Identity Crisis

I am writing my thesis on national identity of Christians in India vis-a-vis resurgence of Hindu Nationalism. Yesterday, I submitted my first chapter. No, its nothing to brag about, because I am lagging behind everyone else in the class.

Well, the topic here is identity. The word 'identity' is taken from Latin word idem, which refers to sameness. It has two aspects: psychological and sociological. The former answers the question, "who am I?", the latter "Who do people say I am?" Building on these aspects, famous psycho-analyst Erik Erikson, popularized the term - 'identity-crisis.' This term describes the situation where the psychological and sociological aspects are interlocked in one's sense of self (see Oxford Dictionary of Sociology). But why am i scribbling all these here?

I was in Chandigarh till 2001, and everyone who knew me thought I was Punjabi. Then I moved to Kerala, where they thought I was a 'Mallu.' In between I went back to Chandigarh. The church I visited once had several South Indian families. Right after the service was over, some members of a Malayali family came and started talking to me in Malayalam. I enjoyed it for sometime, and finally bursted out with laughter saying in my broken Malayalam, "Malayalam korchu korchu mansilai" (I understand only little of Malayalam). Here in Bangalore, I recently met Sam. He soon became my friend. He confessed that he thought me to be a Naga. When I visited North-east, some others thought I was Asomi. I wonder if I am having identity-crisis.

Well, it may be identity-crisis for Erikson, for me it is 'identity-bliss.' I think it is blessed to know that people consider you just one of them (at least because of looks, as in my case).

कुछ शायरी हो जाये।

रंज से खूगर हुआ इंसां तो मिट जाता है ग़म
मुश्किलें इतनी पडी मुझ पर के आसां हो गयी।

- मिर्ज़ा गालिब

Kingdom of Small People

Every teacher at SAIACS is asked to share his/her testimony during his/her first speech of the academic year 2007-2008. It was Dr. Babu Immanuel's turn on 6th of June. He brought some beautiful insights by incorporating the truths of the Lord's prayer to his own philosophy of life. One of his memorable statements was: "The kingdom of God is kingdom of small people."

Imagine a strong kingdom, and you would certainly think of Alexander, Nepoleon or someone of similar stature. These were people of high calibre and might. After all, strong kingdom is built by mighty king and his powerful subjects. We measure the strength of the kingdom by guaging the threat it possesses for the kingdoms around because of its vast army of brave and capable soldiers; and its riches.

Strange as it may sound, kingdom of God has no place for those who consider themselves strong enough, big enough, mighty enough, famous enough or rich enough to push their way into the kingdom. Conversly, the subjects of the kingdom of God have often been people who were failure, who seemed useless to the society, or who were often called foolish because of their decision to follow Christ.

Interestingly, Jesus called those blessed who were poor in spirit, meek, hungry and thirsty for righteousness, who were mourning and who were persecuted. Were not most of Jesus' disciples from humble background? Did not our Master Himself (the King of this kingdom) had a humble origin? Did he not live a life of a carpenter? Were not the best of his friends called 'sinners'? And did not Paul found all his achievements rubbish compared to the greatness of knowing Christ?

Kingdom of God belongs to those who have experienced the greatness of God and realized their own smallness. It belongs to those who are not here 'to be served but to serve,' as did their King. When this truth penetrates our heart, we will tear down all that would make us proud (of course, except our King). We will realize that kingdom of God is kingdom of small people.

More Americanized than Americans?

Since the academic year at SAIACS was over, we guys decided to pick up on every opportunity to chill out and kill the stress that assignments and dead lines had loaded on us.

We began with some music concerts. Our enthusiasm suffered badly when in the very first concert, we found ourselves out of place. In the bang-bang of rock music, I was wondering whether anyone standing there understood what was going on (singing in tongues?). Many of us still pretended to understand everything and enjoyed it. Perhaps, we wanted show how westernized (and so civilized?) we were. Apart from a person who did some good rap songs on the portions of the Bible (and then only we knew that we were in a gospel concert, not in Metallica live), everything else was so confusing. Rita and Boicy must be wondering, "why in the world we decided to be here?", just as every other friend was.

