Historical Overview of Theological Education

Apostle Paul Writing

Forthcoming in Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Matthew K. Thomas

While the term “theological education” is sometimes used synonymously with “religious education” and “Christian education” by some, it is advisable to treat the terms as technically distinct. Religious education is a broader spectrum that includes not only Christian education but also Islamic education, Hindu education, and Buddhist education among many.

“Religious education” must also be distinguished from “religious studies”; as some Universities in India have a department of religious studies whose goal is to scientifically pursue the study of religion only; not to teach a particular religion or provide religious education to adherents of a particular religion. A few seminaries and colleges offer degrees in Religious Education (e.g., B.R.E. and M.R.E.) which is more about Christian theology than the study of general religious philosophy and phenomena. “Religious education” may mean Christian education or Hindu education or education given by any religion to its adherents. Thus, it is more a relative term than an absolute one. Thus, among Christians, “religious education” is Christian education while, among Muslims, “religious education” is “Islamic education”.

Theological education is a kind of religious education, but it is more advanced and clerical (i.e., pertaining to the clergy’s work) in nature. Thus, while Sunday School education and religious education are part of Christian education, theological education is that which is formally offered at seminaries and Bible colleges. A certification in theological studies is considered a pre-qualification for the ministry of doctrinal teaching. Of course, a certificate alone does not qualify a minister. Also, it is possible for one to be theologically skilled without having undergone any formal theological training or having a certificate issued by an institution, provided that individual has been educated in a non-formal or informal way.

Theological education may also be informal and non-formal. Bernhard Ott cites the following distinctions made by the European Commission on the forms of education:

Formal Learning
Learning that normally takes place in a school or training centre, is structured (in terms of the goals of learning, the timeframe of learning, or the furtherance of learning), and leads to certification. Formal learning is, from the viewpoint of the learner, goal-oriented.

Non-formal Learning
Learning that doesn’t take place in schools or training centres and normally doesn’t lead to certification. It is, however, systematic (in terms of goals, timeframe and materials). It is, from the viewpoint of the learner, goal-oriented.

Informal Learning
Learning that takes place in everyday life, at work, in the family, or in free time. It is not structured (in terms of goals, time and support) and does not normally lead to certification. Informal learning can be goal-oriented but is, in most cases, not intentional but rather occurs incidentally, in passing.[1]

He notes that formal learning “has no monopoly on learning and should never regard itself as sufficient in itself… On the contrary… formal education must equip the student for lifelong learning of the non-formal and informal variety and never hinder the same.”[2] In recent times, there is increasing call for formal curriculum to incorporate non-formal and informal modes of learning in order for the learner to benefit most from the education process. In this paper, we will attempt a brief overview of the history of formal theological education.

The Apostolic Era (c.32-100)
We do not have any evidence of formal theological education, in the form of schools or seminaries, in the Apostolic Era; however, this doesn’t mean that there was no theological training of any form whatsoever. Among the Jews, we read about the schools of Hillel and Shammai. Gamaliel I, grandson of Hillel, was the teacher of Paul (before his conversion) in his pharisaic training. That to be educated under Gamaliel was a certification of authority in matters of law is evidenced by Paul’s statement in his apology before the Jews of Jerusalem: “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers” law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today” (Acts 22:3).

Having had theological training under Gamaliel, Paul understood the importance of education; but, more than that, having understood the grace of God and its preciousness, he strongly emphasized upon learning. In fact, his epistles are great examples of doctrinal and practical teaching. He taught by word and epistle (2Thess 2:15). In addition to that, he mentored young people like Timothy and Titus and not only passed on to them knowledge but encouraged them to be diligent in both learning and teaching: “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2Ti. 2:2).

However, the New Testament is clear on the fact that spiritual understanding of Scriptures cannot be the result of mere cramming of knowledge. In fact, Paul states that spiritual understanding requires not just knowledge of letters but also a turning of the will towards God: “Even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away” (2Cor. 3:15-16). The writer of Hebrews asserts that scriptural interpretation requires skill that comes from spiritual maturity: “Solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14). Paul states that the things of the Spirit of God can only be spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14).

Also, the Apostle Peter was very keen on the importance of learning for scriptural interpretation; and so he writes: “…our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2Pet. 3:15-16). Peter is saying that there are “untaught” and “unstable” people who misinterpret Scriptures to their own destruction. Now, while Peter himself was not theologically trained in Jewish schools like Paul was trained, he along with the others was trained by Jesus; therefore, the Jews noted when they listened to Peter and John: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus” (Act 4:13). Obviously, Peter and John reflected the authoritative teaching style of Jesus. Not coming short, Paul does not brag about his former theological training under Gamaliel, but ascribes the authority of his spiritual understanding to the revelation of Jesus Christ: “For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12).

It is important to note an important distinction between the Jewish schools and the teaching ministry of the Apostles. Jesus forbade His disciples from using the title “Rabbi”, a title very common among Jewish teachers. He said that the Pharisees love to be called “Rabbi, Rabbi.” “But you, do not be called “Rabbi”; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren” (Mat 23:7-8). John Gill understands by this that disciples should not look upon themselves “as men of power and authority over others; as having the dominion over men’s faith, a power to make laws for others, impose them in a magisterial way, and bind and loose men’s consciences at pleasure, as these men do.” The disciples are ones who were taught, and what they teach is what they have also received from the Lord, who Himself received the doctrine from the Father.

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…  (1Co 11:23)

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (1Co 15:3)

… that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1Co 4:6-7)

In the same vein, Paul writes to the Corinthians: “Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand” (2Co 1:24).

The Lord Jesus Himself made it clear when He spoke of His authority and teaching:

For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. (John 12:49)

The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. (John 14:10)

I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. (John 8:28)

No single person can claim absolute or exclusive spiritual authority of interpretation or doctrine. Divine wisdom is “open to reason” (James 3:17, RSV), and all fellow believers are fellow brethren having access to the spiritual things of God. But, only those who are willing to obey can know the doctrine (John 7:17). The term kathegetes (guide, Master teacher) is forbidden (Matt.23:10); however, the church did have teachers (didaskalos) who passed on what they knew with the aptitude of teaching to faithful others (1Tim.2:7; 2Tim.1:11). The revelation of God calls for humility of grace.

