A Radical Declaration by Dave Andrews

One of the problems people have with Christians is that we are not only un-Christ-like, but we also use our Christian theology to rationalize our continuing to be un-Christ-like. After all – as the bumper stickers emblazoned on our Volvos boldly proclaim – we’re: ‘Not perfect – Just forgiven!’

This sticks in the throats of many non-Christians who hoped Christians might be better. And they grumble about us as we drive by; especially as we drive by – without picking them up – when they are hitching on the side of the road; and we leave them – standing in the pouring rain – unaided.

Justification As Rationalization?

Mahatma Gandhi was a non-Christian who was not afraid to confront Christians with our misuse of the theology of the cross in rationalizing our continued un-Christ-likeness.

In his famous story about his Experiments With Truth, Gandhi describes an encounter he had with an evangelical Christian. ‘Mr Coates was a staunch young man’, he says. And ‘he introduced me to several friends whom he regarded as staunch Christians. One of these introductions was to a family that belonged to the Plymouth Brethren.’

‘During my contact with this family’, Gandhi says, ‘the Plymouth Brethren confronted me with an argument for which I was not prepared:”You cannot understand the beauty of our religion. You must be brooding over your transgressions every moment of your life, always mending them and atoning for them. How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you re-demption? You can never have peace.  Now look at the perfection of our belief. You admit we are all sinners. Our attempts at improvement are futile. Yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is his word that those who believe in him shall have everlasting life. As we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bin. Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless. Therefore Jesus atoned for all the sins of (hu)mankind. Only he who accepts his great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restlessness is yours – what a promise of peace we have”.’

Many Christians would have thought this was a pretty convincing presentation of the gospel, but the non-Christian Gandhi says that ‘the argument failed to convince me.’

And the reason that this presentation of the gospel failed to convince Gandhiji is worth considering. Gandhi says, ‘I humbly replied: “If this be Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. (For) I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself – (even) the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that, I shall be content to be restless”.’[i]

Gandhi did not question the theology of the cross that he was presented with because he wanted to ‘continue in unrighteousness’. Quite the contrary. Gandhi said that he desired to be righteous with all his heart – ‘to be redeemed from sin ‘ – not merely ‘the consequences of sin’. He questioned the theology of the cross he was presented with because he felt that it was being used as a rationalization for continuing in sin. ‘Sin we must.’ It went. ‘It is impossible to live in this world sinless’. Only Jesus ‘is sinless’.

Now I think that it is quite interesting to note that a number of the Apostles had similar concerns about this process of theological rationalization as the Mahatma himself had. Paul asked the question: ‘Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?’ And his own resolute answer to the question comes down to us through the centuries, as clearly as ever, crying – ‘Never! Your body should be an instrument of righteousness.’ [ii]

John writes, ‘If we confess our sins, he will forgive our sins, and the blood of Jesus will cleanse us’ – not only from the consequences of unrighteousness, but also from, what he calls, ‘all unrighteousness’, itself. [iii]

In the letter written to the Hebrews this issue – of cleansing ‘from all unrighteousness’ – is discussed in detail. It is clear that Messianic Jews were aware of the limitations of their traditional ‘sacrifices’ to effect real change. ‘The blood of goats sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean’, they said, only ‘makes them outwardly (not inwardly) clean.’[iv] But, they said, when the ‘Lamb of God’ came along, and gave himself as a ‘sacrifice’ on their behalf, they thought this would change everything for them forever – inside and out. ‘How much more’ (than the blood of goats) ‘will the blood of Christ cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death – to serve the living God!’ [v]

They went on to say, quite categorically, ‘if we keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, only judgment. How severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, and treated like dirt the blood of the covenant that had once made them holy?’[vi]

Now this is not a view that is espoused in most of the Christian circles in which I move. It is considered to be ‘too heavy’, ‘too harsh’, ‘too judgmental’ and ‘too ungracious’ to be Christian. But, believe it or not, it is exactly the same view that Christ himself expressed.

No Salvation Without Grace.

