Not mere sympathy but identity: From my diary October 28, 1998.
Morning Rainhold suddenly asked about what I really think about Christians. “Are they really loved by the Lord or not”. When he himself, who knows a lot about me think like this, I could understand others who either first time or only one time heard from me. I generally give an impression that I don’t like Christians and they are hopeless. Though I have to some extent accept responsibility for giving such a wrong impression, yet those who hear me couldn’t understand my priority. I want to avoid church and Christians because all my talk with them end up in argument. Above all their mind setup towards us Hindus always irritate me. They always expect us to adjust with them in all matters regarding our culture and identity and though some among them have common agreement with my principle, yet hesitate to implement them in their life because of the fear of some kind of insecurity to the need to adjust themselves.
Not mere sympathetic understanding but a practical life of adoptation is important to win the confidence of Hindus and Muslims. If the Christians are not ready for it, however they agree with me, then what is the use of their mere lip service? If I point out and challenge this, then they think that I don’t love them. As long as they are not ready to change themselves like Paul this confrontation between me and them will never end.
When I pointed out to Rainhold that how I still have good relationship with several Christians, including him and others, he said that they are different. For this I said “So you too have to create different categery of Christians.” Not mere agreement in principle but also implementing in practical life alone will help us to have True fellowship both in mind and spirit. Otherwise like politicians grouping and re-grouping just for the sake of survival in politics as well as in power, we too will change our colour just for the sake of survival. The fighting politicians suddenly come together to form a coalition govt. just for the sake of convenience without any strong commitment. Then such a coalition will always will hinder growth and stability. But I’m not interested such a convenience fellowship just for the sake of survival.
Those Christians friends of mine like Kannan-Sarada, Rick Rainhold, Joe, Dag etc. though agree with me in principle yet co-operate and help me still keeping an eye on their security and identity Rajeev Rao and Mark Picket are the only two who came to my mind, who have gone to the second mile to identify with us. This being the Truth, how much more the other Christians have concern about their own security when they are challenged by us. Then friction and even ms-understanding in unavoidable in our relationship. In such a situation agree to disagree and keep a distance is the correct solution.
@@@
Nov 2004 Discussion of the month – Syncretism
The Indian evangelical magazine Light of Life ran two articles by an Indian pastor attacking contextualization and (under pseudonyms) a number of activists of the Rethinking Forum. For this month’s discussion we are running a lengthy summary of the articles. Responses prepared by some of those mentioned in the article will also be posted, but after allowing some time to digest the initial articles.
No Patchwork Faith. Kuruvilla Chandy, “Light of Life”, August 2004, pp. 21-26
If something is to be classified as embracing the essence of what is Indian, it must have features that are common to all.
While I was in seminary some thirty years ago, contextualization was the latest theological bandwagon that everyone, who wanted to appear to be sophisticated and intellectual, was climbing on to. Liberals in India were insisting on its absolute necessity for being relevant in India, but were not careful to root their ideas and efforts in God’s Word. They derived all their notions of contextualization from a religion, scriptures and cultures that were non-Christian. Back then, while accepting the basic idea of the need for contextually relevant methods of communicating the Gospel, Evangelicals were uncomfortable with the experiments by Roman Catholics and Protestant Liberals. The performance of aarti (offering flowers before an idol), intoning om (the sound representing the primal energy of Brahma) and so on were considered unacceptable forms of indigenization.
Evangelicals, unable to come up with an evangelical version of contextualization, have sometimes just imitated Liberals. In doing so, such Evangelicals are Johnnies-come-lately, just as Evangelicals have been in so many other areas. They are too lazy to be creative in theologizing, and simply take the easy way out in appearing radical among other Evangelicals merely by aping and mimicking what others in other groups have done.
A Sad Story
Quite a few years ago, I had a friend who was converted from Hinduism and had become an ardent defender and propagator of the Christian faith among non-Christians. Raj would boldly and uncompromisingly present the Gospel.
He gave up his construction business because of the pressures of corruption in that line of work. Then for a while, he worked as a radio speaker for a Christian broadcasting ministry. However, they also required him to raise funds for the ministry, and when he proved unsuccessful, they terminated his services.
Another group then employed him as they were venturing into contextualized evangelism among Hindus. Even though the group had a fairly large number of Hindu converts with sufficient knowledge of the Bible and Christian doctrine, the theologian for this effort was an Occidental, who had no real understanding of things Indian. Theoretically, John Smith was an expert. He had read more books on Hinduism and Indian Christian Theology than most Indian Christians, including myself. He insisted that Raj should no longer attend church services so that his Christian identity would be hidden.
Raj’s wife who had followed him into the Christian faith had given up putting sindhoor (vermilion powder—the mark of the North Indian Hindu married woman) in the parting in her hair. Now Raj asked Nalini to put on sindhoor again. She refused. She said that putting it on again would be like going back on her commitment to Christ. John Smith then went to Raj’s home and said to Nalini, “Please put it on for my sake.” John Smith triumphantly told me that Nalini had done so voluntarily. I said, “Nonsense! It just shows how little you understand the Indian psyche. As a guest in her home, and a white man at that, she was simply pressurized by you.”
Later on I challenged John Smith to give back the old Raj who so uncompromisingly had stood for Christ. As time went on, Raj’s marriage was strained more and more, his home broken, and he died without any Christian fellowship.
Recently I saw some video footage with John Smith in it. He was at a Hindu style wedding between two Christians, Jack and Jill. Reflecting on what I saw, I was reminded of another wedding.
A Christian Wedding.
Almost seven years ago I conducted a church wedding for Babita and Narasimha, two Hindu converts. Approximately two hundred people attended the wedding, of whom only about forty were Christians. The rest were all Hindus. The Hindu father of the bride walked her down the aisle to the strains of the traditional bridal march. The ceremony and vows were not different from what would have been done and said, if the bride and groom had been from solid Christian backgrounds. At the end of the service, some of the Hindu participants took home the printed order of the service, remarking that it was the most meaningful wedding they had attended.
The reception was held in a hall in the nearby temple complex, where Hindus could have their weddings solemnized and thereafter have the festivities in an attached hall. The bridal couple wondered if I would object. I said that I could not expect a Hindu gentleman to have access to the facilities of a Christian institution. It was wonderful that their families were countenancing and celebrating their marriage and Babita’s father, as the host, was free to arrange the wedding reception anywhere he chose.