In the Apostolic period, teachers are referred to as a ministry gift given by Christ to the church (Eph.4:11). We read about Paul and Barnabas as teachers (Acts 13:1) who assembled with the church at Antioch and taught a great many people throughout the year they stayed there (Acts 11:26). The New Testament also says that having “gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them… he who teaches, in teaching” (Rom. 12:6,7).

The following are some characteristics we can observe in teachers in the NT:

  1. Teachers are those who themselves have been taught (Tit.1:9)
  2. They hold fast to the faithful word they have been taught (either by word or letter (Tit.1:9; 2Thess.2:15) observing the pattern of sound words (2Tim.1:13))
  3. They are rooted and built up, abounding in the Word (Col.2:7; Jude 1:20; Matt.7:24)
  4. Teachers are skillful in the word of righteousness (Heb.5:13)
  5. Teachers are mature (Heb.5:14)
  6. Teachers have trained senses to discern both good and evil (Heb.5:14)
  7. Teachers have their spiritual eyes opened (Luke 6:39; Eph.1:18)
  8. Teachers are perfectly trained (katartizo) (Lk.6:40; Eph.4:12)
  9. Teachers will receive stricter judgment (Jas 3:1)
  10. There are elders who rule and elders who especially labor in the word and doctrine. Teachers, especially, are to be counted worthy of double honor (1Tim.5:17; Gal.6:6)
  11. Teachers rightly divide the word of truth (2Tim.2:15)
  12. Spiritual Teachers bridle their tongue (James 3:1-18; Eccl 12:11)
  13. Spiritual Teachers don’t engage in foolish disputations of words (2Tim.2:23)
  14. Spiritual Teachers are patient in teaching (2 Tim.2:24)
  15. Spiritual Teachers are meek like their Master (2 Tim.2:25, Matt.11:29)
  16. Spiritual Teachers don’t load students with burdens they themselves cannot carry (Matt.11:30; 23:2-4). True wisdom brings rest.

Among the Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John and a martyr for the faith, is mentioned as a “prophetic teacher” and an “illustrious teacher” in The Epistle Concerning the Martyrdom of Polycarp[3]. The Didache, also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (1st or 2nd century AD), gives instructions for discerning between true and false teachers, which shows that traveling teachers were not few in that period. However, we do not see any school or seminary during the Apostolic period.

The Early Church Age: The Catechetical School of Alexandria (c 100-500)
Some historians believe that the first theological school (known as the Catechetical School) was founded by Mark the evangelist at Alexandria. Jerome (347-420) in his De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Letters 8 and 11, wrote that Mark was the first who preached Christ at Alexandria and “formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example.” Jerome also refers to him as the “learned Mark.”[4] Jerome says that Philo the Jew wrote a book on this first church at Alexandria and stated “not only that they were there, but also that they were in many provinces and calling their habitations monasteries.”[5] A number of scholars have concluded, based on such references by Jerome and Eusebius the historian, that Mark was the first Head of the School at Alexandria.[6] Alexandria was a city of learning with one of the largest libraries in the world. It evidently also posed philosophical challenges to the Christian faith. It was, therefore, very compelling for a school of theology to begin here.

Not all agree that this school may have been founded by Mark. For instance, Harold Rowden says that it was founded by Bishop Demetrius towards the close of the second century and that it had a great influence on theological development.

Founded by Bishop Demetrius towards the close of the second century, it grew to its greatest heights under the leadership of the famous Origen before his departure to Caesarea (where he developed a similar institution). Its scope has been well summarised as “an encyclopaedic teaching, presenting in the first place the whole series of profane sciences, and then rising to moral and religious philosophy, and finally to Christian theology, set forth in the form of a commentary on the sacred books”. In all this, Origen was clearly influenced by Alexandrian and Jewish precedents, but that the school was more than a “Christian University” is evidenced by the fact that it produced notable missionaries (e.g. Gregory the Wonderworker, Apostle of Pontus, who studied under Origen at Caesarea).[7]

Max Mueller, speaking about Clement of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, said that at a time when some Christian teachers viewed Greek philosophy as the works of the devil, Clement stood up and argued that there was no antagonism between philosophy and religion.[8] Farrar also praised the endeavors of the Alexandrian school:

Different instruments are needed for different ends. Where Clement of Rome might have been useless, Clement of Alexandria became deeply influential. Where a Tertullian would only have aroused contempt and indignation, an Origen won leading Pagans to the faith of Christ. From Alexandria came the refutation of Celsus, from Alexandria the defeat of Arius. It was the cradle of Christian theology.[9]

Rowdon says that such “schools developed in major centres of Christianity in the East – not only Alexandria and Caesarea, but also Antioch, and further east at Edessa and Nisibis. The last, formed by Nestorians expelled from Edessa is said to have assumed very large proportions―800 students in the seventh century.”[10]

Early Medieval Period (c.500-1000): The Rise of Monasteries and Monastic Schools
Pachomios (292-348) is considered to be the first to encourage the community of monks. Prior to him, monastics tended to live in seclusion from each other. The Early Medieval Period saw a rise of monasteries in different parts of the Christian world. These monasteries became places of learning for the monks who sought separation from the world, communion among them, and intimacy with God. Monks were required to actively engage in reading and learning. In course of time, the monasteries moved increasingly in the direction of theological and philosophical reflection. Jonathan Hill observes:

The Dark Ages had been a time of intellectual stifling. The Christian empire of Byzantium in the East, and the growing centralization of the Catholic Church in the West, permitted no independent philosophical or scientific thought outside the Church. The old philosophical schools lay empty.