Many Christians believe that, because salvation is unmerited, it is also unconditional. They argue that, because we cannot say or do anything to earn our salvation, then nothing that we can say or do can put our salvation in jeopardy. Which, I must admit

is quite a comforting thing to believe. I’d like to believe it myself. But, unfortunately, like many comforting beliefs, it is completely false. In the corpus of Christ’s teaching on salvation he says again and again that salvation is unmerited, but it is not unconditional. We may not be able say or do anything to earn our salvation, but we can say or do things that can put our salvation – and the salvation of others – in jeopardy. In fact, any- thing we say or do that puts the salvation of others at risk puts our own salvation at risk!

Jesus taught his disciples to pray for ‘God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven’. Whenever they failed to do this, he taught them ask for forgiveness. That forgiveness was of course unmerited. Because, all forgiveness, by definition, is always unmerited. But the forgiveness, he taught them to ask for, was conditional, not unconditional. He taught them to say, ‘Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who have sinned against us’. And he lets his disciple know he means what he says. He tells them, ‘For if you forgive people when they sin against you, your Heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will not forgive your sins’.[vii]

The point is obvious. And Christ repeats it in order to drive the point home. Grace can never, ever, be earned. But it is given to us on the condition that we give it to others.

When the disciples asked how often they were required to forgive someone, Jesus said, ‘If your brother or sister sins, rebuke them, and if they repent, forgive them. If they sin against you seven times a day and seven times come back to you and say, “I repent,” forgive them.[viii]‘ And, on another occasion he said to the disciples, ‘Actually, make that – not seven times – but seventy times seven!’[ix]

The point is obvious. Because we have experienced grace we should extend grace. In this case – by extending forgiveness to others. And if others are to experience grace, they are to extend grace. In this case – by extending an apology to us. So it goes on – seventy times seven – or ad infinitum – until the whole world is full of the grace of God.

Jesus stressed the importance of this process to his disciples by telling them a parable.

He said the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth is like a King who decided to settle accounts with his servants: ‘A King wanted to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the process of settlement, a man who owed him millions of dollars was brought before him. When it was plain that he had no means of repaying the debt his master gave orders for the servant to be sold as a slave, along with his wife and his children, in order to repay at least some of his debt. At this the servant fell on his knees before his master. “Please be patient with me,” he cried, “and I will pay you back every cent”. Then the master, took pity on him, canceled his debt and set him free. But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a few dollars. He grabbed him, seized him by the throat, saying, “Pay me what you owe me.” At this his fellow servant fell at his feet and implored him, “Please be patient with me,” he cried, “and I will pay you back every cent”. But he refused, and had his fellow servant put into prison until he repaid the debt. When the other fellow servants saw what had happened, they were horrified. And went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. “You wicked servant!” he said. “Didn’t I cancel your debt when you begged me to? Shouldn’t you have taken pity on your fellow servant as I, your master, took pity on you?” In anger the master handed him over to the jailers until he repaid his debt.’ [x]

When he had finished the story, Jesus turned to his disciples and pointedly said, ‘This is how your Heavenly Father will treat you, unless you forgive your brother or your sister from your heart.’[xi]

Note the same man who said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,’ is saying, ‘unless you forgive your brother or your sister from your heart, your Heavenly Father will not forgive you’. He is saying that, forgiveness is offered freely to all. But it can only be ours if we give it to others in the same way that it has been given to us.

Just to be sure we’ve got the message correctly, let’s just stay with the story a while, and unpack the narrative, piece by piece, as a parable of the process of salvation.

Was the servant who owed his master an unpayable debt doomed when it came to settling his account with the master? Yes. When the master decided to cancel his debt, was he saved? Yes. Was this salvation unmerited? Yes. Was this salvation uncond-itional? No. So what was the unwritten – but understood – condition of that salvation? That the servant would extend the same grace extended to him to his fellow servants.

The moral of the story is – salvation is about unmerited – but not unconditional – grace. It’s about the cycle of alternately receiving and sharing God’s grace ‘from your heart’.

No Grace Without Sacrifice.

If we understand anything at all about grace we will not want to say or do anything that puts the salvation of others at risk, but we may be willing to put our own salvation at risk in order to save others. After all, the gospel is all about participating ‘wholeheartedly’ in the experience of extending God’s amazing, but very risky grace, to the ‘whole’ world.