At the hall there were small idols of Ram and Sita on the salad table. Some Christians said that I should exercise my authority as pastor and ask the hosts to remove the idols. I said, “I’m going to do no such thing. It’s their party. If you feel uncomfortable about the idols, just don’t eat the salad. There are other things you can eat.”
On the other hand, the wedding of the two Christians Jack and Jill was totally Hindu in appearance—from decorations (an upright coconut in a brass vessel—looking a bit like a shiva lingum—with marigold flowers arranged around it) to rituals, everything looked Hindu.
While the wedding was still in the preparation stages, when I expressed my misgivings about some things that were planned, Jack asked me to write to a so-called swamiji, who was going to be the one in charge of the wedding ceremony. I challenged the swami on several issues. He did not reply me, because he obviously did not have any biblical answers to the points I raised. Also, I think he was rather keen to play Brahmin, which would not have been possible if he had accepted biblical standards to be observed at the wedding.
Defining “Indian”
At various points during this wedding, there was one swami introducing some aspect or the other of the rituals, saying that it was according to Indian culture. First of all, this notion that “Indian” is “Hindu” must not only be rejected, but it must also be opposed. I am an Indian, but I am not Hindu, and indeed have no desire to appear to be one or to be mistakenly identified as one. Indians can be Hindus or Muslims or Christians or Sikhs or Parsees or adherents of any of the other religions prevalent in India. Therefore, to have Hindu ceremonies on the grounds of appearing Indian is utter nonsense. If something is to be classified as embracing the essence of what is Indian, it must have features that are common to all, and not what will serve to narrow down its identity to any one community of India. The swami who was introducing every ceremonial act as an aspect of Indian culture was obviously foisting Hindu rituals on the gathering. He protested too much.
On the other hand, was the marriage between Hindu converts Babita and Narasimha not Indian because we followed a traditional order of a Christian wedding in India? I submit rather that theirs was the Indian wedding, while the wedding between jack and Jill, though according to Hindu rituals, was just play-acting, as it did not constitute their own culture, customs or behaviour patterns of the bride and groom. Nothing just happened in due course, but needed a swami to constantly instruct the bride and groom, and other key participants and all the guests what to do, as no one knew what exactly was the Indian thing to do. The quaintness of the rituals was, of course, fascinating.
My observation has been that among Protestant Christians, the indigenization movement is made up of Westerners or those Indians who want to impress Westerners with a view to extracting more monetary support for their work. While I was still in seminary, there used to be an expatriate missionary in the country who projected himself as an expert in contextualization of the faith to fit a Hindu audience. About a decade later, it became apparent that Western missions were shifting their focus to reaching Muslims, as Islam was the fastest growing religion and had hitherto been largely neglected because Muslims were hard to evangelise. When the missionary saw that, he simply switched lanes.
I am by no means suggesting that there is no need for indigenization. Rather, I am contending that, if Evangelicals are serious about it, they would be creative in their attempts without compromising Christian belief, identity and character, instead of embracing it superficially or with ulterior motives.
Use of Sanskrit
In all the indigenization efforts, there has been a tendency to resort to chanting Sanskrit slokas (verses). In objecting to this, I do not imply that Sanskrit is a Hindu language. It is an ancient Indian language, and is no more Hindu, than Greek and Latin are Christian languages. However, the use of Sanskrit, an uncommon language, goes against all that Christ’s Gospel stands for. God has always communicated with His people in the language of the people. In biblical times Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek (vulgar Greek of the marketplace, not the classical Greek of scholarship) were languages spoken by the people—the common people.
The Lord’s intentions of how His message is to be represented are critical to understanding and appreciating His work. The incarnate God, who spoke Aramaic and the Holy Spirit who transmitted truth in the vulgar Greek of the marketplace, would most certainly not hide the message in a language unknown to the common people of India.
The thrust of the Incarnation is that there will be no further need for the mediation of a priestly class of people. However, when messages are hidden in secret languages, there must necessarily be a priest or a holy man to give the interpretation. Mediation by a priest is a total denial of the Christian doctrine that “there is only one mediator between God and humankind-Christ Jesus, one who shared our humanity and gave Himself a ransom for all” (1 Ti. 2:5) and in violation of the concept of the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9). Let’s put it this way: if Jesus came to India in our day, He wouldn’t be speaking Sanskrit. That’s the point.
C.S. Lewis pertinently said, “Any fool can write learned language. The vernacular is the real test. If you can’t turn your faith into it, then either you don’t understand it or you don’t believe it” (Readings for Meditation and Reflection, edited by Walter Hooper, p. xiv)
Power of “Om”
All too often those who want to adopt Indian worship styles have mindlessly slipped in the intoning of om at Christian services. Several years ago, students of the United Theological College, Bangalore, shocked conservative Christians by incorporating the words “om shanty, shanty” in a service. More recently, an evangelical group published an order of service with both the cross and om on the cover. And sure enough, it happened at Jack and Jill’s Hindu style wedding; one of the chants began with om.
Some people say that it is a meaningless sound. But it is not meaningless. It is a mantra (magical spell) of the primal creative force of Brahma. Prabhu Guptara, who hails from a Hindu background, quotes the Rig Veda to give the meaning of om:
om ity etad brahmano nedistam
nama yasmad uccaryamana
eva samsara-bhayat tarayati
tasmad-ucyate tara iti
om asya jananto namacid-
viviktan mahaste visno
sumatim bhajamahe om tat sat
tato’bhut trid-omkaro yo’vyakta
prabhavah svarat
yat tal-lingam bhagavato
brahmanah paramatmanah
[One who chants om, which is the closest form of Brahman, approaches Brahman. This liberates one from the fear of the material world, therefore it is known as tarak brahman. O Vishnu your self-manifest name, om, is the eternal form of cognizance. Even if my knowledge about the glories of reciting this name is incomplete, still, by the practice of reciting this name, I will achieve that perfect knowledge. He who has unmanifested potencies and is fully independent, manifests the vibration omkara, which indicates Himself: Brahman, paramatma, and Bhagavanare the three forms He manifests].
Guptara is right in concluding, “This indicates a ‘magical’ dimension, not mere meaningless-ness.” Therefore, any Christian who chants om denies the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus, and breaks the commandment to not have any god other than the God whose revelations are recorded in the Bible.
