What is Freedom?

India celebrated its Independence this week. 67 years ago, India got her freedom from the British Empire to be an independent Sovereign Republican State. From the national parade in the Red Fort to the Prime Minister’s speech, most of us in the most populous nation would have remembered something about what exactly the term ‘Freedom’ means. Just like the millions of gods in our nation, there are millions of definitions of ‘Freedom’ among our people. I read some articles in Internet as in how our nation thinks of ‘Freedom’. I found an interesting article in ‘The Times of India’ where some youngsters defined what Freedom is by holding a placard in their hands like in the picturehere. Here are some of them in their words. 

“#Freedom is:

Wearing what I want and not being called a slut.

Being able to choose my own sexual preferences.

Equal rights for LGBT

Not being looked up to as the ‘Breadwinner’ of the Family

Choosing to not to have kids”

These are just some of the many definitions which can be found among our people. Some of which are thought provoking. But there is still one question it begs: How can all of them have a totally different meaning of freedom? Say let us take the reasoning of a pro LGBT person. For him, Freedom is ‘not to be told that homosexuality is wrong’. There are two problems with these kind of reasoning. First, if telling a person that he is wrong is slavery, then ISIS militants and Nazi Germans would also say that they are denied of freedom to kill the minorities and Jews, since most of the world are criticising for their actions. Second, he is not practicing what he preaches. If a homosexual wants no one to tell that his lifestyle is wrong, then he has no right to say that people who are opposing his lifestyle is wrong. Conservatives can also cry like him saying: “Freedom is not being labelled as bigot by a homosexual”

This is the problem of our Post-Modern society. Our society is crumbling in front of our eyes without our notice. Each one has a meaning of freedom. Freedom for one can be a slavery to another. Nazi’s definition of freedom would have been slavery for the Jews. This brings us the necessity to have objective morality. Now you would ask me a question. So what about the objective moral laws like the Sharia law of Islam or Communist manifesto? Yes. They are objective but they were framed by evil sinful men. So though they are objective, they are far from Justice. So the laws should be given by a Just and a Righteous person. Who is the righteous person in this universe?

1.      Only God is good:

"The Rock, his (God) work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. (Deu 32:4)

Only God is Holy and blameless. There is no one in this universe who is blameless, who is just. Bible says, "None is righteous, no, not one; (Rom 3:10)”. So whether it is the homosexual liberal agnostic or a conservative Muslim or a moralistic Hindu, all human beings are sinners by default.

2. Only good God can define what freedom is and what is good for us:

"And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good?

(Deu 10:12-13)

God created this universe. God created us in His image for His glory. Since only God is good, only He knows what is right and what is good for us. No human can define what is good because he himself is evil. How can evil produce any good? Rather like how this verse above says, God has given his commands and morality which is the only objective righteous truth. Only if we obey the laws, like the above verse says, we would have real freedom. These laws are not considered to be a bondage but rather as a fence to prevent us from falling down the cliff of slavery. And all these laws are given in Scripture (2Tim 3:16,17)

3.  Only God can give true freedom:

As I have shown you from above, all of us are evil. Evil is opposite to what the commands and precepts of God. So since we all have disobeyed his commands, all of us are under the slavery of sin. And since God is just and holy, He will punish us because justice requires punishment of evil doers. Since He is infinitely Holy and Just, our punishment will also be infinitely severe. But God in His mercy, He gave us His only Son, the Lord God Jesus Christ to become a man in earth, just like us and came to take the punishment we justly deserve. He took the punishment of those who would believe in Him and died, 2000 years ago, on a cross so that the justice of God and His wrath would satisfied. And God raised Him on the third day from the Dead to prove that He had succeeded in taking the punishment of His children and now He is lifted up in Heaven. Only Jesus can give us true freedom. So if you repent and trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sin, you would be truly free indeed and you will have eternal life.

So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. (Joh 8:36)

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. (Rom 6:22)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal 5:1)

If you have liked this, you may also like Man and his gods

Medical Missions – My thoughts (Part 2)

This is a continuation of my previous article. I was not able to address all the issues related to medical missions in my previous article. Also I had seen many comments regarding what I had said previously. I will try to address those and also give more clarification regarding my position on medical missions. This is a long article. Kindly do bear with me.

