as a sign and not as a miracle (6:14). Miracle is a one time act of wonder. Sign is an act that points to some thing greater and of universal significance (it should be noted that John does not talk about miracle any where in his Gospel, only about sign).

Taking the second point first for our meditation, we should say that there were two kinds of people before Jesus, those who ate and hence followed Him and two, those Jews who always followed to criticize Him. Jesus addressed both of them effectively. He addressed the first group first (6:26). What Jesus saw in the nature of that group can be considered as that of innocent poor common folks in any country side. They are primarily concerned of their own food, welfare and safety. Many Christian denominations in the past (some even today) increased the number of membership all over the world exploiting this attitude. Of course it is good to provide people with what they need for life in this world. But unless it leads to a greater goal, it could turn out to be an enslaving evil practice. Feeding the poor even if not for conversion is good, but should lead them to help find own food and also simultaneously work for a world where no one has to receive food or any thing else from other people free. But we now live in a world where feeding is either a continuous activity or which is a means to collect funds and to take felicitation of the public in favor of the provider. Christians are always praised in public for their ‘charity’ works which has become an institution in itself. Many a time it is not out of caring love we do this. Mahatma Gandhi said, ‘God has provided enough for every one in this world, but not for the greed of any’. When there is greed every one, but a few, suffers, and when every one suffers these few can in the name of charity keep providing and can keep the majority receivers. We need to be reminded that Jesus did not feed the people to keep them lazy and at the receiving end eternally. Rather He did it out of his caring love and that itself was a one time act (the difference in the number of fish and bread and the people involved in this act. Cf. Matt. 14: 17, 21; 15:14, 18; 16:9 ff. Mk. 6:38 ff.; 8:6-28; Luke 9:13 ff.) may suggest more than one event).

Jesus was a bit annoyed when he found the crowd following him. But he used that situation to further educate them. So he talked about Himself, the bread that came down from heaven. The whole chapter is about food, its limitation and the need to go beyond. The signs that people see around them should lead to the ultimate goal that is Christ Himself. It is here the Jews had problem with Jesus. They were a proud people who claimed their ancestry from Abraham (forgetting, Adam and his fall), and the exodus with the consequent life in the wilderness. Jesus was hitting on the core of their pride when He said that the food they ate in the wilderness was not given by Moses and was not sufficient for their eternal life. Moses was only a mediator. Of course he mediated effectively, but he was not the source.

In market economy one who distributes or the middle person becomes more important than the producer. Price of commodities is not set by the farmer or producer but by who auction them. People say demand decides price, but every one knows that demand can be manipulated and thus market becomes god. Provider is misunderstood as maker. In restaurants no one knows in what physical condition food is prepared in the kitchen or what all chemicals are added to make it tasty. We will be satisfied if it is served by well dressed bearer in good style. This is our world!

Jesus says, leaving aside the felicitators and what is provide by them every one should reach the cause of things and events which is of course God Himself (“As the deer pants for the water brooks,
So pants my soul for You, O God”. Ps. 42:1) lest they perish. It is with God alone human could find true nourishment that leads to eternity. This God is the one who provides us with our physical needs, but much more than that who gives Himself away for true nourishment. So Jesus said, “I am the bread of life”. This was a blow to the pride of Jews.

We who claim to be those converted by St. Thomas from among Brahmins today need to get a blow straight on forehead of our pride. Of course it was St. Thomas who brought Christianity to India. But he was only a messenger. The message was Christ and we can not ever forget that. Even the sense of duty- bound of St. Thomas has not become a model for us. Again the a-historical claim of Brahmin origin has nothing to do with we being Christians. Still we proudly present that claim before others many a time to stratify and degrade them. Today the H. Spirit, just as Jesus at that time, is giving us a blow upon the core of our pride of being descendants of Brahmins. Do we take this blow positive is the crucial question at the moment. What is the size of the gap between our claim and our life as Christians, life with in-fight, rivalry, greed and craze for material gains and processions?