The protagonists of salvation in both testaments in the bible show they understood this very well. For example – take Moses – the ‘greatest prophet’ in the Old Testament; and – Paul – the ‘greatest apostle’ in the New Testament. Both Moses and Paul at times were actually prepared to put their own salvation at risk in order to try to save other people.

Moses came down from Mount Sinai, having received the Ten Commandments, only to find the people in open revolt, dancing round the idol of a Golden Calf that they had made to symbolize their rebellion against God. God was furious and threatened the people with punishment. Moses knew that God was furious. After all, he was furious with the people himself. But to save the people from destruction, Moses offered to try to intervene with God on their behalf. ‘So Moses went to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed. They have made themselves gods of gold. But I beg you, please forgive them – if not, blot my name out of the book (of life) that you have written”.’ God told Moses there was no way that he would punish the innocent on behalf of the guilty. But Moses was prepared to sacrifice his salvation to save others. [xii]

Paul, as a Jew, was struggling with the implications of his people’s rejection of Jesus as their Christ. ‘Theirs are the patriarchs, theirs the covenants, theirs the promises’, and ‘theirs the human ancestry of Christ’. But Christ, he laments, is not theirs. Because they cut him down, and in the process they cut themselves off from him. ‘I speak the truth in Christ’, he says, ‘I am not lying’ when I say, ‘I have great sorrow – unceasing anguish – in my heart’ about the plight of the people of Israel. He says, ‘For I could wish that I myself were cursed – cut off from Christ myself – for the sake of my brothers and sisters, those of my own race, the people of Israel,’ – if it meant that they might be blessed. It seems Paul valued salvation so much that he couldn’t stand by, holding on to his salvation, while the people he loved, lost it. He said he was ‘not lying’ when he said that he was more than willing to sacrifice his salvation to save others.[xiii]

In their willingness to sacrifice their safety and their security – even their salvation – in order to save others, Moses and Paul both point to the perfect sacrificial attitude that Jesus Christ displayed on the cross. ‘Those who passed by ridiculed him, shaking their heads, hurling insults at him. “You saved others; but can you save yourself?” they cried. “Let the Christ, come down from the cross, that we may see and believe!” But he did not come down from the cross. And as a result many people lost faith in him. But whether they believed him, or not, Christ was willing to endure the cross. Not because he could not save himself; but because he would not save himself. He was more concerned about saving the people ridiculing him, than he was about saving himself. He did not come ‘to be served, but to serve’, and to sacrifice his life ‘as a ransom for many.’[xiv]

When Jesus was asked about his willingness to sacrifice his life for others, he simply replied, ‘I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming he runs away, abandoning the sheep. Then the wolf attacks the flock. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the Good Shepherd. I know my sheep, and my sheep know me. I lay down my life for my sheep. I lay it down of my own accord. For I am come that they might have life and have it to the full’.[xv] And for Jesus, it seems, the matter of sacrifice was as straightforward as that.

The New Covenant. 

At the Last Supper, the final meal Jesus had with his disciples before his execution, Jesus told the disciples about his understanding of the meaning of his crucifixion. He took the bread, broke it into pieces, and said, ‘Take and eat. This is my body.’ And he took the wine, poured it out for them, and said, ‘Drink it, all of you. This my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’[xvi]

A covenant is a special relationship people commit themselves to. The old covenant was a special relationship that God entered into with the people of Israel.[xvii] It was a reciprocal agreement based on God’s commitment to care for the people, and the people’s commitment to cooperate with God. The terms of the agreement were outlined in the law.[xviii] If the people broke the law there was a provision for reconciliation based on the offering of a blood sacrifice with a penitent heart. The sacrifice was not required to appease the anger of God, but to remind the sinner of the awfulness of their sin in breaking their agreement. However these sacrifices proved to have real limitations in effecting real changes in people’s hearts. ‘The blood of goats sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean’, made people outwardly, but not inwardly ‘clean.’[xix]

The new covenant was different from the old covenant in two important respects – one, it was recognized as being a relationship that was based on love rather than on law; and two, it was a relationship that was restored, not by any sacrifice we might make to God, but by the sacrifice that God, in Christ, made for us. And, of course, the hope was that the new covenant, written on our hearts, in ‘the blood of Christ’, would ‘cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death – to serve the living God!’ [xx]

For Paul the new covenant was the good news, and he encouraged us to celebrate the good news of the new covenant regularly at the Lord’s Supper. ‘Do this,’ the Lord says, ‘whenever you eat of this bread, and drink of this cup’ in ‘remembrance of me.’ [xxi]

Now, one of the crucial questions that face us, is – what does this mean for us? What does it mean for us to ‘do this’ in ‘remembrance of’ Jesus today?