Yet learning was kept alive in the monasteries. The ideal of the Desert Fathers, the hermits who took seriously the Gospel command to forsake the world, had developed into tight-knit communities of monks all over the world. After the 4th and 5th centuries, the monasteries were increasingly tightly organized as the monks took binding vows and followed rigid “rules” drawn up by a great monastic founder like Basil of Caesarea or Benedict of Nursia. Here, the scriptures of the Fathers were copied and read….

Monasticism became very popular throughout the devout Byzantine empire…. As centuries passed,… monasteries were founded in increasingly inaccessible places. First there were the “Meteora”, monasteries built on spectacular mountain peaks in Turkey, safe from barbarian hordes. And then there were the famous monasteries of Mount Athos.[11]

Monks and nuns in the medieval monasteries studied not only the scriptures but also philosophy, science, history, classical poetry, and medicine. In fact, the monasteries played an important role in preserving scientific knowledge.

One of the places where some basic written traditions about philosophy and learned medicine was retained was the Christian Church. A founder of a monastic group in Italy, Cassiodorus (480-575), wrote down a set of rules that included the requirement to copy texts, ensuring that some literature would survive; such monasteries also set up schools and had infirmaries for the care of inmates and pilgrims.[12]

However, the tendency was directly towards the training of the clergy, though not ignoring the responsibility to train young pupils. Thus, in 789 the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle urged: “Let schools be built to teach children to read. In all the monasteries and in all the episcopal churches, psalms, hymns, singing, arithmetic and grammar shall be taught.”[13] Nevertheless, the main aim is considered to be “that priests and monks should be trained ‘capable of understanding the Scripture, of reading the office correctly, of performing liturgical functions exactly and intelligently.’”[14]

The Later Middle Ages (c.1000-1500): The Rise of the University
This was an era of Christendom in which the Pope had enormous political power and the dividing line between the sacred and the secular was almost invisible. As a result, training for ministry had nothing much in difference from training for service of God in the state.[15] This era saw the emergence of the university.

In a sense, the university grew out of the bishop’s responsibility to provide clerical training. The 4th Lateran Council of 1215 still exhorted every metropolitan bishop to ensure that theology was taught in the context of his cathedral church, but in fact this duty was being taken up by the universities. Owing to the deepening involvement of bishops in affairs of state as well as the higher politics of the Church, the bishop’s teaching duties had long since devolved upon the cathedral chancellor. Now, as part of a notable renaissance of learning, and in some cases at least developed out of the activities of the cathedral chancellor, the university came into existence as a “studium generale” (i.e. a general resort of students).[16]

According to Rashdall Hastings, the term Studium Generale seems to have implied three characteristics: (1) That the School attracted or at least invited students from all parts, not merely those of a particular country or district, (2) That it was a place of higher education; that is to say, that one at least of the higher Faculties – Theology, Law, Medicine – was taught there, (3) That such subjects were taught by a considerable number – at least by a plurality – of Masters.[17] Some of these Studium Generalia were instituted by the authority of Pope or the Emperor Bulls and such authority was sought for recognition of newer schools. However, there were also the older universities such as Oxford that were not founded or recognized by such procedures and yet had established themselves as reputable institutions of education. Nevertheless, there still existed a tug of war between the “authorized” and the free schools. Thus, for instance, at “Paris, even Oxford degrees failed to command incorporation without fresh examination and license, and Oxford repaid the compliment by refusing admission to Parisian Doctors, the Papal Bull notwithstanding.”[18]

According to Rowdon,

The organisation of the university seems to have been influenced by the structure of the medieval gild. Ultimate control resided in the hands of the Cathedral Chancellor, but effective control was exercised by the Rector or Master of the Schools, who was usually elected by the masters and merely confirmed by the bishop. Masters gave lectures which were attended by the bachelors who at first lived in rooms, privately hired, then in halls where rooms were let to them by a master. When colleges came in the late thirteenth century they were primarily communities in which masters lived a common life under a warden. The course of studies for bachelors was the already stereotyped programme of the seven liberal arts, comprising the Trivium (Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic) and the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Astronomy, Music and Geometry). More specialised studies, such as Medicine, Canon Law (increasingly important with the growing centralised bureaucracy of the medieval Roman Church) and Theology were post-graduate.[19]

Thus, during the Later Middle Ages, we find theological education becoming a higher Faculty within the larger University. Even the schools of the Friars started for training of clergy became soon absorbed into the university set-up.[20] The demand for highly educated clergy was on the rise.

The Reformation Period (c.1500-1700)
Humanism was at heights during the Renaissance finding strong expression in the writings of Christian humanists such as Erasmus and Thomas More. Secular humanism was also finding a vent in books such as The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli (1469-1527).[21] Among the Reformers like Luther and Calvin, there was an increasing emphasis on sola scriptura and a purging of Christian thought of all superstitious, mythical, and non-biblical elements. The focus turned towards a historical-grammatical study of the Scriptures in the original languages with a willful rejection of the allegorical method of interpretation. Rowdon notes:

The major reformers were more indebted to humanism than is sometimes thought. Melanchthon at Wittenberg, as well as Calvin at Geneva and the numerous centres of training set up in the Netherlands, Scotland, and later North America, under the direct or indirect inspiration of Geneva, gave ministerial training a firm basis in exegesis of the Scriptures in the original languages…. Attention is often drawn to the stream of men coming, fully trained, from Calvin’s Academy at Geneva. It should not be forgotten that the University of Wittenberg had been fulfilling a similar role for decades before the foundation of the Academy, and that Calvin had learned something at least from the stress on biblically based education at Strassbourg under Martin Bucer and the famous educationalist, lean Sturm.