For argument’s sake, let us accept the notion that it is a meaningless sound. Then, we must ask, what is a Christian doing offering what is meaningless to God in worship?
Some Christians have tried to justify the use of om by arguing that the New Testament borrowed the concept of logos (word) from Greek philosophy. That is not how it happened. The Apostle John did not borrow from the Greeks. He did begin the gospel by saying “In the beginning was the Logs, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God…” But John was not the one who started using the word Logos to represent Christ. He did so to counter Gnosticism, the heresy that denoted that Jesus was less than Father God by describing Him as the Logos. What John did was to take the false teaching of Gnostics and correct their understanding of Jesus as the Logos. However, he did not invest the concept with its Greek meaning. For Greeks, the logos was reason. For John the Logos was word, fitting in with the Old Testament view that God created by His Word [God said, and it was so (Gen.1:3ff)] and the revelation of God was by the Word spoken. In the end the Word was incarnate.
Om is not a word that can be divested of its meaning and given another. There is no parallel for it in biblical literature. Some have argued that one can use om to think of Jesus/the Triune God. That is akin to saying that one can sit in front of an idol of Ram/Krishna/Siva and think of the true God. This is what Aaron led Israel into doing. He described the golden calf as the god who led Israel out of Egypt and even gave it the covenant name of God. Note that he never said that some Egyptian or Canaanite god freed Israel. What he did was to represent God in a way that God did not permit (see Ex. 32:6—the word “Lord” appears in caps indicating that in Hebrew the text uses “YHWH”).
While om is used as a mantra in Hinduism, one Christian has justified Christians using it by saying that Hindu devotees of Christ don’t use it as a mantra, but to say to God, “here I am to worship you.” This is just rationalization. While it is possible that a sound can mean one thing in one language and another thing in another language, Om is a word that describes something abstract and therefore its meaning is based on the history of its usage—past and current. If words are used without reference to their usage, there can be no communication among people. Moreover, if the intention is to say to God, “Here I am to worship you,” why use a mantra that means something else? Why not just say to God, “Here I am to worship you,” without resorting to hocus-pocus?
No Patchwork Faith-II, Rev. Kuruvilla Chandy, Pastor of the Grace Bible Church, Lucknow, “Light of Life”, September 2004, pp. 27-35
The Christian must not only be Christian, but appear to be Christian.
Jack and Jill did incorporated something beautiful in their Hindu style wedding. However, it had nothing to do with Hindu rites, but with their own understanding of Christian community.
Jack and Jill had several elders offering them words of counsel. The couple went by turns to the groom’s mother, elder brother and wife, and other Christian couples who had already been married for some years. All of them quietly told the bride and groom what the Bible teaches about marriage, or read a passage of Scripture to them. The whole thing was extemporary though the counselors were forewarned that they would have to do this.
This replaced the traditional wedding sermon. In view of this, it would have been good to have a roving microphone to render all of them audible to the others witnessing the wedding, because one aspect of the Christian wedding is that those present learn something as they hear what the Word of God teaches about marriage. Some are encouraged and strengthened in their walk as Christian couples in a world that is contrary to the values of Kingdom of God. Others who have lost their way by imitating what those around them do, are made aware of their errors and confronted with the holiness they are called to.
Unequal Marriage Vows Amended
At this Hindu rites wedding, there were seven vows. Unlike the traditional Christian wedding, the wordings of the vows were different for bride and groom. In the original draft the vows were steeped in the idea that women are basically not equal to men. The vows were amended to reflect the equality that the Bible advocates.
For instance, in the draft version, while the groom promised to allow the bride to visit her family and not hinder her from fulfilling her obligations to her family, the bride was required to aid the groom in fulfilling his obligations to his own family. Though this was only in the draft, it bears reflection because this is no doubt the standard practice in India. Husbands don’t give any support to their wives’ families, even when the wives come from families where there are no sons to care for the parents; but the wives are expected to help their husbands’ families, serve their parents and fund the marriages of their sisters.
Unequal Commitments
In the draft version of the seventh vow, the groom promised love while the bride promised love and submission. Of course, this is no different from the old version of the Christian marriage service. At first glance, it would therefore appear to have been right on target biblically. Doesn’t the Bible say that husbands ought to “love” their wives (Eph. 5:25) and wives ought to “submit” to their husbands (v.22)? But these old wedding services made the wife promise more than just submission. It required her to reciprocate the husband’s love and also submit. When a wife has to promise more and the husband less, it is a denial of the biblical norm of men and women being created equally in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), and being redeemed so that there is no differentiation of male and female in Christ (Gal. 3:2
While Jack and Jill’s wedding vows were amended to fit biblical teaching, at a Christian style wedding in Kottayam, Kerala, where I was present, the preacher referred to the fact that the late Princess Diana had refused to vow “to love and obey” her husband, and then went on to say that as a result the marriage broke down.
I have never been a fan of the late Princess, because in spite of her seeming Christian background and identity, in the public forums that she addressed, she had said things that indicated that she did not believe in the uniqueness of Christ. Of course, she was no different from most of the others in England’s royal family. Though the monarch of England bears the title “Defender of the [Christian] Faith,” almost everyone in the family appears to be unworthy of the title because they say things that affirm that they do not believe the Lord Jesus is the only way to Father God.
However, I have to admit that the assessment of the preacher in Kottayam was unfair. First of all, it ignores the fact that the old order of the Church of England wedding service, required unequal commitments from the bride and groom. The bride was required to vow that she would “love and obey,” while the groom made a lesser commitment to the bride. In insisting on making the same commitment as her groom, the late princess was biblically correct, even without intending to affirm the Bible or its teachings. If anything, the Bible clearly lays the heavier burden the husband. Instead of even remotely hinting that he could lord it over his wife, the husband was asked to be like the Master-serving and sacrificing for the welfare of the bride (Eph. 5:25-33). In any case, what Paul said was prefaced by the requirement of mutual submission (v.21). A careful study of the passage would therefore indicate that the thrust of what Paul said was that for Christians in the marriage relationship (or any other relationship for that matter) the question is never “Who will be boss?” but always, “Who will be servant in the relationship?”