Carlos Christos, a Catholic from a middle class family in Brazil – who got involved as a lay brother working with the poor, and was put into prison for four years for his efforts – spent a period of time in prison trying to answer this question. In a letter from prison to his parents he wrote: ‘Last year I meditated a great deal on the mystery of the Eucharist. Jesus instituted it in his last meal with his apostles, when he told them of the sufferings he would have to endure for their redemption. He took into his hands those most ordinary of foods, bread and wine, and he consecrated them. “This is my body which will be broken for you. This is my blood which will be shed for you. Do this in memory of me.” What is the meaning of these words we repeat every mass? Do we simply mean that the consecration of the Mass is performed in memory of Jesus’ sacrifice? No, they do not mean simply that. It is true that the Mass makes his sacrifice present here and now. But it also summons us to repeat Jesus’ redemptive acts so we might be truly imitators of him. When the priest repeats the words in the Mass, “Do this in memory of me,” I interpret it as Jesus saying to us: “I have loved you completely, so much that I willingly died for you. I’ve given all that I am to free you. Having nothing left but my life, I didn’t grudge you that either. I gave it up to show you that the limits of love are to love without limits. I have given you my body and my blood. I have made this gesture a sacrament so that at any time or place in human history you may receive it and re-enact it in your own life. When I said, ‘Do this in memory of me,’ I did not mean you should merely commemorate what I had done. I meant you should do likewise, that you should offer your body and blood for the redemption of humanity. Just as at the Mass you receive my body and blood, so in your lives you should offer up your own, so that my acts may always be present in the world through you.” Unfortunately, many Christians do not realize that Mass is something to be lived rather than attended, and that it is to be lived to the extent that we are willing to sacrifice ourselves for the liberation of human beings, and so become God’s sacrament in the world.’[xxii]

Now, this view that Carlos Christos advocates so eloquently in his letter – that we are called not only ‘to receive’ the sacrifice of Christ, but also ‘to re-enact’ the sacrifice of Christ, by ‘repeating Jesus’ redemptive acts in our own life’ – has been the subject of great debate among Christians for centuries. And we cannot proceed further in our deliberations without considering arguments on both sides of this bitter-sweet dispute.

The Bitter-Sweet Dispute.

Martin Luther argued that, because our relationship was restored by the sacrifice that God made for us in Christ, we do not need to make any sacrifice. This doctrine, known as the doctrine of the ‘Sweet Christ’, asserts that Christ’s final cry on the cross that ‘it is finished’ implies all the suffering required for salvation has already been accomplished. [xxiii] Christ has done everything for us. There’s nothing left for us to do. No more suffering is necessary. Anyone who ‘mixes up’ the necessity of Christ’s suffering with the notion of Christians’ suffering is attempting to attain their salvation through ‘works’ rather than ‘grace’.[xxiv] And, in so doing, is in danger of losing the sweet savor of Christ.

Thomas Muntzer argued that, because our relationship was restored by the sacrifice that God made for us in Christ, and we are called to be like Christ, we need to make sacrifices like Christ in order to restore others to a healthy relationship with God. This doctrine, known as the doctrine of the ‘Bitter Christ’, asserts that Christ ‘completed’ his suffering on the cross, but, as Paul says, we have to ‘complete the sufferings of Christ’ ourselves.[xxv] Christ may have done everything that was needed to do to save us. There may be nothing more that any of us need to do to save ourselves. But we still need to be prepared to suffer, to save others, like Christ did. It is not about anyone attempting to attain their salvation through ‘works’; but it is about those of us who have already been saved by ‘grace’ sharing ‘the grace of Christ’ with others.[xxvi] No doubt, suffering was a bitter experience for Christ, and suffering will be a bitter experience for us, but we are called to be like Christ, and we cannot be like Christ without suffering like Christ.