Principal Kingdon has argued that the churches in the Reformed tradition centred ministerial training upon the universities because they were largely under the control of the churches.[22]

The rise of the Protestant centers of education, e.g. at Cambridge, and the challenge posed by erudite Protestant ministers was countered by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent initiating the “lesser seminaries which provided general education, and the greater seminaries to add ministerial training which would enable Roman Catholic priests to match the learning and devotion of some at least of their Protestant counterparts.”[23]

According to Larry Linduist, Protestant reforms viewed the Protestant minister as one who “for the sake of public order was appointed to certain duties every Christian was entitled to perform. Pastors with more education and training served churches in towns, while those with less training served country parishes.” He also notes that education was a serious priority for the reformers. In fact, Melancthon, known as the “teacher of Germany,” established more than 60 schools that “emphasized the need to prepare youth for the ministry and civil government.”[24]

Post-Reformation – Mission Era (c.1700-1980)

The Post-Reformation period saw increasing conflict between secular university interests and the need for sincere theological study. Some bishops attempted gathering trainees for regular biblical exegetical study. But, lacking encouragement, not all attempts could continue for long. Pietism in academics began to largely diminish as church Colleges were viewed skeptically as rivals by Universities that were being overtaken by the rational spirit of the Enlightenment. The emergence of the missionary movement saw the establishment of mission training centres such as C.M.S. Institution at Islington (1815). Alfred Peache and his sister Kezia founded the London College of Divinity at St. John’s Wood in 1863. Among leaders who discerned the need for spiritual training was John Wesley who met with his leaders from time to time giving them lectures on theology, logic, and pastoralia.[25] Also notable were the Bible Training Institutes founded by D. L. Moody situated in cities like Chicago and Glasgow. Moody’s training institutes emphasized on leadership training and evangelism over academic standards. The 19th century marked the emergence of theological colleges. Also, notable is the increasing trend to shift theological training from the church to the university. Rowdon observes:

From the seventies, however, with the reform of theological syllabuses, the emergence of teachers of the calibre of Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort, and the opening of the universities to men of all religious persuasions, there was a tendency, which has been gaining strength ever since, for the study of theology to focus upon the university rather than the cathedral. Colleges – both anglican and nonconformist – became associated with universities. Wycliffe and Ridley, founded to stem the tide of rationalism as well as of ritualism, were sited in Oxford and Cambridge respectively. The Congregational college at Spring Hill, Birmingham, moved to Cambridge, while the Baptist college of Regent’s Park moved to Oxford.[26]

In India, the Serampore College was started by William Carey, Joshua Marshman and William Ward in 1818, and favored with the Royal Charter by the King of Denmark in 1827. By the end of the 19th century, it had totally become a Baptist College. The Royal Charter was no longer in use and its validity was questioned. George Howells, the then principal of Serampore College, worked hard to reorganize Serampore and, consequently, the first B.D. degrees were conferred in 1915. The Government had decided that a faculty of theology in universities was not practical, but the missionaries opined that Serampore charter be utilized on university lines. Thus, the Serampore College Act was passed in 1918. Following are some of the colleges that affiliated with Serampore in the initial years:[27]

  • United Theological College (1919) at B.D. Level
  • Pasumalai (1919) at L.Th. Level
  • Bishop’s College, Calcutta (1920) at B.D. Level
  • Arcot Theological Seminary, Vellore (1922) at L.Th Level
  • North India Theological College, Saharanpur (1927) at B.D. Level

When Serampore began to lean more towards liberal approaches, evangelical colleges shifted towards accrediting associations such as the Asia Theological Association in the past few decades. When Indian believers first began to experience the power and presence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit, training centres emerged that focused on prayer, faith, sound doctrine, evangelism, and church planting. One of such institutions was the Bharosa Bible Institute founded by Late Rev. Dr. Kurien Thomas in 1962 at Itarsi. Today, there is an explosion of training centers and colleges all over the country. There are a number of accrediting associations as well. There are also pseudo-colleges giving fake degrees.

Central India Theological Seminary
In 1962, when Rev. Kurien Thomas felt led by the Lord to start a theological institution at Itarsi, the only driving force was the divine mandate and the great need felt for training Gospel workers. The institute was called Bharosa Bible Institute, “bharosa” meaning “trust”. The mission was clear: training laborers to reach the unreached with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The means was equally clear: trust. Rev. Thomas wrote:

It was in 1962. The border war between India and China had just ended. I realized that the battle for the souls of India would continue until the last day. For this battle we needed young men, not foreigners, but young men of India to become soldiers in Christ’s Army — Men who were so filled with the power of God that they could stand in the Name of Jesus and defeat the spiritual powers which foolish men worship. Young men, with a knowledge of God’s Word, who would be able to lead this generation into the path of righteousness. So there was born in my heart a vision of a Bible School in Itarsi.

I shared this vision with the local church and at once all the believers, having God’s witness in their own hearts, said “Amen.” And so in July 1962, we started. There was no Mission Board we could apply to for help. No bank account we could lean on. No fund from which we could meet the financial need. The only person we knew who would be interested to help us was Jesus Christ. We would have to walk from day-to-day trusting Him. The Bible School would have to run by Faith and so it was called “Bharosa Bible School.” (“Bharosa” being the Hindi word for “Faith.”) At first the course was for three months only — July, August and September. These are the monsoon months in India and the almost non-stop torrential rain makes any kind of outside work impossible. We had no special building to accommodate the students; so we housed them in the veranda of the church. Here the students were protected from the weather by a thin wooden lattice. Through this lattice would come the heat in the summer, the cold in the winter and the rain in the monsoon. The mosquitoes entered at all seasons and seemed to thrive on the holy blood of the saints sleeping inside. The conditions were primitive, but I don’t recall many complaints from these young men who joined us in that first year. They had dedicated their lives to the service of the Master and were prepared to sacrifice their lives for Him, if need be.[28]


Humble as the account may seem, the Lord used this theological ministry to equip numerous individuals over the years to serve in His work field with great efficacy of power and fruitfulness. I feel tempted to name some notable alumni, but choose to desist from doing this, for what is “notable” in human eyes may not be as notable in the Lord’s eyes – “those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty.” (1 Cor. 12:22-23, NIV). The light of the Gospel shines in the remotest corners of India as young men and women, committed to the cause of the Cross, courageously and unswervingly stand with the living and life-giving Word of God.