When Jesus said that He was the bread of life, He put that claim in concrete action. What disturbed Jesus was that the Jews understood it in common man’s language only though their claim was that they l knew all the secrets of the scripture. They thought Jesus was advocating cannibalism. On the contrary He was bringing in a profound social philosophy and theology.

The scene changed verse 52 onwards. It has moved to the Synagogue in Capernaum. The Jews took up the old issue that was discussed at the sea shore. It shows how much they were disturbed by what Jesus said about eating His body and drinking His blood. Of course Jesus did not further explain what He said about the food for eternity. But later at the last supper table ‘He took bread, blessed and gave it to His disciples and said, take eat of it, this is my body. Then He took the cup blessed and gave to His disciples and said, drink of it, this is my blood’ (Matt. 26:27-27). Bread and wine make basic food items for the people of the region and are from the fruit of the hard toil of humans without causing pain to anyone. We know that the blessed bread and wine make the body and blood of Christ distributed in our midst and shared among. This was the same style of distribution and sharing in Jn. 6:11 (“He then took the bread and blessed and distributed) among the multitude. This is why Biblical interpreters call the event ‘pre-taste of the Messianic Banquet’ (Matt. 8:11-13. Cf. Ps. 107:2, 3; Isa. 43:5). What happened beyond the Tiberius lake (6:1) was a sign that points to the final sharing of table with the Lord or in the language of the Church fathers ‘becoming  one like God’. This is the noble goal set by God for human.

Bread and wine are the fruit of the toil of humans upon the earth (or in the garden according to the book of Genesis terminology). They are converted to become flesh and blood of Jesus ‘the Son of Man’/ Son of God. Making bread and wine is not the work of a single alienated individual. There is a corporate effort involved in making bread and wine which shall become body and blood of Christ. (in preparing the land, sowing, nursing, watering, reaping, grinding, baking, crushing, fermenting etc.). They are eaten and drank not only by the one who makes them.

Two important points are to be noted. One, it is the outcome of the co-operative work of humans and nature that makes the bread and wine that shall become the body and blood of Christ. Two, reversing the point just made, any bread and wine, the fruit of the hard toil of humans, if blessed by God, is potentially good enough to become the body and blood of Christ (originally bread and wine for H. Qurbana in Syriac tradition used to be brought by believers from their home. I should not go beyond this for possible misunderstanding of my point). No wonder God when created humans, set them on earth to “till the earth and keep it”, so that bread and wine or food materials may be produced out of it which shall become not only nourishment for the body but also for the soul taking it as a sign. So the food we eat is not only to fill our tummy, but also to set our relations right and to enter in to better relationships. This Gospel passage is set to be read by the Church for meditation during post-Pentecostal days. The H. Spirit that came upon us which, ‘shall leads us to all truth’ (John 16: 13) shall help us understand the need to preserve the amity between humans and nature (which was lost during the time of Adam “cursed is the ground for thy sake” – Gen. 3:17) to produce good fruit which shall by the blessing of the creator, become the source of nourishment both of body and soul. So what we make to feed us and what we eat to nourish us becomes true nourishment only if it helps us to go further and beyond to join our Lord at the ‘Messianic Table’. Everything we see here so shall become a sign pointing to the future possibility.

Questions and Answers


Question 1

Kindly let me know whether we can do engagement function on Wednesday, if yes, any restriction in food for all?. The function will be conducted by C.S.I people (bride’s family) and groom from Orthodox.

Thank you Tirumeni.

Answer 1

Dear
Normally we would not have feasts on fasting days and we are encouraged not to have engagement on Wednesdays and Fridays as it involves feast. But in this case since it is done by the CSI people, we can not apply our rule. Only thing is that Orthodox members have to follow their regulation regarding fasting. Nevertheless it will be wise on our part to avoid those two days even if it is done by the CSI family, not to cause difficulty for Orthodox members. I hope the CSI people will understand.
Wish God’s blessing on the couple.
Regards and prayers
Thirumeni

Question 2

Dear Thirumeni,,,

I am a catholic girl from changanacherry Archdiocese and i wish to marry an orthdox boy.I think their arise a lot of issue regarding this.If i get married in the orthdox Church,could i have to receive holy communion from a catholic church or chooses to remain in communion with the Orthdox Church.My friends who are in orthdox community are participating in Holy Catholic Qurbana and they took holy communion from catholic priests and they also participating in holy confection and also in holy adoration too. is their any problem for this. What are the other formalities regarding the marriage?