Needless to say many Christians through the centuries have opted for faith in a Sweet Christ, rather than face the obligation of following in the footsteps of the Bitter Christ.

Five hundred years ago Conrad Grebel wrote to Thomas Muntzer saying, ‘ today every (one) wants to be saved by a superficial faith – without love – without trial.’[xxvii] And, five hundred years later, it is still pretty much the same. Today we are surrounded on every side by what Dorothee Soelle calls ‘Bourgeois Christianity’ – ‘suffering-free Christianity’. Which, she says, is not totally without suffering; but ‘leaves the suffering to others’. [xxviii]

Jakob Kautz wrote to the Christians of his day who, in his view, had subscribed to faith ‘without love’ and ‘without trial’, reminding them that, ‘Jesus Christ did not suffer for us in any other way than this: that we should walk in his footsteps in the way that he blazed for us.’[xxix] While in our day, people like Simone Weil remind us that Christianity without suffering is an illusion. After all, she says, ‘even the risen Christ still ha(s) his scars.’[xxx]

But nobody in the twentieth century enjoined the debate, about which way Christians ought to go, more vigorously than the famous German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer insisted that the debate was not an argument about ‘works’ versus ‘grace’, but about two mutually exclusive views of ‘grace’. Bonhoeffer characterized the option presented by the Sweet Christ as ‘cheap grace’, and the option presented by the Bitter Christ as ‘costly grace’. He said that ‘cheap grace’ is ‘grace without a price’; a ‘doctrine

about the Love of God without the incarnation of the Word of God’. He said that ‘cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate’. And he said that ‘cheap grace’ was the ruin of Christianity. So Bon- hoeffer said he was going to fight for ‘costly grace’, that not only preached the grace of Christ, but also practiced the grace of Christ, even if it was going to cost him his life.[xxxi] 

The New Commandment.

When we reflect on these views in the light of scripture it is clear that the point Carlos Christos makes is correct. We are called not only ‘to receive’ the sacrifice of Christ, but also ‘to re-enact’ the sacrifice of Christ, by ‘repeating his redemptive acts in our own life’.

Jesus instituted his new covenant with a new commandment. The old commandment had been: that you ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’.[xxxii] But Jesus said, ‘A new commandment I give to you: that you love one another as I have loved you!’[xxxiii] Now the big difference that there is between the old commandment and the new commandment is simply the way in which we are called to love one another. In the old covenant we are expected to ‘love our neighbour as we have loved ourselves’. But in the new covenant we are expected to ‘love our neighbour as Christ has loved us’. It is loving one another, ‘as Christ has loved us’, that is the quintessential characteristic of the new covenant that Christ inaugurated on the cross.

Note that the new commandment is about loving, not about suffering. We are called to love, not to suffer. But, if suffering is necessary to do justice in the face of injustice, then so be it; the call to love, in that case, is a call for us to suffer for others in the same way as Christ suffered for us. ‘Christ suffered for you’, Peter wrote, ‘leaving you an example – that you might follow in his footsteps!’[xxxiv] The telling word in that sentence is the word Peter used in his letter for example. It is hupogrammos. Which designates the perfect line of writing at the top of an exercise book, that anyone who wants to learn to write, needs to learn to copy, as closely as they can. So Peter is saying that ‘we need to copy

Christ as closely as we can when it comes to developing our capacity to suffer for the sake of love’.[xxxv] And Muntzer and Bonhoeffer and Soelle and Weil would sign off on that.

In his Epistle to the Philippians Paul unpacks the implications of Christ’s example for us: ‘Each of you should not look to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. You should have exactly the same attitude as Christ Jesus had: “For he who had always been God by nature, did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s equal, But he stripped himself of all privilege, emptied himself, and made himself nothing, in order to be born by nature as a mortal. And, having become a human being he humbled himself, living the life of a slave, a life of utter obedience, even unto death. And the death he died, on the cross, was the death of a common criminal”.’[xxxvi]

This is an extraordinary exhortation to a degree of self-forgetful sacrificial love that staggers the imagination of most ordinary mortals. And yet Paul seems to expect that people, like you and me, can incarnate exactly the same attitude as Christ Jesus had.

