Introduction:
The image of God could be understood at least in two ways. One, the way God-self is portrayed or presented in our scriptures. It would really hard task, because the Christian scripture itself says that no one had seen God. But in Jesus’ era people had seen Jesus as God’s Son, so God in the Bible was seen in Jesus, because Jesus said whoever sees me is seeing God. Secondly, according to Genesis the entire human are created in image of Creator God. This image is seen in and as human beings. This is how we are taught by our faith traditions. This is an anthropomorphic approach to see God. The Genesis’ explanation is just ‘physical appearance’ of God. Even in many places we are explained about the images and human physical parts like, the hand of God, figure of God, and even St. Paul relates the body of God and the Church like head and other parts. So it explicit that anthropomorphic approach was prevailing even in Judeo-Christian tradition also.
Physical Image of God:
But there is a big question that who is God? Or what is God like? Those are to be answered because they are related to our basic faith especially about God whom we believe and follow? If the image of God is understood as a physical image, has God really had a physical body as we have now? If that is so why there are differences in appearances like black or brown or white skins, complexions, weight and height all the above in sex i.e.. male and female or transgender. So there is a problem in this approach, whether God created us or we the human created God? Of course one can say that all theologies are nothing but the anthropology, because those are supposed to be based on human’s existential faith experiences. So when human’s existential faith experience is become faith expression there, the theology gets formation. So theology is nothing but ‘a critical reflection of once own faith in particular context’. In this approach faith and context plays a role in formation of theology. If we look at the ‘image of god’ from the experiential approach the truth will come true in reality.
Masculinezation of God:
The dominative patriarchal tradition from the primitive times has destructed the whole faith traditions of the whole world, by pictureizing women as inferior and submissive. This has become the deepest tragedy in our faith living experience, because it is failed to image of the fullness of our own deity. Also it differentiates and separates the attributes and the qualities of the wholeness, like mind and heart, spirit and body, bravery and tenderness, courage and compassion. These separations qualify the gender. If so, what would be the image of God? So it is a male-made disaster and destruction of the faith based community.
Feminist Inclusiveness in God's Image:
According to the Judeo-Christian scripture Jesus who was introduced as God’s son and who was given to the world as Messiah. The Israelites were the ‘monotheists’. So, whatever the belief of this monotheistic faith expressing community expressed about God, which has became the faith expression of the Christian its adherents. The Judeo-Christian community presented male image for God to its adherents. The masculine image of God became predominant in their faith expressions. But the present day awakening in feminist consciousness and theology, questions the shortcomings of this masculine (image of) God. It is evident that the masculanization took place because of the patriarchy society. So they portrayed and called God as their father, king and so on. But if we read the Bible ‘carefully’ the reader can understand the female (nature) image in same God. The hidden images like mother, feeder, provider, protector and nurse are very obvious in the Christian Scriptures. If we go further deep the image of God will take us to realize that God is trans-gender person. It just cannot be understood and interpreted again with the yellow eyes by saying the physical gender, but this is much more above to understand God with the attributional approach. This would be more meaningful and nearest perception in regard to God’s image. Actually speaking God behind and far away from our scriptural knowledge. A true monotheistic understanding of belief on one God was the end result of a long process of theistic search of the human. The most meaningful and reasonable understanding will be seeing God as ‘mother-father’. According to K.V. Mathew “ God in reality in not a noun but a verb”. And to him we the human who endowed the knowledge with our experience god is to be recognized by naming. For him” No name is sufficient to represent ‘HEM’. On the other hand, one has to enjoy the presence of the invisible through ‘HES’ love and in that love acknowledge all humanity as god’s children. And further he goes and says, “ we live and move and have our being in HEM or HES”. So the personification of god is not depending on the written scripture but from our own contextual knowledge and experience. Therefore the image of does not mean the physical image but the attributes of god.
Sexuality and God the Creator:
Sex generally refers to sexual behavior and feelings and is used to talk about the physical act of sexual intercourse. Sexuality describes ‘how you yourself as a person’, your feeling about your being as a man or women, and about your relation with members of either gender. And the sexuality deals with: attitudes, desires, beliefs, values and behaviors. It dose not fulfill the need of this hour to discuss sex and god. The Sexuality and God approach will be more comprehensive and corporative and contextual.