Role of Mission hospitals and Church:

A lot of doctors working in mission hospitals in this era are of the opinion that mission hospitals should be independent of Church. The reason why they claim to do so is because of all the corruption which is present in the mainline churches and its influence is felt even in mission hospitals. Some doctors say mission hospitals should be the first to be established in an area where Christ is not heard so that it would facilitate the missionaries to preach the gospel without the opposition because the locals would be impressed by the good works of mission hospitals and thus be more willing to listen to the gospel which is preached.

I agree that our good works would give a positive influence on those to whom we preach the gospel. But Bible says in Romans 1:16 that gospel itself is a power for those who are destined to be saved. We don’t do all the good works and charity to facilitate the preaching of the gospel but out of good will to fulfil the second greatest command of God, “Love thy neighbour”.

And Biblically it is Church which should lead in doing missions, not the mission hospitals. If you read Acts 6:1-6, Church in Jerusalem actually was overburdened with both teaching and doing charity (which at that time was to serve their poor widows). So the Church actually set apart some of its leaders to do the act of charity while others can do the act of preaching and teaching. This was the basis in which many of the mission hospitals were established in India. Mission hospitals should be under the authority of the church. This does not mean that Church has to influence the mission hospitals in all the decision which it takes but mission hospitals should be in a way doing the work of a charity in the area where church needs, to help the poor brethren who are sick.

Now you would ask me why all the mission hospitals under the church are very badly affected by politics? The answer is because the Church is sick now. The church in India is really sick and dead. The leaders of our mainline churches are not regenerate. They don’t fear the Lord. They are not loving him. They are not afraid of his holiness and righteousness. They fear men. And these men dominate the governing board and they all want to 'eat' whatever property church owns and thus our mission hospitals are dead. So the politics of mission hospitals under churches is a symptom of the greater disease, which is dead Church.

Can the good deeds done by the mission hospitals like CFH, Oddanchatram justify its existence without the authority of Church?

A Christian should base his actions on how Bible instructs. As I have said before, a Christian charity hospital should be a helping arm of the local Church in that locality of need. Mission hospitals like CFH and current Christian Medical College, Vellore are not under the authority of Church at least in practice nor do they directly help the church in that locality. I am not saying what they are doing is of no use for Christ. They are very charitable and I commend their efforts to be straight forward and ethical in their practice. But we cannot call them as Mission hospitals in biblical terms. They are at the maximum doing charity to poor people and there are not actively involved in helping the Church in preaching the gospel.

For a Christian, end does not justify the means. So just because good deeds are done by these hospitals, does not necessarily mean they are established by Biblical means. For example, Aravind eye hospitals, Ramakrishna Mission hospitals etc, are also established with charity as a motive. And they do a really good job in treating poor patients. But that does not mean that they are established according to God’s will nor their belief is right.

Can mission doctors propagate good deeds done in the mission hospitals to inspire people and to gather funds for their hospital?

A Christian should be inspired to do good deeds out of love for God not out of compulsion or persuasion of others. And a Christian should depend on God first for all the provisions. George Muller is a good example of that. He ran orphanages without asking anyone for help because he trusted that God would provide for the functioning of his orphanage. Likewise, doctors working in the area of need should be primarily dependent on God for their help. And Church should actively address the needs of the hospital. If you read Acts, the Christians of Antioch helped the saints of Jerusalem spontaneously without anyone prompting them to help (Acts 11:28-30). So we should also have faith in God for our physical needs to be fulfilled in our mission hospitals in need.

A Case study of the mission hospital where I am working now (and I am not a medical missionary just because I am working in mission hospital!)

Most of my readers will know that I am also a medical doctor. I am currently working in Danish Mission Hospital, in a small town in Tamil Nadu, India called Tirukkovilur. This hospital is also a mission hospital. Our hospital was established in 1911. Before that Lutheran missionaries from Denmark Missionary Society came to India to this locality to preach the gospel and they established churches here. In those days, infectious diseases were quite rampant and both missionaries and the locals were dying because of that. So believing doctors from Denmark, under the guidance of our Church, Denmark Lutheran Church, established our hospital in this place. It served it's purpose at that time. After 100 years, the scenario is completely different. Tamil Nadu is one of the most developed parts of India. And this town has all the basic facilities with good government secondary hospital along with many private hospitals. And because of better sanitation and education, most of the endemic diseases of the past are controlled now. And people here also are well off than the past. So technically, the existence of my hospital in this locality does not serve the purpose of why it was established, 100 years back.

So does that mean that mission hospitals are not relevant now? Absolutely not. Like I said in my previous article, mission hospitals are still in need in parts of our country where there are missionaries who are planting churches, where the health care is poor and endemic diseases are common. For example, the tribal villages in Chattisgarh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh. The doctors who are doing charity in such mission hospitals are the ones who are doing medical missions, in historical point of view.