Bharosa Bible Institute was renamed as Central India Bible College when it upgraded to offer undergraduate programs and as Central India Theological Seminary when it began to offer postgraduate programs. During its phase as Central India Bible College, until 1992, it was associated with the Asian Theological Association (ATA) but voluntarily pulled out for some time until recently, when it has sought membership and is again in process of accreditation by it. Meanwhile, the Seminary has progressed by leaps and bounds in matters of academic programs (both regular and extension), library, infrastructure, and publications.

Dr. Matthew K. Thomas took the baton of the College’s leadership as President/Principal from Dr. Kurien Thomas in 1992. In 1996, the Master of Divinity program was launched; in 2010, the department of Distance Education was inaugurated in order to extend the program to those who couldn’t join the regular mode of education. In 2013, the Master of Theology program in Christian Apologetics was launched. Undergirding all these accomplishments is the divine vision to equip the minister of God with information and skills necessary to execute the divine task in the world. The emphasis is clearly on the preeminence of Christ, the primacy of the Holy Spirit, the pursuit of holiness, the practice of excellence, the proclamation of the Word, the pulse of compassion, and perseverance to the end.


[1] Bernhard Ott, Understanding and Developing Theological Education (Cumbria: Langham Global Library, 2016), 89-90
[2] Ibid,  90
[3] Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson (Eds), Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol.1. The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Chs.16:2; 19:1.
[4] De Viris Illustribus, Letter 8. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm. (Accessed on Nov 13, 2017)
[5] Ibid, Letter 11

[6] Willem Hendrik Oliver, Influence of the Catechetical School of Alexandria on the growth and development of Christianity in Africa, unpublished PhD thesis (University of South Africa, 2016), p117ff. http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/22668/thesis_oliver_wh.pdf. (Accessed on Nov 13, 2017)
[7] Harold H. Rowdon, “Theological Education in Historical Perspective,” Vox Evangelica 7 (1971): 76
[8] Max Muller, Theosophy or Psychological Religion, Lecture XIII. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1917), 436
[9] Frederic W. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, I (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889), 352.
[10] Rowdon, “Theological Education…”, 76
[11] Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought (Oxford: Lion Books, 2003), 123
[12] Mark Jackson (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Medicine (Oxford University Press, 2011), 193
[13] Rowdon, Theological Education….,” 78
[14] Ibid, 78
[15] Ibid, 78
[16] Ibid, 79
[17] Rashdall Hastings, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895), 8-9
[18] Ibid, 16
[19] Rowdon, Theological Education…, 79
[20] Ibid, 80
[21] Domenic Marbaniang, Secularism in India: A Historical Analysis (Bangalore: Pothi, 2011), 20-21
[22] Rowdon, Theological Education…., 80
[23] Ibid, 81
[24] “Leadership Development in the Reformation Era” in G.T. Kurian and M.A. Lamport (Eds), Encyclopedia of Christian Education, Vol. 3 (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), 704
[25] Rowdon, Theological Education…, 83-85
[26] Ibid, 84
[27] Siga Arles, Theological Education for the Mission of the Church in India: 1947 – 1987 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991).
[28] Kurien Thomas, God’s Trailblazer in India and Around the World, 2nd edn (Bangalore: CfCC, 2012), p.69


Christ, Truth, and Politics

Published in the Souvenir of Central India Theological Seminary of October 2005.

Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? (John 18:38)

It is interesting to note that the only instance where Christ ever met Pilate in recounted history was at His trial. The ensuing dialogue between both of them is intriguing. It heavily concentrates on the urgency of Truth in a world mismanaged by humans.

The trial of Christ at Jerusalem reminds us of the trial of Socrates at Athens. Tertullian might have been too quick to retort “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” The unjust sentence of Socrates explicitly points out the fact that the greatest problem with humanity is not that it has not known the truth but that, to the contrary, having understood the ramifications of truth it has suppressed it and chosen to put an end to any voice that speaks on behalf of it. Weren’t there at least 80, of the earlier 220 who voted Socrates as innocent, who also later voted for his death penalty? Truth had less significance in the democratic Athens, whose laws Socrates himself highly respected. In Jerusalem as well, though Christ’s sentence was not decided through a Jury based on votes, yet it was the voice of the mob that prevailed against the truth.The obvious truth was that Pilate had found nothing worth condemning in Jesus. Yet, however, he talked of the Passover custom of releasing a prisoner and had Christ whipped despite the evidence that Christ was not a criminal.

The contrast between Socrates and Jesus is high at the point where Jesus begins to speak of a kingdom beyond this world and of His coming to bear witness to the truth. While for Socrates, truth had to be discovered through rational analysis, Christ claimed to know the truth and be a witness to the truth. While Socrates didn’t find any meaning in a world beyond Athens, Christ talked of a kingdom that transcends all spatial-temporal existence.

Pilate’s question to Jesus as to what was truth insinuates several meanings. He might have meant “Does truth mean anything at all?” or “What is truth in this situation?” or “Is truth absolute or relative?” or “Do politics and truth go together?” or “Even if there is something called Truth, is there any significance to it?” or “What truth are you talking about?” Whatever the import of the question was, the fact remains that Pilate found nothing appealing in any understanding of truth in a world that relativized everything to suit its selfish purposes.

Pilate had already become infamous for his hard ways of dealing with mobs. Josephus tells us of Pilate’s aversion of Jewish religious interference in his political moves. For instance, when he brought Roman banners with Caesar’s image on them, the Jews protested. He tried to put them down by deploying his troops only to find out that these people were committed to their religion more than they were committed to Caesar. In another instance, he sent his soldiers dressed in tunics to infiltrate the crowd and beat the offenders with clubs. They had protested against his secular employment of temple treasure. And so, now, when the Jews come to him with Jesus, he straight away dismisses them with the words “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.” When they insist that he was a political malefactor, he takes him aside and asks him some questions only to find out that the Jews who once protested against the images of Caesar were now using the name of Caesar to get rid of Jesus. Later, Pilate finds himself accused of enmity against Caesar on grounds that he wished the release of Jesus. Understanding the breadth of experience Pilate had in politics, it is not amazing that his famous question “What is truth?” comes in response to Jesus’ statement that He was a King and had come into the world to bear witness to the truth. How could one be a King and also bear witness to the truth at the same time. Was the Roman Empire ready for such news?