God in the Old Testament is a ‘genderless’ God. This God’s creation mostly deals with two distinct genders, the masculine and feminine. This is very, very important aspect in creation. Because both the gender may be complement to each other and it is also proved true in the totality of creation. The complimentalities of the creatures are not only the pro-creation but also the propagation of their own species. It is also possible to see the expression of love not only of a heterosexual but of a homosexual nature as well in the sexual behavior of the creatures. So for any creatures sex is not only for pro-creation but also for the propagation of their own species including human community. So sex in this context is ‘conjunctive’ (complementing each other) and ‘unitive’ (become one) factor than any thing else. The same logic is to be applied to sense the image of God and to understand. Narola observes that, “ … the proofs of divine masculinity that many people see in the biblical references to God as “he” results in large part from confusing a grammatical category with as imputation of sexuality.” It has become true in incarnation of Jesus, because Christ incarnated in Jesus who was a male human. Theologically speaking ‘bodily’ incarnation does not mean that He has become male, but become human. The maleness of Christ had never spoken about any where in the bible. It is fact that, the God in the Bible is described as both fatherly and motherly, which means clearly that any notion of gender distinction is inapplicable to an understanding of God’s nature.
Cross-gender God:
The ‘sivism’ in Hindu tradition portrayed god as ’arthanareeshwar’ in this philosophical system god is not seen as either solely masculine or feminine, but as a union of both genders in effect a synthesis of both attributes of Lord ‘Shiva’ and his wife goddess ‘Shakthi’. The interesting philosophy in this tradition is ‘Shiva’ is a male ‘Shakthi’ is female which means power or might. Patriarchally speaking 'might' or 'power' is always identified and associated with male, but here in ‘sivisim’, shakthti’ is said to ‘donate power’ so, in this faith tradition power has been associated with female. Also they say that ‘without Shiva NO Shakthi, without ‘Shakthi’ NO ‘Shiva’ which means power and strength are with women, and without women no male can act as on his own. In Christianity the’ Powerful Sprit (ruach)’ is feminine, which was so powerful. And in New Testament the Greek word ‘logos’ (John 1:1) is a masculine but ‘pneuma (John 4:24)’ is a neuter gender. So the Spirit of God in New Testament is either ‘he’ or ‘she’. ‘Logos and Pneuma’ are inseparable and complementary phenomenon among the New Testament believers. In fact in the Old Testament, the power, which was manifested in the first lady ’Eve’ was really remarkable in questioning God, of course, by which she had become the first theologian. Also the word about 'woman' in second and third chapters of Genesis denotes very positively. The woman ‘Eve’ is ‘life’ and the word woman is translated as ‘help or helper or helpmate’, but the actual meaning is ‘divine or superior help’. So according to this reference of the scripture woman is a divine or superior helper to man . If so without this woman no good would have happened in the world. It is similar to the ‘sivist’ concept of ‘arthanareeshwar’ in which, woman is portrayed positively as a strength provider. So most of the faith traditions do have similar faith expressions of seeing women positively. But because of the patriarchal symbols and language, which dominated the Judeo-Christian traditions and liturgies most of us have been unaware of the richness of the metaphors and analogies and vocabulary used in the bible for god.
The Sexually Minorities and The Image of God? :
The so-called ‘eunuchs’ are stigmatized as a human community who are born out of God the creator’s curse. So the lost their social human dignity in the world. The traditional Christian faith based community is not in a position to answer the question of the sexually minorities’ “ Why did the creator god cheated us by creating us as ‘transgender humans? Why did God cheat us? When we do not have any gender image, why should we respect or adhere this God? All the above, if all human are created in image of god, are we not crated in God’s image? Since the traditional Christian faith based are taught from the patriarchal tradition it is very difficult to answer these questions. But when we have an experiential faith expression we can very well tell them that they too are created in image of God, and they too have responsibility of expressing and exercising the attributes of god like any other human.
Productive Inclusiveness:
Numerically women constitute half of the population in the world, which, comprises 33.3% of the official labor force or ‘work-force’ perform nearly 66.6% of all working hours, receive only 10% of the world’s income and only less than 1% of the world’s property.
It is very fact that, women of today’s world for its function ‘produce’ a great amount of ‘work energy’. Of course men receive it, without even acknowledging and recognizing, while they award the results. It is a myth that as if only because of men the world is in function. Most of the women’s work neither recognized nor paid. In fact, women’s work at home remains unpaid and their work at outside home largely unpaid.