So the point is this: Just because a doctor is working in a mission hospital now situated in a fairly developed part of India, does not make him or her, a Medical Missionary. Medical Missionary is one, who is actually helping the Church of a primitive place with poor health facilities primarily through his charitable good deeds for preventing the locals and Christian missionaries dying of endemic diseases.

Please read my previous article Medical Missions- My thoughts (Part 1) also

Medical Missions - My thoughts (Part 1)

Historically, the medical missionary concept or mission doctors were sent to help the missionaries who are preaching the gospel with the health needs of the society, because of two reasons. One, the missionaries themselves were dying. Two, as an act of benevolence as a Christian charity. David Livingstone, Hudson taylor went out with this motive as a medical missionary. But slowly for the past 70 years, medical missionaries have become a separate entity by themselves. Atleast now, most of them go with helping the sick and poor in that area as the primary motive and gospel as a secondary motive. I am not categorizing all medical missionaries like this, but now almost most of them have this as a motive or ‘calling’. Is it biblical?

The medical missionaries reason out like this:

1) Jesus and Apostles did healing ministry:

But it was done by the power of Holy Spirit

As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
(Act 10:36-38)

It was done to authenticate the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:22, 2 Cor 12:12).

It was always accompanied by preaching and teaching (Mat 4:23).

It was instantaneous healing. (Mat 9:6-8; Acts 3:7-8; Acts 14:1-8,10; Acts 19:11,12; and many more)

2. Healing a person as a whole:

Bible always gives importance to Spiritual healing than physical healing.

1Ti 4:7-8  Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

So if medical missionaries are healing physically the patients who are coming to them, are they also spiritually healing them by preaching the gospel? Most often they give an excuse that they are busy. Yes that is true. But some of them, who don’t want to accept this truth, preach something else to their patients, which is not a gospel and think that they are preaching the gospel. For example ‘Jesus loves you’ is the most common ‘gospel’ of everyone.

I agree that this statement is true and biblical. But it is not the gospel. The gospel is summarised in following verses:

1Co 15:1-4 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

Are the current medical missionaries truly healing a person as a whole?

3. Luke was a doctor:

Bible mentions Luke as having a profession as a doctor, just like how Peter as a fisherman, Matthew as a tax-collector. Nothing more than this. There is no description of his profession mentioned in the Bible. Just because Luke was a Christian, does that mean he should be called medical missionary? Then Peter should start fishing mission, Paul should start tent-making mission, isn’t it?

4. Showing the love of Christ by the compassionate touch of a doctor:

But as a Christian, whether we are doctors of plumbers, we ought to show the love of Christ by our actions. 

This is not something limited only for Christian doctors.

5. Medicine paves a path for the gospel to ease the opposition:

If that's the case, we would be relying on human effort rather than the power of God. It is not only dishonouring God but also exalts our profession to such an extent that God, who is all powerful, Sovereign, who has all authorities under Him, for whom the earth is just like a drop of dew, should stoop down to a Christian doctor’s help to work on people's heart? Isn’t that sinful? That is a manifestation of pride.

Rather we should need the power of Holy Spirit to work on the people to listen the gospel.

For gospel “it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,” (Rom 1:16).

6. We are doing good deeds for God:

That's a noble motive. But we should remember that while we are practicing medicine for helping the poor, we should do it in such a way how Jesus commanded us to do good deeds.

Mat 6:3-4 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

But very often, medical missionaries talk so much about what they are doing in the mission hospitals, how many patients are healed, how many free surgeries they have done, how many villages they have reached as community work, etc.. about themselves to others. Jesus said this is not a sign of a Christian but a Pharisee.

Mat 6:2  "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward

So these are my thoughts regarding what a ‘typical medical missionary’ is doing. I understand that most of them are doing this out of ignorance of the Word. But as Proverbs 19:2 says, even if we have zeal, if we don’t do what we are supposed to do, as revealed as in accordance to Scripture, then we are not honouring God.

Yet I still think that even now doctors are needed in mission fields, where there are no health facilities, where missionaries and patients are dying of endemic diseases there. So I would name such doctors as mission doctors, or medical missionaries, whose primary goal is to help the health needs of the missionaries in preaching the gospel. That was how many medical missionaries of past came. I will give some more thoughts in my coming article.

This article is continued in Medical Missions - My thoughts (Part 2)