Several centuries later, an Italian political philosopher by the name of Machiavelli was to write that a ruler is not bound by traditional ethical norms and is free to use whatever means available for his political purposes. His principles of power politics came to be known as Machiavellianism. Machiavelli proposed that it was better that a ruler be both loved and feared; but, since a combination of both was too difficult, it was desirable that a ruler be feared though not loved. His formulation of such principles was allegedly drawn from studies in Roman political history and the politics of his age. Unquestionably, tyranny and despotism are perfect possibilities in a political system that doesn’t recognize the sovereignty of God. Assuredly, every Nebuchadnezzar still needs a Daniel.

When questioned about His Kingship, Jesus promptly replied: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” This clearly recognized that force was indispensable to kingdom. Puzzling, however, is the way Jesus uses the concept of kingdom. He distinguishes between two kinds of kingdom: one, of this world; another, not of this world. He claimed to be the King of the latter with an additional comment that His servants didn’t help Him now because His kingdom was not from here. The word used for ‘world’ here is kosmos (world, order), not aion (age, course). It denotes this very physical world order that we live in. Important is also the phrase not from here, which is to mean that Christ’s kingdom didn’t have its origin or basis in this world. It is from above even as Christ is from above (the second man). And the King of this other-worldly kingdom is a witness of truth. His passion for truth led Him to come to this world confused by raging falsehood and deception. He said that everyone that belonged to the truth heard His voice. He was the King of the Kingdom of Truth. A few chapters earlier, He claimed to be the personification of Truth itself so that anyone who believes in Him and follows Him is delivered from the falsehood of this-worldly glory (which truly is darkness) and transferred to His kingdom of light. Knowing Him is far more urgent than knowing several diverse truths. He is the Truth that connects together all truths of past, present, and future and fills them with transcendent and eternal meaning. Pilate could not hear Christ’s voice. Dazed by Christ’s statements, he retorted “What is truth?” and left without waiting for an answer.

Immediately, he goes out and declares to the Jews: “I find in him no fault.” That was the truth. However, he added: But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” That was the falsehood. Why talk of releasing Christ as a criminal when no fault indicting Him had been found in Him? The ethical relativism of this-worldly politics thickens still further when the crowd demands the release of a notorious robber (they could endure physical robbery as long as their spiritual status was left untouched and their religiosity approved of). Pilate scourges Jesus and lets his soldiers humiliate Him thinking, perhaps, that this would soften the violent temper of the crowd. He still tries to stick closer to justice and truth though the current is tearing him away from it.

Jesus had told him earlier that His kingdom was not of this world. Pilate still seems to be out of touch with the import of His word. He asks Him: “Where are you from?” Jesus gave no reply. Pilate says: “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to crucify you, and I have authority to release you?” To which Jesus replies: “You could have no authority against Me unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” The relating of political authority to a transcendent Rulership above is significant. Hegel in his Reason in History writes regarding the role of the Divine in politics:

Religion is the sphere where a people gives itself the definition of what it regards as the True. Such a definition contains everything which belongs to the essence of the object, reducing its nature to a simple fundamental characteristic as focus for all other characteristics – the universal soul of all particulars. The idea of God thus is the general fundament of a people.

…secular existence is temporal and moves within private interest. Hence it is relative and unjustified. Its justification can only be derived from the absolute justification of its universal soul, its principle. And this is justified only as determination and existence of the essence of God. For this reason the State is based on religion.

Of course, Hegel writes of God, Religion, and Truth within the framework of his Phenomenology of the Spirit. But his insight into the necessity of truth and God as the unifying fundament of a people is great. Biblically speaking, God is the creator of man, and is the giver of not only political authority but also vision and direction to a nation. A nation which loses sight of God, will soon lose sight of practical value in truth and honesty. Private interest and engrossment with the present would reign high and become the ground for the release of despotism and tyranny. Jesus, by reminding Pilate that his authority was from above, was telling him that he was not autonomous in his field of politics. He was accountable to God. However, it is the one who handovers Jesus to Pilate that has the greater sin. Pilate has an opportunity to be just. He tries to release Jesus but is backfired by the crowd with the words: “If you let this man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.” Threatened by such accusation, Pilate gives in to the demand of the crowd and handovers Jesus to be crucified, at the same time referring to Jesus as the King of the Jews, to the chagrin of the priests who, themselves having succumbed to the relative situation, ironically exclaim that they have no king but Caesar. Pilate, however, doesn’t stop here. He inscribes on the title on Jesus’ cross the words JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS and refuses to change it despite the chief priests’ protest. Somehow, Pilate seems to be attempting to stick close to the truth despite his obvious distance from it. He had already fallen prey to the public appeasement of secular politics. Truth had fallen in the earthly city.

But Christ, the Truth of God, did not die forever. He rose again on the third day. By His physical death on the cross, He put an end to the falsehood of this world order and rose again as the Firstfruits of a new world order founded on the very fulfillment of truth (His life and teaching), righteousness (His obedience), and justice (His sacrifice). If He didn’t arise humanity would have been left without any hope of justice and a life eternal that transcended this world. But He rose again. And one day, He will come back to judge the world according to Truth (Romans 2:2). He will return in the glory of His kingdom (Mt. 16:28; 2 Tim. 4:1) to inaugurate a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness (2 Pt. 3:13).