It is exactly the same in our earlier discussion of the ‘spirit of God ‘pneuma’ and the masculine form of ‘Jesus’ the ‘logos’. Actually speaking the ‘spirit of god is the one was guiding Jesus all along in His ministry in the world. But the spirit of god has got only the second place in the ministry of Jesus. Of course Jesus did acknowledge it in many places but the masculanaized tradition gave away the importance of ‘pneuma’. The similar problem also found in ‘arthanareeshwar’ concept in ‘Sivisim’. Lord ‘Shiva’ receives all the strength from the Goddess ‘Shakthi’ but mostly it is not either acknowledged or recognized. Also the ‘ruach’ in the Old Testament is the one, which involved in creation but it is being portrayed as if the masculine God does it.
Inclusive Feminism in Wider Ecumenism:
The Christian faith based community preserves the memory of response early church to an actual form of ‘inclusiveness’ during the Pentecostal experience. M.J. Joseph acknowledges that ‘ manger in Bethlehem is the first ecumenical center’, where all the son of god, angels, animals, plants and different human communities were united by the presence of God. This ‘oikoumene’ is nothing but the principal of ‘unity’. Ecumenism in its journey has got different shifts ideologically. In early days ‘ecumenism’ means unity of all ‘Christian denominations’, later it has gone further to an extent of missioning for the unity of all religions. If we go still further in the history of the journey of the ecumenism, it believes that, not only religions but also ideologies of faiths and bit a latter ‘unity of all humankind’. But now it has reached a level of concern in ‘unity of all creatures’. It is ‘the peak’ level and we may not move further also. But when we go to the etymology ‘oikoumene’ the inhabited world was formed out of the power of the feminine also. It is very unfortunate that they are excluded and eliminated from the main (hi)story. When we work on ecumenism we have to incorporate the neglected once, then only our ecumenical journey will get fulfilled, and this is ‘wider ecumenism’. This wider ecumenism is not like any other ‘isms’ but so practical and experiential.
An example from our discussions, all these power givers the women contributed and supplied their powers for the productive activities in the world through masculine images of Gods. This complimentary and contributive attribute is to be acknowledged in wider ecumenism and promote among the faith based communities. Again there is a danger in interpreting this inclusiveness. It is not certainly advocate a modernized exploitation of women again in extracting the strength from them forcefully by the male community. But to make everyone to understand the truth that, it is ‘contributive compliment’ not a compulsory one. This also would be an challenging issue in our ecumenical commitment, because, the gender issues also is a matter of faith, so it is an very urgent necessity to develop an ecumenical paradigm which would be legitimate in adding new dimensions to the process of working on ‘wider ecumenism’.
Conclusion:
M.J. Joseph symbolizes sun, as the power of universe, which makes things known and visible, and dresses the earth with colors, is the one that brings the harmony in orchestra of life in this world and it is the thread that unites the entire creation. So the women of today’s world are to be seen, portrayed and recognized in such a way in which the entire world should experience and express their presence in this world. And the entire world should realize that without women there is no life for the world. So along with the women let us all join together and establish a reign of god by organizing uniting everything together through the collective experience with women. This paradigm of gender issue in ecumenism will incorporate the image of god in every aspect of women, not by the physical appearance but also by attributes. The world of today functions so well even without any appreciation of women. In case if we acknowledge or appreciate think about the result and productivity as co-creature. Also it is found that more percentage of God’s attributes is found in women. So let us also imitate the image of God in exercising the creativeness not as a gender but as trans gender agents of god who too are created in God’s image. Sex of God is not important, but sexuality of God is to be understood. Let us make the unite universe as a transgender agents of God.
Bibliography
Hageman, L. Alice, “Sexist Religion and Women in the Church No More”, New York
Associate Press, New York, 1974.
Hunt Mary E. (Ed.,) Anne McGrew Bennett’s, ‘From Women-Pain to Women-Vision’ Writings in
Feminist Theology, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1989.
Joseph. M.J, “Beyond the Seen and the Unseen”: Poems and Meditations, ISPCK Delhi and ECC Bangalore. 2003.
Joseph M.J, ‘Laid Him in a Manger ‘
Oommen M.O. (Jr) & ‘Inter Textuality of the Holy Books’,
Abraham K. (Eds) Dr. Alexander Marthoma Center for Dialogue Kottarakara, and Cosmic Community
Center, Karickam. 2004.
Smith, Robin, ‘Living in Covenant with God and One Another’, Study book on the Human Sexuality, World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1009.