But the irony was here. There was a group of American ladies standing in a corner. Soberly dressed and wearing smiles on their faces, they were greeting people around them. It was a quite pleasing scene. Did they look more Indian than those Indians around me?

After some days there was another concert. The scene was quite similar, but just that this time there was no westerner around us.

These incidents challenged my 'contextual theory.' Contextualization has been an important issue in Christian mission. However, I wonder whether we are contextualing and asking our people to contextualize with us. Are we, especially the youth-workers, giving the young people gospel that would fit into their life-style, or are we altogether giving them a new life-style? Do the young people really need what we say they need or are we trying to first decide and then tell them that this is what they need?

I do not intend to demand outright rejection of everything that is western. I really admire these Pakistani bands- Strings and Junoon. They appeal to me as models of western-eastern blending. Why can't we have gospel music like that?

When Americans are appreciating Indian values, we are becoming more Americanized than Americans. Perhaps, its a high time to learn some contextual lessons from them.

Vanhoozer, Wolterstorff and Merlin Jones

It was the month of March. I was in a boxing ring. The fight had been arranged by the faculties of SAIACS, Nigel being the main contributor. I, a thin and lanky man, was to fight against two heavyweight champions - Kevin Vanhoozer and Nicholas Wolterstorff. It was like a newcomer having his first match against the team of Tyson and Holifield together.

Wolterstorff looked a bit feeble, so I took up on him first. I was proved wrong. He was the champion of Divine Discourse. His heaviest blows were the noematic content, designative content and the illocutionary stance. I did not back off easily. The first battle resulted in a draw.

Before I enter in the ring for the second time, Nigel had roped in a coach for me, Merlin Jones. He was a thin man too. He asked me to focus upon Vanhoozer first. Vanhoozer had come up with a title - Is There A Meaning In This Text? Jones had expertized over Vanhoozer's moves. He shared me the stories of Vanhoozer's vehement attacks on Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish. I had definitely begun to appreciate Vanhoozer for that. Finally, the day for fight arrived. Vanhoozer was not easy opponent, but with Merlin's shrewd tactics I fought him back. The match was over and I was declared winner.

Now I had to look forward to the next fight, with Wolterstorff. This time, my coach Jones, gave me more freedom to do self-study of Wolterstorff's moves and prepare myself accordingly. Last fight had given me some confidence. I took time to understand the blows that I had received last time. The day to show up came. There were eight eager spectators, who were also boxing champs, seated around the ring. The match began. Blow after blow, the battle was getting violent and bloody. It lasted for a little more than twenty minutes. At the end of the match, I received some complements which worked as medicine to my bleeding nose. Finally, the moment of glory- yes, I was declared winner again. The joy was unspeakable.

So this was the module of March- Theological Hermeneutics. Vanhoozer and Wolterstorff came up with heavy philosophical concepts and vocabulary, and my knees did rattle. Thanks to the coach, Merlin Jones. He did put lot of effort to motivate and prepare me for the battle. And yes, thanks to Nigel for roping him in. I think, my classmates, also the spectators of my matches, would have no great disagreement with what I said.

Thank God!

Thank God some late night struggles have produced some good results- have pumped adrenaline for a new commitment towards studies and let the impregnated emotions to birth at least some good stuff like this one which I got last night at 1 am.

If God were to choose people,
on the basis of their credentials,
perhaps I would be the last one,
wondering which one I should count my own.

If it were about riches,
what would I do?
would all my properties put together,
make me rich enough to be accepted.

If it were strength that should be counted most,
pushed and kicked by many machos,
I would be lagging far behind.

If smartness had any part to play,
I am sure I would have been left behind.

If it was all about good works,
my account was nil.

Yes, only if frailty and rags were important criteria,
I would have scored tones.

Thank God it was all by grace,
and that's how I am saved.

True, isn't it?