Law and Grace in Church Clothing

There is an increasing trend towards becoming trendy at church, which is not always bad. We must make a distinction between faith and culture; culture is dynamic and flexible; faith has to be absolute. The problem rises when faith attempts to claim elements of culture in order to sacralize them and render them inflexible. When faith tries to do that, then the result is a legalistic religious system that is very fundamentalistic. These issues were earlier discussed here. However, grace is not lawless either. The New Testaments cautions us against those who attempt to turn the grace of God into license for evil (Jude 1:4, NET).

Take the Example of Clothing

Let’s begin at the pulpit and one immediately notes at least 5 variants:
1. Those who stick to orthodox robes and cassocks or sacralized color definitions (e.g. white)
2. Those who stress on wearing business suits or traditional suits
3. Those who like to wear designer and more trendy clothes
4. Those who like to wear casuals.
5. Those who are comfortable with two or more of the combinations above
    (a) Those who are comfortable with 1-4
    (b) Those who are comfortable with 2-4
    (c) Those who are comfortable with 1,2,4 but not 3
    (d) Those who are comfortable with 2,3,4 but not 1
    (e) Those who are comfortable with only 2 and 4.
    (f) Those who are comfortable with only 1 and 2.
    (g) Those who stick to 2 and 3 or 3 and 4.

It is not attempted to state here who is right and who is wrong. However, it will become evident to the reader by now that the issue of law and grace is basic even to the kind of dress we choose to wear to church.

Now, while it does seem that the sacralizers (1) are particularly legalistic, the fact is that even those who maintain that only casuals “ought” to be worn to church are not less legalistic. On the other hand, there are those who look at dress in a more instrumental manner, as something to be used to suit some purpose. The wiser instrumentalists also know that dress-forms as cultural forms also communicate meanings and are cautious how they dress up. There are also revolutionaries who dress up to explicitly and blatantly communicate their revolt against some legalistic system. Then, there are the popularists who dress up in order to have a trendy following or to create a brand.

“Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.” (Rom.12:2)

“those who use the world as though they were not using it to the full. For the present shape of this world is passing away.”(1Cor.7:31)

“to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control.” (1Tim.2:9)

Suitable apparel refers to dress that suits the occasion and is comfortable to wear in the conditions. Modesty implies that the dress we wear must not be embarrassing and must protect shame, not be shameless and exposing privacy; dress must be honorable. Self-control means that our dress must not be provocative or appealing to the flesh but must exhibit self-control, temperance, and sound mind.


Christ the Anointed One

Published in Revive Magazine, Dec 23, 2016

THE titles “Christos” (Christ) in the Greek New Testament and “Mashiyach” (Messiah) in the Hebrew Old Testament mean “The Anointed One”. While there were many men who were anointed as prophets, priests, and kings in the Old Testament period, it is only Jesus who is particularly referred to as the Anointed One of God. Therefore, the title “Christ” or “Messiah” exclusively applies to Him alone. In this article, we will focus on an attempt to understand Christ as the Anointed One of God.

The Unity of Christ’s Anointing

A careful study of the Bible shows us the singularity and unity of Christ’s anointing as the Anointed Priest-Prophet-King of God—not three separate anointings, separate of each other, but one. He IS the Anointed One and His anointing includes all the offices of God’s work (of Mediatorship, of Manifestation, and of Mastership) through Him in the world. We can understand Him as the Priest-Prophet-King, the Divine Lord of the universe, the Image of the Invisible God (not made in the image, but is the image, Col.1:15), God, the Anointer, and the All-sufficient One.

The Anointed One is the Revelation of God (Prophet), the Ruler of all creation (Prince), and the Reconciler of all things (Priest) through whom and for whom is everything and in whom alone can all things be reconciled and be united (Col. 1:16; Eph.1:10). Therefore, we are saved, justified, can pray, and can have dominion in the Name of Jesus alone.

The Eternality of Christ’s Anointing

Under the Mosaic Law, the anointed priest (hakohen hamashiach) was one who was appointed in time, had to offer sacrifices for his own sins, and could be succeeded by another upon his death (Lev.6:20; 4:3; 6:22). The term of an earthly priest was finite; the rituals, repetitive; the effects, impermanent and imperfect. However, the office of Christ as the Anointed One of God is eternal, transcending the limits of time. Therefore, His one act of sacrifice was sufficient for eternity and His effects are absolute, permanent, perfect, and irreversible.

He incarnated as man in time. But as God, He is eternal. Therefore, His anointing is not contingent upon His humanity – i.e., one cannot say that Christ could not be called the Anointed One until after His incarnation as man. On the contrary, His anointing is independent of His humanity since He is the Source of all things and all things are through Him and for Him. It is because He is the Anointed One that He possessed the prerogative to incarnate as man and atone for the sins of the world. In that, His anointing preceded His incarnation. This is what Hebrews 1-2 is attempting to also teach us. Every time we have a heavenly declaration, we are told that He is the Son of God.

For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” (Heb 1:5-9)

Now, it is possible that someone will argue, “See, there is use of tense here! And, we are told that God anointed Jesus because He loved righteousness.”. But, one must not forget that this declaration is not in time, but in eternity. Though He is the Anointed One because of the anointing, this precedence of anointing is not chronological but logical in the same way that He is called the begotten Son of God, but this begetting is not chronological, for He eternally is the Son of God. The angels did not begin worshipping Him after His ascension, but He is the One they worshipped from the foundation of the world. Also, it is false to argue that God anointed Jesus as King only after His ascension. He is King eternally.

It is also wrong to think of Him as being anointed by the Holy Spirit only after His baptism. He was never without the fullness of the Holy Spirit. But, some may misunderstand the statement of Peter in Acts 10:38.

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. (Act 10:38)

It is important to understand that it is not the manifestation of the Spirit in Jesus that made Him the Anointed One. But, because He was the Anointed One, therefore, there was the manifestation of the Spirit in His work. Therefore, John could say only of Him:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mat 3:11)

It was not that He received the baptism of the Holy Spirit first and then He became the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit; but, He is the Baptizer eternally.