The preacher’s assessment of the late Diana was unfair because it ignored Princes Charles’ continued dalliance with his paramour that was responsible for driving his wife into tit-for-tat mode. When the woman alone is blamed for the breakdown of a marriage, people do the same thing that was done to the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 8:3-5). She was caught in the act, but only she was hauled up for condemnation and punishment, while the man was let off. Our Lord did not approve of such discrimination and set her free from her accusers.
Deifying Elders
At the end of the Hindu rites wedding, Jack and Jill went around touching the feet of all the elders present just as a Hindu bride and groom would. This act goes beyond the biblical commandment to honour one’s parents. The Ten Commandments were written on two stone tablets. The commandment to honour parents was the fifth and therefore in the first tablet along with the commandments about how we ought to relate to God. That is how much importance was given to honouring parents. Cursing parents, like blaspheming God, carried the death penalty (Ex. 21:17). Jesus countered the teaching of the Pharisees that the material support one ought to give one’s parents could be inverted to God’s temple for the sake of piety (Mk.7:9-13). Paul said that anyone who did not take care of parents and elderly relatives had denied the faith and was worse than an infidel (1 Ti.5: . Yes, the Bible commands that parents and elders be honoured. But at the same time the Bible clearly teaches that they are not to be given the honour due to God alone. Jesus said that His disciples would love Him more than parents (Matt. 10:37), and not allow filial duty to stand in the way of following Him (8:21-22). But by going beyond what the Bible prescribes, there is a hint that somehow there is a deficiency in what the Word of God commands, which needs be amended by Hindu customs.
Incidentally, Bengali Christians have got into this practice of touching the feet of elders. What needs to be noted is that Bengali Muslims have not similarly allowed Hindu practice to compromise Muslim standards of conduct. We need to take a cue from them in this matter of not adulterating our faith with customs that are alien. Anyway, when those whose cultural background never had the practice of touching the feet of anyone, do so, they are embracing something obnoxiously alien to Christian conduct.
As we read through the Bible, there are several stories of encounters with angels. They came from heaven-God’s abode. They were supernatural. They evoked awe. But these heavenly beings objected to people falling down at their feet because obeisance is to be offered only to God.
But there were also angels who thought that they could usurp the place of God (Isa. 14:13-14; Ezek. 28:2). These fallen angels corrupted humankind. Right at the beginning, our first parents were tempted to attempt to become like God (Gen. 3:5-6). That corruption has lingered on in human society. There have always been people who love to assume that they are godlike, while others are sub-human. Racism and casteism are the more obvious forms of it. But whenever people arrogate an oppressive authority and power over others who are in a subordinate role they try to take God’s place.
Parents who believe that they have the power of life and death over their sons and daughters, and exercise total control over them manifest this desire to play God. Cultural practices that affirm such a view of the relationship between parents and children go against the notion that God alone is worthy of worship. Touching the feet of elders falls into the category of customs that defy the commandment to worship God alone.
In Hinduism, parents [and by extension, all the elders of one’s family/community] have the rank or status of god and it is therefore proper to offer them the obeisance offered to god. This Hindu custom is categorically against the specific commandments of God that His people are not to bow in worship to any god or person or thing.
My wife Roshini had suggested a Christian alternative to touching the feet of elders. She said, “Why not wash feet in keeping with the example of Christ?” Sadly, the couple chose to follow the Hindu custom, rather than Christian. Their choice reflects what is basically wrong with the indigenization movement. All the attempts and efforts are focused on refusing Christian identity, but manifesting an eagerness to identify with what is definitely non-Christian.
Western Connection
There is nothing wrong in the desire to distance oneself from the western connection of Christianity. The desire not to be associated with the West should not result in swinging to the extreme of embracing all that happens in Hinduism. Symbols and rituals currently in use among Hindus do not led themselves to being adapted because of their very currency, as they are loaded with non-verbal messages that override any verbal messages. While Indian clothes, songs and food are welcome, we have to be careful about rituals.
In the Christian wedding of Babita and Narasimha, who were converted from Hinduism, eight per cent of those who attended were Hindus. On the other hand, at the Hindu style wedding of Jack and Jill, most of those who attended were Christians, a number of whom were Western Christians. One therefore wonders what was the point of having Hindu rituals? To me it seemed like a pointless exercise. Moreover, in the city where the wedding took place, young Hindu converts were offended by all of the Hindu rituals. Their point was that they had given up these very things that were done at the wedding. Were they wrong in giving up what they did?
As indicated earlier, my observation is that there are a number of Westerners involved in the indigenization movement. But when they go around with a tikka on their foreheads, they can so easily be mistaken to be just one of “those Hippy white people who belong to the Hare Krishna group.” One could, of course, dismiss that as just a case of mistaken identity. A line from jurisprudence will help in clarifying the issue. “Justice must not only be done, but it must appear to be done.” In a similar way, the Christian must not only be Christian, but appear to be Christian, because the Christian witness depends not only on verbalization, but also the non-verbal messages that a Christians sends out.
Not a Patch
Even in our Lord’s day, people tried to make the new faith conform to the old ways and customs. They objected to the fact that it was not at all like the religion and customs of the Jews among whom it had made its beginning. They asked Jesus as to why His followers couldn’t be more like the majority and just fit in with everyone? In answer Jesus said, “No one patches up an old coat with a piece of new cloth, for the new patch will shrink and make an even bigger hole in the coat. Nor does anyone pour new wine into used wineskins, for the skins will burst, the wine will pour out, and the skins will be ruined. Instead, new wine is poured into fresh wineskins, and both will keep in good condition (Matt. 9:16-17, TEV).
Jesus was very clear. The faith begun by Him was not going to be used to patch up the holes in other faiths. In no uncertain terms, Jesus indicated that the Christian faith just doesn’t fit other belief systems. The attempts to make Christianity look like the faiths around it are damaging the Christian faith. It loses its uniqueness. No, more than that, it denies the uniqueness of Christ Himself.