He expects us to empty ourselves of our own preoccupations and make more time and space for others. He expects us empathize with others and join them in their struggle to love and be loved. And he expects us empower others and support them in their quest to live their lives to the full – even if it kills us.

The Spirit Of Christ.

TEAR Australia is sensitive to criticism that sincere non-Christians, like Gandhi, have made about Christians preaching grace, but not practicing it. Like Bonhoeffer, we feel called to practice grace, not ‘cheap grace’, but ‘costly grace’, personally and politically. We have no illusions about the disdain with which many ‘sweet’ Christians, whom we know, treat the ‘bitter’ call to practice what we preach. But nevertheless, we, in TEAR Australia, still seek to encourage Aussie Christians to develop a life of sacrificial love, so as to reflect the love of Christ more faithfully in the context of our suffering world.

We constantly articulate the necessity for Aussie Christians to ‘put love into action’. In fact, for many years, TEAR Australia’s by-line in its publications was ‘love in action’. On the cover of Target Number One for the Year Two Thousand the line was still the same. ‘And what does the Lord require of you?’ it asks. ‘To act justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God!’ it cries aloud to its readers in bold black and white type.[xxxvii]

We constantly cultivate the priority of Aussie Christians ‘putting love into action’ by get-ting people to reflect on their response to global suffering in the light of the gospel itself.

Every Target magazine has a Bible Study, and every Bible Study gets people to read passages that remind us that: ‘God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God lives in them. Whoever loves, knows God. Whoever does not love, does not know God. For God is love. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us. This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for one another. If anyone is well to do and sees someone in want and shuts their eyes – and their heart – how can anyone believe the love of God lives in them? Let us love, not merely in theory, as policy, but in sincerity and in reality – in truth’.[xxxviii]

We constantly illustrate the possibility of Aussie Christians ‘putting love into action’, by telling stories about how other Christians from other countries around the world are ‘putting love into action’. One of our favourite stories is about Dagoretti Corner Baptist Church. It has been featured in Target a couple of times recently. The first time in 1997, and the second time in 1999. For us, Dagoretti Corner Baptist Church has been a great example of how a church can be ‘compelling proof of the love of God’ in a community.

‘Confronted by the poverty of opportunity in the shambas (small holdings) and small towns of rural Kenya some have been lured by the false promise of the big city. Others, despairing of the bloody conflict in southern Sudan ever ending, have sought sanctuary in the comparative peace of this Nairobi slum. Comparative, because sud­den eruptions of violence, a sad consequence of stress, and illicit alcohol, are all too frequent in the narrow alleyways and muddy compounds of this cor­rugated iron comrnunity of squatters. Whatever their reason for being there, most of those who live in Dagoretti Corner do all within their power to raise their kids safely, and work for a better future. But it is tough, very tough.

For the low-skilled and poorly-qualified paid work is very difficult to acquire legitimate full-time employ­ment, almost impossible. As a result most earn less than $US I a day, which leaves them well below the official poverty line. Some adults, mostly male, whether driven by despair or less constrained by strong principles, flee the responsibilities they feel unable to carry, and aban­don both children and partner. Despite the epidemic levels of HIV/AIDS, some women resort to prostitu­tion as one of the few ways available to earn what they need to provide for themselves and their children. Others join the ranks of those who brew changaa, a potent and illegal maize-based liquor which sells well because of the temporary relief from pain it offers to its consumers

Just over twelve years ago the Rev. William Eyika, began with his wife Grace the work of planting a church in this apparently God-for­saken corner of Nairobi. But like many others involved in similar programs in equally impoverished communi­ties, their very presence indicates the depth of God’s concern for the poor. Dagoretti Corner Baptist Church is compelling proof of the love of God.

In 1988 the church formed the Dagoretti Corner Self-Help Group (SHG), and under the supervision of this group a wide range of developmental and relief responses are being made to the needs of this very poor community. The coordinators of these programs are all people from the local community, many of whom have come to faith, and found new hope and direction through the church’s ministries.