The eternal Priest-King anointing of Christ is stated by the writer of Hebrews as being after the order of Melchizedek:

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God… first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually…. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” …. Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:1-3, 15-17, 23-25)

The Finality of Christ’s Anointing

The earthly priests, prophets, and kings were anointed with oil and ministered in divinely ordered earthly systems; therefore, they had to be respected (1Chr.16:22 – “Do not touch My anointed ones”). However, Christ the Anointed One was anointed with the Holy Spirit, eternally speaking in logical precedence, and He is servant of heavenly things.

But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation…. Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these [animal sacrifices], but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (Heb 9:11. 23-24)

Christ is the Final Revelation of God through whom God has spoken in these last days (Heb.1:1,2) and is the fulfillment of all prophetic revelation (1Pet.1:10,11; Rev.19:10). He is the King of kings whose kingdom shall never come to an end (Rev.19:16). He is the Eternal Priest of God whose priesthood continues forever by the power of His endless life (Heb.7:25). This points to the sufficiency and finality of Christ in all things so that we are complete in Him (Col.2:9). It also speaks about the heavenliness of God’s new and final order and the Kingdom that comes from heaven, without the help of any human hand (Dan 2:34,44,45). This turns our eyes towards heavenly things where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God and in whom is our life hidden (Col.3:1-3).

Davidic Line and the Melchizedek Order

The priesthood of Christ was not after the Levitical order of Aaron, for Jesus was born in the tribe of Judah and His priesthood was after the order of Melchizedek, i.e. eternal (Heb.7:14-17). However, the kingship was given to the line of David by a divine covenant (2 Sam.7:12-16). Thus, in the Old Testament, we find Messianic prophecies that refer to Christ as David. For instance,

There I will make the horn of David grow; I will prepare a lamp for My Anointed. (Psa 132:17)
I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them– My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd. (Eze 34:23)
David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. (Eze 37:24)

Yet, the Kingship of Christ preceded both Saul and David (1Sam. 8:7). Christ used a prophetic declaration made by David himself to prove to the Jews that the Messiah was not later but prior and above David.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the Spirit call Him `Lord,’ saying: `The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool ‘? If David then calls Him `Lord,’ how is He his Son?” And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore. (Mat 22:41-46)


There is a danger in the Church of turning the eyes from the Anointed One to so-called “anointed” ones. Remember, even the devil was called an anointed cherub (Eze.28:14), but that anointing or chosenness didn’t make him spiritually flawless and perfect. He became puffed up with pride and fell from the glory of God. It is important for the Church to focus her eyes on Christ, the Anointed One of God, her Head, her Groom. In the New Testament, there is no anointing apart from the Spirit of Christ in us (1Jn.2:27). Because we belong to Christ and His Spirit is in us, therefore, we are witnesses of Christ the fulfillment of all prophecy, and we are kings and priests with Him.

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Rev 1:5-6)


Vacuums, Covetousness, Temptation, and Victory

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. (Psa 23:1)
You are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. (Col 2:10)

Covetousness is the desire-call of false and godless vacuum. Covetousness never desires God to fill its emptiness, boredom, greed, or desire because its hunger is false and godless. Covetousness looks for something more, something different, something other and is easily deceived into taking the unreal for real.

There are at least 3 kinds of vacuums:

1. Original Vacuum. This is the vacuum of infinity within the human spirit (Eccl.3:11). It can only be resolved by faith in the Infinite God and loving devotion to Him. A life without Truth, without God is a bottomless pit, infinitely empty, and that is hell. This vacuum manifests as meaninglessness, purposelessness, hopelessness. People try to cover it up by a false belief in either the immortality of personal soul or a recourse to nihilism (or nothingness, absurdity, meaninglessness, pointlessness).

2. Illusory Vacuum. This is a false vacuum created by false ideas, ideals, and allurements. Advertisements, for instance, are well known for creating a need where no such need is real. People buy an advertised object not because they need it but because the advertisement makes them unfulfilled without such an object and they desire fulfillment. The devil told Eve that she lacked something, though she lacked nothing; this false and illusory vacuum in her was her deception. She desired for the forbidden fruit because it was falsely projected to her that this was really desirable. This is how products are sold. The allurement was so strong that she felt bad that she, in her innocence, was kept away from this “good” thing. The allurement reeked with vile thoughts of suspicion, egoism, rebellion, and idolatry. She listened to the devil and forsook the commandment of God. Any mind that doesn’t keep the Word of God before it and listens credulously to any other voice that makes it feel unfulfilled or lacking is susceptible to fall. In the illusory state, the mind is deceived and turns to false things in order to fill a false vacuum. The resulting action is always covetousness, unfaithfulness, disobedience, and rebellion.

3. Addictive Vacuum. This is bondage. It is recurrent. It portrays a pattern. Addiction to drugs is one example of addictive vacuum. The bondage is intolerably strong and inescapable. There are also other addictions like addiction to self (narcissism), addiction to sex, addiction to silver, addiction to societal living, addiction to shopping, etc. Addictive vacuum is not just false, it becomes systemic warping the personality of the person. It enslaves the mind and will and emotion of the person and destroys his spirit. Therefore, deliverance is urgent.

Deliverance: “You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.” (John 8:32)

1. Knowledge of the Truth about the deception and about the bondage comes first.
2. Knowledge of the Deliverer, Christ, is crucial. Not just mental knowledge, but faith and commitment to and total submission to. The Son sets us free.
3. Reject all False Vacuum, covetous allurements, and anything that attempts to turn you from the Truth of God. They are all false and unreal and attempt to suck us away from the reality of God.
4. Be filled with the Holy Spirit “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs [confessing to others complete satisfaction in God], singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord [rejoicing in His goodness all the time even when alone], giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [always filled with gratitude for the gifts of God that makes us lack nothing, doubting nothing, being certain that God has given us all the best for us, not fearing anything], submitting to one another in the fear of God [honoring the true godly connections in life].” (Eph 5:19-21). The Spirit is Reality. The Spiritual is the True Real.
5. Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. (Gal 5:16)