Points of Contact
This is not to deny the value of finding points of contact that will help in drawing people to Christ. Our Lord Himself did that at the well of Samaria. He found something to talk about. His vulnerability as a person in need of a drink of water and His friendliness toward an outcast were the things that won Him an audience (Jn.4:7-15)
It is significant that when the woman tried to say that the faith of her fathers was as good as that of the Jews (v.20), Jesus categorically negated that view. He emphasized that the revelation of God was important in knowing the truth. There was no accommodation of practices that did not find their basis in the Word of God. Jesus said that the Samaritans just did not have the truth (v.22). In no uncertain terms, He denied the validity of beliefs that did not come from the revealed truths of God. Beliefs and practices that do not have their origin in the revelation of God cannot be regarded as a step in the direction of God. They are not a way to experience God or serve Him. Jesus definitely did not subscribe to the view that “all roads lead to God” and therefore it was possible to accept the customs of those who did not live by the revelation of God.
Jesus also said that true worshippers would worship “in spirit and truth” (v.24). it is clear from what the Lord said that sincerity or devotion are not enough, but there needs to be truth-content in any act of worship. Non-Christian faiths cannot in themselves provide a means of drawing their adherents to Christ. It was not by accommodating her wrong beliefs, but by His offer of friendship that Jesus paved the way for the Samaritan woman to believe in Him. Rather He indicated that the truth was not something to be compromised. Truth itself cannot be modified. Only the presentation of the truth can be adjusted to suit local conditions.
Paul was one apostle who expertly found points of contact. “I am not anyone’s slave. But I have become a slave to everyone, so that I can win as many people as possible. When I am with the Jews, I live like a Jew to win Jews. They are ruled by the Law of Moses, and I am not. But I live by the Law to win them. And when I am with people who are not ruled by the Law, I forget about the Law to win them. Of course, I never really forget about the law of God. In fact, I am ruled by the law of Christ. When I am with people whose faith is weak, I live as they do to win them. I do everything I can to win everyone I possibly can. I do all this for the [Gospel’…” (1 Cor. 9:19-23), CEV)
When Paul was in Athens, he found a temple to the Unknown God and declared that he knew who the Unknown God was (Acts 17:23). It is important to note that Paul did not attempt to put the name of Christ on that temple, or to conduct any Christian worship at the temple of the Unknown God. He did not say that what was happening there could be assimilated into the practice of the Christian faith.
A point of contact must remain only a point. We must not allow it to become larger than a mere point, nor allow it to determine the character of the whole faith. Instead of merely finding a point of contact with Hinduism, the current efforts of all those in the indigenization movement in India allow Hinduism to colour the whole Christian faith. What is happening is the Hinduisation of Christianity.
Is it Western?
Some Christians suggest that Christian worship in India is Western. It is true that the format of Christian worship does not resemble what happens in a Hindu temple. One should expect that. There would be differences in worship forms between groups that have differences in the way they view God. Theological differences will mean that there will be differences in the way God is approached. There should be no embarrassment that there are differences. Muslims have different forms of worship. So do Parsees. Just because their worship does not resemble Hindu worship, none of the adherents of these religions think that their worship is un-Indian.
Though they resemble what happens in the churches in the West, Christian worship services are not Western. The fact is that they are similar also to what goes on in the Eastern Orthodox churches. The reason is that Christian worship services are patterned more or less on services conducted in the Jewish synagogue, where corporate prayers (without sacrificial rituals) and the reading and exposition of the Word of God dominated the service. As such, the form of Christian worship services predates the arrival of Western influence in India.
The Early Church worshipped and fellowshipped in homes (Acts 2:46; 5:42; Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15). There were no priests and there were no rituals. The Lord had said that His followers would not worship in holy places and that their worship would be in spirit (Jn. 4:21, 23). The book of Hebrews elaborates on how the Lord Jesus ended the whole ritual system of Temple-centred worship. As long as the Church worshipped in homes, worship was not formal or ritualized. Christian worship was then neither Jewish nor pagan in form. It was just a homely affair. “Earliest Christianity had no sacred places, no shrines, no imposing temple structures, no cultic images of God or Christ to focus and stimulate devotion, no impressive public processions, no priesthood or sacrificial rites. All in all, in the context of the cultic expression of religion in the Roman era, earliest Christian worship would have seemed fairly modest, even unimpressive affair. It was definitely ‘low tech’” (Larry W Hurtado, The Origins of Christian Worship. p.40)
Those who feel that in worship there is a need to not appear to be like Christians of other countries, would therefore have done well to go back to the earliest form of non-ritualistic Christian worship, instead of aping and mimicking Hindu rituals. Becoming more ritualistic does not bring us closer to what God wants, but diverts us from the pattern set forth in the New Testament.
Danger or Blessing?
Paul did some reflecting about the Christian presence in the midst of cultures that were different. I Corinthians chapters 8 to 10 set forth his views on the subject.
In the church at Corinth (and probably elsewhere) there were people who pretended theological sophistication to justify hiding their Christian identity. They didn’t want to stand out by refusing to go along with people who worshipped idols. So they said, “We know that idols are not real. There is only God. So what we eat in pagan temples comes from God” (8:1-6). Paul’s response to such thinking was, “That’s fine. But you forget something. There are Christians who lack your sophistication in theology. Your liberty in Christ is confusing and endangering their faith” (vv. 7-11). So the first point Paul teaches us is that as Christians we should not place stumbling blocks in the path of those who look to us for guidance in matters of faith. (Remember how Raj was diverted from his Christian enthusiasm?)
As Paul pressed the argument, he put it in no uncertain terms: “Flee from the worship of idols” (10:14). Idolatry and practices rooted in idolatry are not things we are to accommodate. We must not try to make them fit Christianity. There is a reason for being so rigid about this. Paul said that idols are not merely nothing. Demons are the powers behind idols (vv. 19-20). (We saw how om is not meaningless, but has the power of Brahma).
Paul concluded that Christians are not to search for what are the outer limits of what is legitimate or permissible for them. Everything that appears to be okay is not necessarily beneficial or able to build up people (vv. 23-24). How does a tradition or custom or ritual make us stronger? Will adopting something bring blessing to us and to those who will imitate what we do as their elders in the faith? These are questions we must ask ourselves as we consider how we conduct ourselves in the midst of people of other faiths, cultures and customs.
In the end, Paul gave a very simple rule: Accept what you find in the marketplace (vv. 25-26) and in the commonplace situations of life (v.27), but do not accept what comes from temples of idolatry (v.2 .