Periodical: National Council of Churches Review, Vol.CXXI, No.4, May 2001.
Unpublished Charles Edwin’s Paper on ‘The Churches Response to The Third-Sex Human Communities” presented In A National level Seminar on” Family Culture in an Age of Change’ Organized by the Ecumenical Christian Centre Whitefield, between 25th and 27th May 2004.
Physical Image of God:
But there is a big question that who is God? Or what is God like? Those are to be answered because they are related to our basic faith especially about God whom we believe and follow? If the image of God is understood as a physical image, has God really had a physical body as we have now? If that is so why there are differences in appearances like black or brown or white skins, complexions, weight and height all the above in sex i.e.. male and female or transgender. So there is a problem in this approach, whether God created us or we the human created God? Of course one can say that all theologies are nothing but the anthropology, because those are supposed to be based on human’s existential faith experiences. So when human’s existential faith experience is become faith expression there, the theology gets formation. So theology is nothing but ‘a critical reflection of once own faith in particular context’. In this approach faith and context plays a role in formation of theology. If we look at the ‘image of god’ from the experiential approach the truth will come true in reality.
Masculinezation of God:
The dominative patriarchal tradition from the primitive times has destructed the whole faith traditions of the whole world, by pictureizing women as inferior and submissive. This has become the deepest tragedy in our faith living experience, because it is failed to image of the fullness of our own deity. Also it differentiates and separates the attributes and the qualities of the wholeness, like mind and heart, spirit and body, bravery and tenderness, courage and compassion. These separations qualify the gender. If so, what would be the image of God? So it is a male-made disaster and destruction of the faith based community.
Feminist Inclusiveness in God's Image:
According to the Judeo-Christian scripture Jesus who was introduced as God’s son and who was given to the world as Messiah. The Israelites were the ‘monotheists’. So, whatever the belief of this monotheistic faith expressing community expressed about God, which has became the faith expression of the Christian its adherents. The Judeo-Christian community presented male image for God to its adherents. The masculine image of God became predominant in their faith expressions. But the present day awakening in feminist consciousness and theology, questions the shortcomings of this masculine (image of) God. It is evident that the masculanization took place because of the patriarchy society. So they portrayed and called God as their father, king and so on. But if we read the Bible ‘carefully’ the reader can understand the female (nature) image in same God. The hidden images like mother, feeder, provider, protector and nurse are very obvious in the Christian Scriptures. If we go further deep the image of God will take us to realize that God is trans-gender person. It just cannot be understood and interpreted again with the yellow eyes by saying the physical gender, but this is much more above to understand God with the attributional approach. This would be more meaningful and nearest perception in regard to God’s image. Actually speaking God behind and far away from our scriptural knowledge. A true monotheistic understanding of belief on one God was the end result of a long process of theistic search of the human. The most meaningful and reasonable understanding will be seeing God as ‘mother-father’. According to K.V. Mathew “ God in reality in not a noun but a verb”. And to him we the human who endowed the knowledge with our experience god is to be recognized by naming. For him” No name is sufficient to represent ‘HEM’. On the other hand, one has to enjoy the presence of the invisible through ‘HES’ love and in that love acknowledge all humanity as god’s children. And further he goes and says, “ we live and move and have our being in HEM or HES”. So the personification of god is not depending on the written scripture but from our own contextual knowledge and experience. Therefore the image of does not mean the physical image but the attributes of god.
Sexuality and God the Creator:
Sex generally refers to sexual behavior and feelings and is used to talk about the physical act of sexual intercourse. Sexuality describes ‘how you yourself as a person’, your feeling about your being as a man or women, and about your relation with members of either gender. And the sexuality deals with: attitudes, desires, beliefs, values and behaviors. It dose not fulfill the need of this hour to discuss sex and god. The Sexuality and God approach will be more comprehensive and corporative and contextual.