Answer 2

Dear

Orthodox and Catholic Churches are in the process of coming to an agreement on exchanging band for marriage between members of the two denominations. Until that is completed there is a bit of difficulty. In our culture wife joins the family in every respect with the family of the husband after marriage. That is some thing for the healthy upbringing of the children apart from the issue of husband and wife standing before God together in one place in worship. So it is always advisable for the girl to accept the religious tradition of the boy. If the Catholic priests would be open enough not to cause any trouble to the family of the girl for giving a girl to the Orthodox Church, it will be easy.

The marriage can be solemnized in an Orthodox parish with a letter from the vicar of the parish of the girl stating that she is of such and such age and is unmarried, if he is not allowed to give a band. If that is not given a birth certificate would be enough. If that is also not possible the parents or the girl herself can give an affidavit to this effect in a document paper to the parish of the boy. The girl will become, through the marriage, a member of the parish of the boy and she can enjoy all benefits of a communicant member of Orthodox Church. including receiving H. Communion. Since Catholic Church would not administer communion to Orthodox Church member, they may not administer it to the husband even if they do to the wife who was a Catholic Church member before marriage. In such case it is advisable on the part of the wife not to receive communion from a Catholic Church as that will cause separation between husband and wife.

I hope I answered your question.

Wish you God’s blessing on you and your would be husband.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

Question 3

Your Grace
In our church, there is no dress code for bishops. In catholic, other orthdox churches and even in jacobite, there is a dress code for every bishop. When our bishops gather togethr for a meeting, we felt ashamed having so many colours and it is not a good think to see. Once ome of our bishops used to wear red cassak during the divine liturgy. Now many of them even dont use red cassak even in the holy Qurbana. Can our synod propose a common colour pattern for all bishops? Suppose if our priests too folow this type of dress code. how can we support it.? I prefer Red or atleast rose to all bishops and must be in red for divine liturgy.

regrds
your spiritual son

Answer 3

Dear

The colour of the dress of clergymen in Christian community is a later regulation. Initially there was no particular dress code as testified by the lacerna, or birrus and (civil) dalmatic, associated with the martyrdom or St. Cyprian. The Catholic Church made a definite decision on the matter only in the 13th century and a final stage only by 18th c. However there was a code prepared in the Synod of Braga (Portugal), in AD 572. Until then clergy wore the dress of common people of the region they lived in. The primary purpose of the new regulation was to identify the clergy in public (in a letter of Pope Celestine in 428 to certain bishop of Gaul states that bishops are not to be identified from common public not by what they wear rather by learning, conduct and cleanness of mind -ref. Mansi, “Concilia”, IV, 465). In most Orthodox Churches same was the case. Even today the dress of clerics in Orthodox Churches is not essentially different from that of the of the common man of earlier times (Catholic Encyclopedia – Clerical Costume). The Council of Gangara (340) condemns use of any dress claiming that it has any kind of holiness. Testimonies from the life of St. Patrick gives us the impression that the dress used by clerics including bishops were not a distinctively liturgical, but simply an outer garment commonly worn by the humbler classes.

Generally speaking, today the colour of regular (not liturgical) dress of clergy in all major denominations irrespective of their rank (priest, bishop, catholicos, patriarch etc.) is black. This includes all Orthodox denominations. One of the exceptions is the Pope in Catholic Church who wears white dress. In some main line protestant Churches priests use white and grey colour shirt according to the season. In some monastic communities they use other colours too. In the Syriac tradition the colour has been black. But some time back the patriarch of Antioch of the Syriac Orthodox Church started wearing red colour robe. Bishops in that tradition today normally wear black dress with red boarder and belt (this is more or less that of the Catholic bishops dress). Occasionally they, particularly when they visit India wear red dress. They adopted it from the Catholic traditon particularly the robe with front buttons all the way down to keep it closed and not open (as the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 stipulates. This council forbid the wearing of dress with red or green colour) . In Catholic Church cardinals wear black dress with red boarder. Bishops wear black dress with purple or violet boarder and belt. Occasionally bishops wear amaranth red or purple coloured dress and cardinals wear scarlet or red coloured dress.