Christianity is no patchwork faith. It stands alone, because there is no God like Jesus. He is the only Way, the only Truth and the only Life. Sure, there is a needed for national integration, but that does not consist of loss or confusion of identities. Pluralism is a fact of the modern world. There are literally thousands of ideologies. To admit that there is pluralism is also an admission that there are differences and integration is needed precisely because there are differences. Integration does not deny the right to be different. It affirms that right because integration consists of learning to coexist with those who are not like us.
The Christian faith is different. The beliefs and practices held by the Christian community in India will naturally bear a striking resemblance to those held by Christian communities around the world. On the other hand, the beliefs and worship rituals of Christians cannot bear any similarity to those of non-Christians. Such a difference must be expected and safeguarded.
When God brought Israel out of Egypt, He said to them, “You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices” (Lev. 18:3). God expects His people not to allow surrounding religious cultures and practices to influence their conduct.
Being an Indian is a matter of patriotism to a race and a land. Being an Indian Christian is however, a matter of the spirit. It is a spiritual identity. It is belief in a different God, submission to a different Lord, and identification with a different community of faith that transcends national boundaries, without compromising patriotism.
[end of article]
Swami Dayanand Bharati has written the following response to the Light of Life articles, and we thank him for permission to post his comments here.
A Response by Dayanand Bharati
I wish to respond to some selective comments in the articles in ‘Light of Life’ magazine by Kuruvilla Chandy. My aim is not to attack anyone,
certainly not Sri Chandy. However, some of my words and the way in which I say things may seem not to support this statement. Sometimes people don’t grasp a point if it is not told with powerful words and illustrations. Still, this is not an excuse on my part; and if my response hurts any one, then I am truly sorry for that.
1. ‘They derived all their notions of contextualization from a religion, scriptures and cultures that were non-Christian.’—Chandy.
Response:
To begin with, why are we all the time called as ‘non-Christians’? I have raised this matter other times also. Only Christians use this terminology.
I never heard of or read any Muslim referring to others as ‘non-Muslims’ or the Hindus as ‘non-Hindus’. However, in this dialogue I myself am going to use the word ‘non-Hindus,’ referring to Christians in particular. Perhaps Sri Chandy, who seems averse to the very word “Hindu,” will feel uncomfortable even at this identification as ‘non-Hindu’. But perhaps it will do some good to return to him the same kind of terminology that he uses towards others. Those like Chandy who ‘have no desire to appear to be one or to be mistakenly identified as’ Hindu might have to bear this as a cross.
2. ‘The performance of aarti (offering flowers before an idol), intoning om (the sound representing the primal energy of Brahma) and so on were considered unacceptable forms of indigenization.’—Chandy
I don’t have any prior information on Sri Chandy’s knowledge about Hinduism or even about India. (Indian Christians generally are living in their own little world, separating themselves socially and culturally from the mainstream of Indian life.) But from his comment here about ‘aarati’ meaning the offering flowers before an idol it is clear that he knows little about even the commonest Hindu rituals. Aarati is the waving of a lamp and colored water. (One might note that the water is prepared in different ways in different parts of India. In Tamilnadu they will mix tamarind powder in the water and add a bit of lime to make it red, but in the north chindur (kunkum) powder is used to prepare this red coloured water). This practice of waving the lamp and water has different purposes and meanings according to the context in which it is undertaken. It has even been shown on TV news that when ‘non-Indian’ cricket teams arrive India a few women will do ‘aarati’ viz., waving the plate with colored water in front of them and applying the tilak (i.e. taking a bit of the coloured water and putting on the forehead of the team members—yes, even on the foreheads of ‘non-Indians’). By doing this they say to them, ‘we wish success and victory for your team and welcome you to this land’. But when the same aarati is done before an idol in a temple, usually with camphor or wick burning in ghee, then the grace and power of the idol is considered to be transformed to the flame, which the devotees will take on their hands and then apply on their face and eyes, symbolizing receiving the grace and the power of the deity. In marriages aarati is done on various occasions, each with a different meaning—sometimes to ward of the evil eye, other times to welcome the new couple inside the home,
etc., etc.
Sri Chandy’s lack of understanding of Hindu realities is further reflected in his discussion of OM. Some people are in the habit of selectively using Hindu scriptures or one particular interpretation that serves their purpose, all the while conveniently neglecting many other scriptures and interpretations. Sometimes, as in this case, they will take the authority of a ‘Hindu Convert’ (a convert, or only one having a Hindu background?) like Prabhu Guptara. Even the beginning student of Hinduism learns that OM has various meanings and interpretations and there has been a long history of development. So when Sri Chandy gives one meaning and interpretation for OM, it shows his limited understanding. Christians like to think there is one meaning for all their terms, based on one book (despite their hundreds of denominational differences), and so they look for similar things from Hindus. But one must to read not only Vedas, but also
Upanishads, Puranas and even the scriptures of Jains and Buddhist. Even the Sikhs use OM. Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs (despite Sangh Parivar claims) are not Hindus. But I agree with Chandy that the Christians should not be to using our ‘symbols’ and ‘forms’ in their worship and other places. But we Hindu bhaktas of the Lord want to use everything that is good, noble and true in our cultures and traditions (including religious matters) as part of our bhakti to the Lord. This we do neither to ‘express’ or to ‘communicate’ or to ‘evangelize’ others, but because it is our birthright to use our own values and symbols which are not opposed to biblical principles. I do not want to speak of ‘redeeming’ these things for the Lord as I don’t feel that the cultural values and symbols of Hindus are created by the devil and need to be redeemed for the Lord. Every good thing in this world is a gift from God, and we are using only God-given gifts in our sadhana.
3. ‘Hindu style wedding ‘; ‘A Christian Wedding’; ‘a church wedding’.-Chandy (p. 22, August 2004).
I am not an expert on the subject of weddings. But surely a wedding is a social event; ‘cultural’ practices along with some religious rituals are developed according to the convenience and needs of the marriage parties. If non-Hindus like Sri Chandy think that all marriages that are arranged and conducted by non-Hindus pastors are religious events, then let them live with that blissful ignorance. Without a secular marriage license given by the Indian govt. these non-Hindu pastors cannot perform marriages in their churches. In mainline churches when a pastor is ordained he automatically gets that license, whereas independent Pastors have to apply for it separately. That’s why several Pentecostal people who refuse to go to the mainline church for worship yet keep their membership in order to fulfill their social needs (‘hatch’ ‘match’ and ‘dispatch’). A Tamil Christian told me that since only the certificate given by a mainline church pastor is legal, he continues to keep his membership in the CSI church. So in some of these matters churches in India are functioning as proxy govt. agencies to provide legal certificates to the Christians.