School fees and associated costs (uniforms. books etc) place primary schooling beyond the reach of most families in the Dagoretti Corner community, and those who miss out on formal education are almost inevitably condemned to a life of poverty. It’s a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle. The SHG Primary School, housed in the church building, is an effective means of breaking this cycle. With only 15 staff and very limited resources and more than 660 kids crowded into flimsily-partitioned classrooms, conditions are far from ideal. But there is no doubting the dedication of the teachers. And the outcomes are very significant. Last year all 25 students who sat the end-of-primary-school exams passed, and were able to gain entry into either high schools or vocational training institutions.

The realization that such an achievement opens up the real possibility of a different and more prosperous future is clearly expressed in this letter written to the Headmaster by Caroline Mutola, 6 months after she graduated from the school.

“I joined Dagoretti Corner Primary School in 1995 in Standard 6. Although life was good in Standard 6 I faced several problems, especially in some subjects which I could not understand easily. I worked very hard, after some time I began to understand the sub­ject matter. I even started writing and read­ing well, as the teachers were strict but friendly. The school provided textbooks, and past papers for revision in Standard 8. There were also storybooks, maps, blackboards etc which made the education enjoyable. There were also sports and games, which I loved very much. I plan to be a nurse in future, when I fin­ish my education, and become self-employed in my clinic, get married and have beautiful children.”

Another important development com­ponent of the SHG’s program is in vocational training projects. Over the last 12 years nearly a 1000 students have com­pleted courses in motor mechanics, car­pentry or tailoring. Most of these students have moved to other parts of the city or country, and so it is impossible to obtain a comprehensive picture of how effective these courses are in helping the graduates obtain long-term employment.

However; an evaluation done of the 1988-98 period of those former students who could be located was most encouraging. 133 graduates were surveyed. Their average annual income before training was less than $26 a year, compared to $222 since graduation. Beatrice Atieno is a young single grad­uate of the 1996 tailoring class. Since graduating, she has gained employment in the Kawangare market where her sewing earns her $56 per month. Susan Wamitha has now established her own sewing business and is earning $130 per month, which helps her provide for 3 other dependents.

These programs, together with a health care project and a women’s self-help micro-enterprise project, are a remarkably comprehensive response to the very great needs of the people who live in the Dagoretti Corner slum. Moreover, a childhood and early child-hood intervention project is extending the compassionate work of Dagoretti Corner Baptist Church into several neigh­boring slum communities.

When the members and staff of Dagoretti Comer Baptist Church talk to their neighbours about the gospel, the good news of God’s love for the poor, their actions show that they know what they are talking about. There is an on-going invasion of grace in the neighbourhood, and many women and men can yes­tify to the power of God’s love to change their lives’.[xxxix]

We constantly demonstrate the practicality of Aussie Christians ‘putting love into action’, by showing how Christians are ‘putting love into action’ in our own backyard in the same way that Christians are ‘putting love into action’ overseas. Donna Mulhearn, was a TEAR rep. at Maitland Baptist Church, who returned home after visiting our TEAR partners at Dagoretti Corner Baptist Church, wondering how Christians could do the same kind of community work, in Australia, as she saw in Africa. So Donna came to do a course we call, ‘With Christ in the Community’, that we run in Brisbane twice a year. Lyn and Steve Hatfield-Dodds, describe what the course was like:

‘The course ran for an intensive two and a half weeks, and included studies on Christ’s life, input from a wide range of people, and practical experience being in the neighbourhood. The daily program started around 6.30 am with prayer – experimenting with new ways of encountering Christ, and getting a feel for what it might be like to work with him in the local community. After breakfast we joined in studies drawn from the gospels, focusing on Christ, and what it means for us to become more Christ-like.

In the latter part of the morning (people) shared of their life in the local community – involved in peace networks, community arts, housing assistance, legal aid, refugee resettlement, and offering hospitality and shelter to those without a place to stay.

The afternoons were unstructured times, to allow us to get to know the neigh-bourhood, and its people. In the evenings we had dinner with different members of the network. Most days finished with a much-needed briefing session. We also managed to squeeze in time to deliver meals on wheels, go on outings (with people who were intellectually disabled), and help out at an evening meal for over a hundred homeless men.