Following the practice of the patriarch, bishops and catholicos of Jacobite Church in India also wear red robe (this was made mandatory only recently. Until then they used to wear light coloured robe).

In India the colour of the dress of priests was set to be white because of our weather condition. It will be hard for us to wear black coloured dress all the time particularly in summer. Priests in all the major denominations in India wear white dress. In India in the Orthodox tradition there is a specially prepared dress for priests in white colour which very well suit the weather condition as it is lose and open. The currently used style of regular dress used by priests and bishops with a double plate in front comes from the Anglican tradition. In Syriac Orthodox tradition the style is that of the dress used by altar boys in black colour with black belt (this is used by some of our monastic movements like that of Pathanapuram dayara). Most of the bishops these days use Anglican style dress.

In the Protestant Churches bishops use purple or violet coloured dress. In the Catholic Church in India bishops wear white dress with purple or violet belt and skull cap. In the Orthodox Church few bishops use red colour dress and many use pink or light red. Two bishops habitually wear saffron colour and further a couple of them occasionally wear saffron coloured dress. It is true that there is no common code for bishops’ dress in Malankara Orthodox Church.

If we want to follow strictly the general rule, bishops in Malankara Orthodox Church should be wearing black dress since we are an Orthodox Church and particularly we follow ancient Syriac tradition. However, since our weather condition may not let us do that it can very well be changed. But then the question would be what colour should be used. Each colour has its meaning. For example black colour symbolizes mourning and sorrow. In Catholic Church it means ‘ready to die to the world’. Red colour is royal and bishops are supposed to be holding royal priesthood (there are people who interpret that they wear red to follow the colour of the blood of Christ, which is a later justificative interpretation). In the western traditions red colour for cardinals was adopted for bishops following the pattern of kings and knights.

In finding out a meaning for the colour of the dress of bishops I do not find any reason for us to follow the western pattern. Pink colour in the western culture is the colour of women. To me it will be good if we can use black colour for our dress (there is one bishop in our Church who usually use black colour dress). If that is not possible the best colour for Indian cultural context is saffron. That is the colour of the dress of Indian priests and it represents the colour of earth which is the mother of all that has life and to which we all shall return. I am not saying every one should follow what I do, but there should be a reason to have a particular colour for our dress when it is made mandatory. Otherwise, it only need to be distinct that people can identify (as I said earlier dress code was initially introduced in the Catholic Church in AD 1215). After all Orthodoxy believes in plurality and not uniformity in life and practice and unity in faith.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

Question 4

Dear thirumeni

There have been an increase in conducting muunninmel Qurbana (trimass?) in our churches. I have learned that such practices have no Orthodox base and do not comply with the Orthodox Christian practices. However, I see a lot of our own bishops conducting munninmel, anchinmel (and 101?) Qurbana. Our achen (Rev. Fr. Dr. George Koshy) has a written an article about the wrong practice (in both factions of the church). A few years ago, our Mor Athanasios thirumeni (Muvattupuzha) declined to conduct trimass (in White Plains church) even though the parishioners compelled. I respect him for taking a strong stand and parishioners had to obey him. What is thirumeni’s opinion about muunninmel Qurbana. If you agree with Fr. Dr. George Koshy what can you do to completely stop this practice in our Churches?

Secondly, there have been a tremendous increase in giving titles such as Cheveliar, Captain, Commander (is Major and Major General next?) to laymen in church. I haven’t seen such practice in Orthodox Church yet but it is a common practice in Jacobite faction. I guess it will come to our church pretty soon. Giving similar titles to church (Valiyapally, Cathedral, ??) began in Jacobite faction but shamefully, we have already followed them and is an item for competition! What is the meaning of giving such titles to parishes?