Generally, Hindus are very naïve on most areas related to religion and
ritual. When they first attend some ‘church’ wedding they might naturally remark that ‘it was the most meaningful wedding they had attended.’ (One might think to ask some of them what they have done with the order of service which they took home after that church wedding service? Are they going to incorporate any of those ‘meaningful’ orders in their ‘Hindu’ weddings?) In India, do even educated Hindus know the real meaning of non-Hindu weddings? For them the real meaning of the wedding lies not in the order of service or the ‘message’ given by the pastor (which most people never listen to during marriage activities), but rather in the way the couple live out that meaning in their life. (And statistics show that the divorce rate is higher among non-Hindus, irrespective of their pious ‘church’ weddings with meaningful orders of service and a wonderful message by the pastor.)
In a later context Sri Chandy talks about ‘elders offering words of
counsel’ (p. 27, Sep. 2004) to Jack and Jill, which ‘replaced the
traditional wedding sermon’ (p. 27, Sep. 2004). Then he go on listing all the good that such a sermon does to its listeners who participate in a church wedding. But the fact is, as the Hindus never pay much attention to all the rituals and ceremonies in their weddings, most Christians never pay any attention to sermons, particularly those given during a marriage when they are all busy to greet each other, with the parents of both bride and groom taking care of other activities and the couple having a thousand and one things on their minds. I have witnessed a few church weddings in South India. When I asked one of my non-Hindu friends with whom I went to a marriage ‘why the pastor gave such a short message, whereas they usually love to talk too much in the name of a sermon’, he said, ‘these marriage messages are mere church rituals to which no one pays any attention’.
Sri Chandy perhaps should attend some Hindu weddings. Hindus never pay any attention to the rituals or the meaning of the marriage ceremony. It is an occasion of joy and happiness where relatives gather to be witnesses to the marriage. For them the real meaning lies not in the rituals or all that happens on the marriage day, but the way the young couple live after that event.
Now in the reception hall, when some ‘non-Hindus’ were disturbed and
requested Sri Chandy to exercise his ‘authority as pastor and ask the hosts to remove the idols of Ram and Sita on the salad table’, he said, ‘I’m going to do no such thing. It’s their party. If you feel uncomfortable about the idols, just don’t eat the salad. There are other things you can eat” (p. 23, August 2004). Apparently to a ‘non-Hindu’ pastor like Sri Chandy only the ‘salad is objectionable’ because the idols of Ram and Sita were kept near it. But if they had inquired, then the hosts would have said, ‘all that is provided here to eat is Prasad, not the salad only’. But in this matter I appreciate Sri Chandy for his sensitivity and refusal to exercise his pastoral authority. Following Paul’s principle he rightly says, ‘Accept what you find in the marketplace (I Cor. 10.25-26) and in the commonplace situations of life (v. 27), but do not accept what comes from temples of idolatry (v. 28)’ (p. 34, September 2004).
For Sri Chandy, the ‘wedding of the two Christians Jack and Jill was
totally Hindu in appearance…’(p. 23, Aug. 2004). But he seems to have
failed to observe (perhaps refuses to acknowledge?) that almost all
‘non-Hindu’ (even ‘church’) marriages have several aspects which not only ‘appear’ as Hindu but are verbatim Hindu practices. I don’t know much about North Indian non-Hindu marriages, as I have never attended one, but I have participated in a few South Indian non-Hindu marriages and several Hindu practices are followed in their marriages. Most striking would be the wedding chain with a ‘cross’ pendant attached to it, a mild substitute for the Hindu ‘mangalyam’ or ‘thali’. They even call Hindu musicians to play Nadaswaram (equivalent to the North Indian Shanai). They will never arrange marriages on Tuesday or Saturday as both these days are considered inauspicious by Hindus. A CNI Pastor once told me that in the old ‘church’ marriage service the applying the sindur on the forehead of the bride was present, but this has now been removed.
One could make a strong case that most ‘non-Hindus’ in India live like
Christians for only three hours in their church on Sundays, and the rest of the six days and 21 hours of the week they are in no way different from us. I have no real problem with ‘non-Hindus’ aping our cultural and religious forms, but people like Sri Chandy should think a bit more clearly before bragging about the way he conducted a ‘church’ wedding in a so called ‘non-Hindu’ way, and now criticizing Jack and Jill’s Hindu wedding.
Regarding the ‘swamiji’ who was going to be in charge of the wedding
ceremony and who failed to defend his practices, please note the following. Jack and Jill might have their own personal reasons for not acknowledging in public all that I contributed from the beginning to their marriage (perhaps they wanted to spare me from the wrath of several non-Hindus like Sri Chandy). But almost all the wedding ceremony and rituals, including how to begin and how to end, was planned and discussed between Jack and Jill and myself. So if there is to be blame or if there are demands for explanations for the rituals and forms in the marriage, they would need to be directed to me rather than to the other Swamiji who quite understandably did not respond when asked about such things. (That Swamiji contributed a great deal to the marriage by making all the physical arrangements with his other friends at Varanasi.) This other swamiji was keen to play the role of Brahmin (priest), and was strongly supported by both Jack and Jill. It was I who personally objected and arranged for another person to sit in front and do the rituals; since a sanyasi should not conduct a marriage, I used my influence to bring about this change.
Finally related to this I should add that I find it quite offensive that Sri Chandy used the word ‘so-called’ in reference to Swamiji. How will he feel if I call him ‘the so-called’ pastor or Rev.? When that swamiji took deeksha as a sannyasi, I saw the desire and dedication that he had to totally commit his life in this way. This he has done not as an evangelistic strategy or to please any Hindus or his relatives, but as his call and commitment for the lord. This is his vocation and life and no one has the right to judge other’s motives and intentions to lead a life for which God has called them. I wish Sri Chandy and others like him would learn to respect others’ feelings and convictions.