God in the Old Testament is a ‘genderless’ God. This God’s creation mostly deals with two distinct genders, the masculine and feminine. This is very, very important aspect in creation. Because both the gender may be complement to each other and it is also proved true in the totality of creation. The complimentalities of the creatures are not only the pro-creation but also the propagation of their own species. It is also possible to see the expression of love not only of a heterosexual but of a homosexual nature as well in the sexual behavior of the creatures. So for any creatures sex is not only for pro-creation but also for the propagation of their own species including human community. So sex in this context is ‘conjunctive’ (complementing each other) and ‘unitive’ (become one) factor than any thing else. The same logic is to be applied to sense the image of God and to understand. Narola observes that, “ … the proofs of divine masculinity that many people see in the biblical references to God as “he” results in large part from confusing a grammatical category with as imputation of sexuality.” It has become true in incarnation of Jesus, because Christ incarnated in Jesus who was a male human. Theologically speaking ‘bodily’ incarnation does not mean that He has become male, but become human. The maleness of Christ had never spoken about any where in the bible. It is fact that, the God in the Bible is described as both fatherly and motherly, which means clearly that any notion of gender distinction is inapplicable to an understanding of God’s nature.
Cross-gender God:
The ‘sivism’ in Hindu tradition portrayed god as ’arthanareeshwar’ in this philosophical system god is not seen as either solely masculine or feminine, but as a union of both genders in effect a synthesis of both attributes of Lord ‘Shiva’ and his wife goddess ‘Shakthi’. The interesting philosophy in this tradition is ‘Shiva’ is a male ‘Shakthi’ is female which means power or might. Patriarchally speaking 'might' or 'power' is always identified and associated with male, but here in ‘sivisim’, shakthti’ is said to ‘donate power’ so, in this faith tradition power has been associated with female. Also they say that ‘without Shiva NO Shakthi, without ‘Shakthi’ NO ‘Shiva’ which means power and strength are with women, and without women no male can act as on his own. In Christianity the’ Powerful Sprit (ruach)’ is feminine, which was so powerful. And in New Testament the Greek word ‘logos’ (John 1:1) is a masculine but ‘pneuma (John 4:24)’ is a neuter gender. So the Spirit of God in New Testament is either ‘he’ or ‘she’. ‘Logos and Pneuma’ are inseparable and complementary phenomenon among the New Testament believers. In fact in the Old Testament, the power, which was manifested in the first lady ’Eve’ was really remarkable in questioning God, of course, by which she had become the first theologian. Also the word about 'woman' in second and third chapters of Genesis denotes very positively. The woman ‘Eve’ is ‘life’ and the word woman is translated as ‘help or helper or helpmate’, but the actual meaning is ‘divine or superior help’. So according to this reference of the scripture woman is a divine or superior helper to man . If so without this woman no good would have happened in the world. It is similar to the ‘sivist’ concept of ‘arthanareeshwar’ in which, woman is portrayed positively as a strength provider. So most of the faith traditions do have similar faith expressions of seeing women positively. But because of the patriarchal symbols and language, which dominated the Judeo-Christian traditions and liturgies most of us have been unaware of the richness of the metaphors and analogies and vocabulary used in the bible for god.
The Sexually Minorities and The Image of God? :
The so-called ‘eunuchs’ are stigmatized as a human community who are born out of God the creator’s curse. So the lost their social human dignity in the world. The traditional Christian faith based community is not in a position to answer the question of the sexually minorities’ “ Why did the creator god cheated us by creating us as ‘transgender humans? Why did God cheat us? When we do not have any gender image, why should we respect or adhere this God? All the above, if all human are created in image of god, are we not crated in God’s image? Since the traditional Christian faith based are taught from the patriarchal tradition it is very difficult to answer these questions. But when we have an experiential faith expression we can very well tell them that they too are created in image of God, and they too have responsibility of expressing and exercising the attributes of god like any other human.
Productive Inclusiveness:
Numerically women constitute half of the population in the world, which, comprises 33.3% of the official labor force or ‘work-force’ perform nearly 66.6% of all working hours, receive only 10% of the world’s income and only less than 1% of the world’s property.
It is very fact that, women of today’s world for its function ‘produce’ a great amount of ‘work energy’. Of course men receive it, without even acknowledging and recognizing, while they award the results. It is a myth that as if only because of men the world is in function. Most of the women’s work neither recognized nor paid. In fact, women’s work at home remains unpaid and their work at outside home largely unpaid.
It is exactly the same in our earlier discussion of the ‘spirit of God ‘pneuma’ and the masculine form of ‘Jesus’ the ‘logos’. Actually speaking the ‘spirit of god is the one was guiding Jesus all along in His ministry in the world. But the spirit of god has got only the second place in the ministry of Jesus. Of course Jesus did acknowledge it in many places but the masculanaized tradition gave away the importance of ‘pneuma’. The similar problem also found in ‘arthanareeshwar’ concept in ‘Sivisim’. Lord ‘Shiva’ receives all the strength from the Goddess ‘Shakthi’ but mostly it is not either acknowledged or recognized. Also the ‘ruach’ in the Old Testament is the one, which involved in creation but it is being portrayed as if the masculine God does it.