Thank you

Answer 4

Dear

Yes you are right there is no theological or practical validity for the practice of the so called ‘moonninmel Qurbana’. The Catholic Church quite some time back used to do it, but later discontinued. We however, following them, started doing it and continue till today for no valid reason.

I have not seen the article of George Koshy Achen on this matter though Achen told me about it some time back. Now the practice had taken even worse forms to have, as you said, ‘anchinmel’ and ‘noottonninmel’ Qurbanas.

The Holy Episcopal Synod of Malankara Orthodox Church has, two years back, decided to discourage this practice and encourage con-celebration which has been the practice in Syriac tradition. However, since moonninmel is deep rooted in our culture it is not easy to completely ovoid or eliminate the practice all together in a day or two. Nevertheless it is a fact that we need to slowly reduce this unhealthy practice.

In the case of giving titles to individuals, I can not comment on the Jacobite Churches’ practice. It is not currently followed in Orthodox Church. But giving titles to Churches has reached an unwelcome point in our Church. Here again the H. Synod has decided to limit granting titles to Churches and to make the criteria stricter. In any case only through education or conscentization process we can control and eliminate these kind of practices once it is started for some reason.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

Question 5

Respected Thirumeni,

I am extremely grateful to Thirumeni for taking the effort to dispel the doubts of people like me. I am 57. About 10 years ago I had a sort of look-back on my life and a kind of ‘conversion’ -change in my paradigms. Then there was a kind of glow to my life which gradually got dulled in the ‘business’ and busyness of life. Now, I am actively seeking what went wrong and I came across 3 books- Philokalia, Orthodox Psychotherapy and Christotherapy. Christotherapy being less theological helped me grasp Orthodox Psychotherapy.

With a great deal of surprise and shame I became aware of the many many erroneous scripts that I still carry.I realize that I do need so much of inner healing/ correction that I am doubtful of ever improving my condition and become an authentic human with authentic values, which the writer says is God alone..

The author of Orthodox Psychotherapy tells us that we misuse the intellectual, mental and spiritual gifts of  God, and so we have these problems/ inauthenticity or mismatch or fragmentation. The prayer after ‘Our Father’ during the Holy Liturgy ‘to convert’ what is an obstacle to what is useful and helpful makes sense here to me.

The first realization came when I read about ‘logismoi’. I realised that my mind is a battleground. (kurukshetra) I also understood the truth of the statement ‘As a man thinketh, so is he.’ and the value of ‘venda kastatha veen chintayum adiyaarennozhikka.’ I realized that my reality is to a large extent, subjective and hence my judgments cannot be just.I was a foolish and haughty judge.

I understand that the values that I prided myself about may not really be all that good.

The author of ‘ Christotherapy’ says ‘ — every aspect of God’s revelation in Christ, has a healing and enlightening meaning and value for the lives of men and women’.

Again, while referring to the healing events, woman with the issue of blood, woman at the well, blind man etc. the author says Jesus ‘truly does know what is in individual human hearts (we ourselves are often confused and lack self knowledge) and often, gradually, led individuals in desperate need of healing through various stages of enlightenment until full healing occurred.

Though this may seem to be wrong, I now believe that “much of the suffering and disease that I have faced in my life is a direct symptom of misdirected concerns, erroneous assumptions and beliefs and inauthentic thinking and desiring.'”

I would like to see the ‘healing and enlightening meaning’ in the Gospels and I don’t know how to go about it.

Can you help me? I am keeping away from Qurbana in this confused state. But I know well, from experience, that God renews even the most desperate situations and restores the years that the locusts have eaten. Could you suggest some books or prayers? ‘Karunakkadale ‘ is my position exactly My wounds are severe. But God is kind and good and I have everything worldly-except this sense of incompleteness.

Answer 5

Dear

Each person’s experience with God is different. People write about God and God experience out of their understanding of the matter. I do not think that one’s opinion would fully and perfectly apply to another person. Any book we may read will only help us understand how that person see things. It will of course also help us to see things through our perspective in an indirect way. But that will not be exactly like that of the author of the book. Here be reminded that we are talking about God and His ways with humans and the rest of the creation. No one in the world can say thing pertaining to God with absolute authority. So the first thing I would say is to give a bit of margin to what ever you read and hear from others. I would not consider every thing I read as fully applicable to me.