The nine of us on the course lived in a group house for the first week, moving out to stay in boarding houses or hostels we found for ourselves in the second week. For many of us this was a difficult and sometimes frightening experience, living in the midst of depressed and often violent lives, and it was good to come back together for the last few days to the security of group living.

Highlights of the course for us (included) being involved in a Murri service in a maximum security prison; hearing people’s stories; developing friendships; (and) meeting people who not only talk about being Christ-like or compassionate, but who are trying to put these things into practice. ‘[xl]

My wife, Ange, says the call of Christ is clear. He calls us to practice ‘a life of sacrifice’. We may not hear the call. We may not want to hear the call. But the call, she insists, remains the same today as it always was: ‘If anyone would come after me,’ Christ says, ‘let them deny themselves, take up their cross, daily, and follow me. Whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life, for me, will save it.’[xli]

There’s probably no better way for me to conclude this series of meditations than to leave you with an excerpt from Ange’s well-known poem, “Who Of You Will Join Me?’

‘There is precious little acceptance in our society

of the changes in our bodies

brought about by sacrifice,

 by the giving of life to others.

People want us to look

unscathed, unscarred;

without the sagging in our breasts;

 the stretchmarks on our stomach;

  the lines of strain and struggle.

 Where is the place for the beauty,

 derived from love,

 and developed through sacrifice?

 Where are the people who will celebrate

the signs of someone who has given themselves to others

through touch in tears with love unnumbered times?

Who of you will join me

in forsaking the images we idolize in our society?

Who of you will join me

in turning away from the mirror towards the door

that leads to the needs of others?

Who of you will join me

 in the risk of being worn out

of being wrinkled,

of being thrown away?

We are not fools

who give what we cannot keep,

to gain what we cannot lose!’[xlii]

‘The Way Of Christ’ A Song by Dave Andrews

Excerpt from ‘Crux’ by Dave Andrews

http://www.daveandrews.com.au/crux.html

[i] M.Gandhi An Autobiography The Navjivan Press Ahmedabad 1927 p90-92

[ii] Rom.6:15,13

[iii] 1John1:7,9

[iv] Heb.9:13

[v] Heb.9:14

[vi] Heb.10:26-29

[vii] Math.6:10,12,14-15

[viii] Luke17:3-4

[ix] Math.18:21-22

[x] Math.18:23-34

[xi] Math.18:35

[xii] Exod.32:31-32

[xiii] Rom.9:1-5

[xiv] Math.20:25,28

[xv] John10:14,11-13,15,10

[xvi] Math.26:26-28

[xvii] Exod.24:1-8

[xviii] Exod.24:7

[xix] Heb.9:13

[xx] Heb.9:14

[xxi] 1 Cor.11:23-27

[xxii] C.Christos Letters From A Prisoner Of Conscience. Lutterworth Press London 1978 p15-16

[xxiii] John19:30

[xxiv] M.Luther Luthers Werke in Auswahl, De Gruyter Berlin 1950 Vol.7 p102-103

[xxv] Col.1:24

[xxvi] Eph.2:1-10

[xxvii] T.Lorenzen ‘Acting In Hope’. Hearing The Cry- Acting In Hope. Melbourne 2000 p3

[xxviii] D.Soelle ibid p130

[xxix] T.Lorenzen ibid p3

[xxx] D.Soelle ibid p155

[xxxi] D.Bonhoeffer The Cost Of Discipleship MacMillan New York 1963 pp45-47

[xxxii] Lev.19:18

[xxxiii] John13:34

[xxxiv] 1Pet.2:21

[xxxv] W.Barclay ibid p95

[xxxvi] Phil.2:1-8

[xxxvii] Target No.1 2000 Cover

[xxxviii] 1John 4:18,7-10; 3:16-18

[xxxix] ‘God-forsaken?’ Target No.4 1999 p12-16

[xl] L.&S. Dodds ‘Redeeming our Passion – Renewing Our Dream’. Target No.2 1992 p22-23

[xli] John 15:12-15

[xlii] A.Andrews in D. Andrews Building A Better World Albatross Sutherland 1996 p203-204