Inclusive Feminism in Wider Ecumenism:
The Christian faith based community preserves the memory of response early church to an actual form of ‘inclusiveness’ during the Pentecostal experience. M.J. Joseph acknowledges that ‘ manger in Bethlehem is the first ecumenical center’, where all the son of god, angels, animals, plants and different human communities were united by the presence of God. This ‘oikoumene’ is nothing but the principal of ‘unity’. Ecumenism in its journey has got different shifts ideologically. In early days ‘ecumenism’ means unity of all ‘Christian denominations’, later it has gone further to an extent of missioning for the unity of all religions. If we go still further in the history of the journey of the ecumenism, it believes that, not only religions but also ideologies of faiths and bit a latter ‘unity of all humankind’. But now it has reached a level of concern in ‘unity of all creatures’. It is ‘the peak’ level and we may not move further also. But when we go to the etymology ‘oikoumene’ the inhabited world was formed out of the power of the feminine also. It is very unfortunate that they are excluded and eliminated from the main (hi)story. When we work on ecumenism we have to incorporate the neglected once, then only our ecumenical journey will get fulfilled, and this is ‘wider ecumenism’. This wider ecumenism is not like any other ‘isms’ but so practical and experiential.
An example from our discussions, all these power givers the women contributed and supplied their powers for the productive activities in the world through masculine images of Gods. This complimentary and contributive attribute is to be acknowledged in wider ecumenism and promote among the faith based communities. Again there is a danger in interpreting this inclusiveness. It is not certainly advocate a modernized exploitation of women again in extracting the strength from them forcefully by the male community. But to make everyone to understand the truth that, it is ‘contributive compliment’ not a compulsory one. This also would be an challenging issue in our ecumenical commitment, because, the gender issues also is a matter of faith, so it is an very urgent necessity to develop an ecumenical paradigm which would be legitimate in adding new dimensions to the process of working on ‘wider ecumenism’.
Conclusion:
M.J. Joseph symbolizes sun, as the power of universe, which makes things known and visible, and dresses the earth with colors, is the one that brings the harmony in orchestra of life in this world and it is the thread that unites the entire creation. So the women of today’s world are to be seen, portrayed and recognized in such a way in which the entire world should experience and express their presence in this world. And the entire world should realize that without women there is no life for the world. So along with the women let us all join together and establish a reign of god by organizing uniting everything together through the collective experience with women. This paradigm of gender issue in ecumenism will incorporate the image of god in every aspect of women, not by the physical appearance but also by attributes. The world of today functions so well even without any appreciation of women. In case if we acknowledge or appreciate think about the result and productivity as co-creature. Also it is found that more percentage of God’s attributes is found in women. So let us also imitate the image of God in exercising the creativeness not as a gender but as trans gender agents of god who too are created in God’s image. Sex of God is not important, but sexuality of God is to be understood. Let us make the unite universe as a transgender agents of God.
Bibliography
Hageman, L. Alice, “Sexist Religion and Women in the Church No More”, New York
Associate Press, New York, 1974.
Hunt Mary E. (Ed.,) Anne McGrew Bennett’s, ‘From Women-Pain to Women-Vision’ Writings in
Feminist Theology, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1989.
Joseph. M.J, “Beyond the Seen and the Unseen”: Poems and Meditations, ISPCK Delhi and ECC Bangalore. 2003.
Joseph M.J, ‘Laid Him in a Manger ‘
Oommen M.O. (Jr) & ‘Inter Textuality of the Holy Books’,
Abraham K. (Eds) Dr. Alexander Marthoma Center for Dialogue Kottarakara, and Cosmic Community
Center, Karickam. 2004.
Smith, Robin, ‘Living in Covenant with God and One Another’, Study book on the Human Sexuality, World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1009.
Periodical: National Council of Churches Review, Vol.CXXI, No.4, May 2001.
Unpublished Charles Edwin’s Paper on ‘The Churches Response to The Third-Sex Human Communities” presented In A National level Seminar on” Family Culture in an Age of Change’ Organized by the Ecumenical Christian Centre Whitefield, between 25th and 27th May 2004.
Comments
Post a Comment