The fathers of the Church has said that ‘un assumed are unsaved’ which means Christ has gone through all stages of human life in this world for those stages to be saved and sanctified. Enlightenment is a strong word which can not be used at liberty. Each one use it to mean different things. Therefore we do not have to be carried away by some suggestion that would tell you will take you to enlightenment. What is, to me, is a Christian way is to try to find own role and path in this world. Looking back is good, but not with desire, contempt or guilt feeling. What we do today thinking wise may be proved to be not so wise an act tomorrow. It can happen the other way also. So also your thoughts and ideas. So what the other person has written yesterday many be proven to be not so wise an opinion tomorrow. This again is because we are talking about God. So look to the outer world with a positive attitude and loving attitude, but do not consider them as gods or absolute.

Living Orthodox way is living as genuine human beings without any pre-conceived notions or with a judgemental approach. The world of course will influence us, but the outside world should not be  allowed to take away the joy of living with God and with one another from us. This is where the relevance of Holy Eucharist comes in to picture. It is not for the perfect ones; rather it is for perfection. Jesus said, “when the spirit of truth comes, it shall lead you to all truth”. This H. Spirit that works through the Holy Eucharist leads us to better understanding of our lives and its role in the world with the rest of the creation and further to be one like God. No one can move along the road to being one like God without frequent participation with Christ through Eucharist since He is “the door”. You are not going to Church to attend the service as some may put it, rather to participate. Participation finds its climax in participating in the body and blood of Christ. No one who attends the service has the right to go away without participating in the body and blood of Christ. That is the sole means of solving any kind of confusion and lack of understanding as it is the Spirit of truth that is present in the Holy Eucharist. As matter of fact a true Christian has no right to keep away from participating in the body and blood of Christ.

So the point I was trying to make are

  1. Let no author or any one else for that matter, how high you may consider him/her to control your life in its eternity.
  2. An Orthodox approach to life is to live a life of love without any complication or confusion.
  3. For any individual who received baptism has to be in participation with Christ for the life forward actualized through participation in the body and blood of Christ.

I am not quite sure whether I addressed you as you wanted to have. But this is where I stand. I would not be carried away by any other person when it comes to my life with Christ, though every one and every thing in the created world would contribute in some way to my life forward. My ultimate goal is ‘to be one like God’. That is not done though following some one else theories, rather by trying to be what that person is as God created.

Regards and prayers

Thirumeni

What is Their Problem?


I thought India became an independent nation in 1947 and a Democratic sovereign Republic in 1950 and that itself from Britain and not from United States. There has always been a tendency on the part of US political leadership to consider other nations as slaves or as subordinates and US playing the ‘world police’ role. This is the most recent example for that attitude towards India. Oh yes another one, when Barack Obama the president who is running for a second term made a comment that ‘India is not investor friendly’. The point he was trying to make was India needs to open its market up more to retail sellers of US. Of course he has to collect election campaign fund from those retail giants like Wall Mart and Target in US by pleasing them. They don’t care whether Indian small retail shop owners business persons may have to commit suicide when they go out of business when people run after colourful packets and promises those multinational giants present before them through high tec advertisements.  In the news item given below, it is said that US is asking India to raise the price of cancer fighting drugs so that the American companies can make more money to cater to their greed which caused the global economic crisis that started in 2008. India is a huge country with so much potential for the corporate to loot as much as they want. This is what the old imperials did with us, now a new methodology is being tried. I would say as one of the Manorama News channel presenter said in Thiruva Ethirva some time back, “let them fix their own domestic affairs before they try the police job in other countries”. Number of jobless in US is in rocket high and they can’t do any thing effective about it. Read the Bible passage  in Matthew 7: 3  which says: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”. The question before us is will we fight for our nation’s sovereignty? The political leadership of our country has proven that they would not. The question is are you for us or for them?

Previous Older Entries