4. ‘At various points during this wedding, there was one swami introducing some aspect or the other of the rituals, saying that it was according to Indian culture. First of all, this notion that “Indian” is “Hindu” must not only be rejected, but it must also be opposed.’—Chandy, p. 23, Aug. 2004
This is a big subject. I certainly respect (and agree with) Sri Chandy
when he says that ‘I am not Hindu, and indeed have no desire to appear to be one or to be mistakenly identified as one’. We Hindus never expect or even wish any non-Hindus or Muslims etc. to appear as or identify with us as Hindus. Still, they have no right to dictate terms and conditions to us such as that ‘If something is to be classified as embracing the essence of what is Indian, it must have features that are common to all, and not what will serve to narrow down its identity to any one community of India’ (p. 23).
Well, even before Indians were made Hindus (by outsiders) almost all the worldviews and values here were commonly shared by all of us as Indians. Then when we all were made Indians by the constitution, those values and views never become the property of any one religious community. When several Hindus became ‘non-Hindus’ by conversion they didn’t reject most of these things but kept them, sometimes using different names and forms. (Narasimha was still a Hindu deity’s name, for whom Sri Chandy performed a ‘church’ wedding.) But some non-Hindus reject some of these views and values and replace them by non-Indian views and values which are not even biblical. And if some non-Hindus (like Sri Chandy) like to think that they hold Indian but not Hindu views and values, they have every freedom to do so. But they have no right to insist that what is Indian is necessarily different from what is Hindu. We were neither Indian nor Hindu before the time of British rule. For example, even when Gandhiji went to England, some of his own community people raised objections by saying that it is against their religion and community. But what was their religion and community? Not Hinduism or Hindu community, but Vaishnavism and Bania community. So this pan-Indian and Hindu identity is not based on religion or any caste/religious community, but rather on a common civilization. Thus ‘to have Hindu ceremonies on the grounds of appearing Indian’ is not ‘utter nonsense’ in our view. Sri Chandy says that I ‘protested too much’, to promote Indian as Hindu. But why should I protest and to whom? Even in this wedding, I explained, as I do often when there are non-Hindus and non-Indians present, certain symbols, customs and cultural values/views of Hindus. This I do not to protest or to plead for them to accept my view. I don’t expect their recognition for what I am doing, but in order to help them to participate joyfully or to reject with some understanding I give some explanation. If he said, ‘he tried to promote his views among his non-Hindus audience’, some truth will be in it, but I don’t need to protest or protect myself to please non-Hindus.
Of course, non-Hindus may not agree or accept this perspective, and we
respect that. But who are they to say that ‘Hindu’ cannot be synonymous
with ‘Indian’? When I introduced every ceremonial act in that wedding as an aspect of Indian culture I was not ‘foisting’ anything on the gathering, but with clear conviction I shared my view, knowing that some of those present in the gathering might not agree. But many Hindus who participated in that ceremony came to me that same evening and said, in Hindi, ‘aap sabkutch vidivat karaaya’ (you have done everything according to the order/tradition). I was really taken aback by their comments, because in fact, in order to accommodate the sentiment of the bride, I agreed to some changes in the traditional order (particularly performing saptapadi before sindur, whereas saptapadi should be performed after sindur). But this shows again that for Hindus the order and rituals are not important, but rather the form in which things are done is important. As Narasimha and Bapita’s Hindu relatives appreciated Sri Chandy’s church wedding service, so Hindus appreciated my Indian wedding ceremony for Jack and Jill. We Hindus are naive on such matters and not Pharisees to impose legalism on lay people. So in Chandy’s ‘church’ wedding the Hindus took copies of the printed order of service, and in Varanasi there remains talk in a few Hindu pockets about how two non-Indians came to India to conduct their marriage in an Indian—not Hindu—way. Of course, Indian non-Hindus who are still living under English personal law and ape all kinds of non-Indian forms of worship and lifestyle, claiming that as part of the universal or even cosmic church (or Jewish synagogue, p. 33, Sep. 2004), cannot understand what it means to be Indian in India.
Sri Chandy says that ‘Nothing just happened in due course, but needed a
swami to constantly instruct the bride and groom, and other key
participants and all the guests what to do, as no one knew what exactly was the Indian thing to do’ (pp. 23-24 Aug. 2004). But in which church wedding does everything just happen in due course without a pastor to instruct the bride and groom and other key participants? One American who participated in that wedding told me that when he went to England to marry his wife he was completely ignorant of all that happen in the ‘church’ wedding in England, as they have a different type of order and procedures from America. Even Hindus who are familiar with their own cultural and ritual traditions need to be instructed by a priest and elders on what to do during marriage and death rituals.
When Sri Chandy says that ‘My observation has been that among Protestant Christians, the indigenization movement is made up of Westerners or those Indians who want to impress Westerners with a view to extracting more monetary support for their work’, he exposes something that should be a great embarrassment to all Christians. This is the typical full-time worker mentality of doing things for the sake of money; let us face it, in India pastors, priests, pujaris, molwis, etc. are religious brokers mainly interested in the income to make a living rather than being interested in the spiritual life of their people. But for his information let me say that I neither received any money nor any support from Jack and Jill. They never even paid my travel bill. We Hindus do not need monetary support to do what we want to do in India. Sri Chandy’s observation might be correct among fulltime workers from non-Hindu backgrounds who for the sake of
making a living do such things. But we are doing these things not to impress or influence any outsiders, but as our birthright. Even before I met any non-Indians during my seva I practiced and promoted such views. Some may object to this view, but I have influenced the ways and life of non-Indians rather than doing anything to impress them to make a living. This is perhaps a madness like that of the apostle Paul in defending himself, but a pastor like Sri Chandy should learn the facts before bearing false witness against people. Perhaps since fulltime ministry supported from abroad helps solve the unemployment problem among non-Hindus in India, they can only interpret others’ seva in
like way; this is perhaps their inherited mission-mentality, from which God alone can redeem them.
5. Use of Sanskrit
It seems odd that a person like Sri Chandy ,who conducts his church
services in English even for people who know their mother tongue Hindi very well, should lament our use of Sanskrit. If our ‘Lord’s intentions of how His message is to be represented are critical to understanding and appreciating His work,’ then Indian non-Hindus and particularly those who work in the church have to think seriously how to communicate our Lord’s message. No Hindu ever understood or ever will understand all the pulpit terms and evangelical slogans or even most of the words in the Bible in almost all our vernacular languages. Well, that perhaps is an altogether different issue. But we neither use Sanskrit to impress others or to impose our language hegemony on others. But in our personal sadhana and in satsanghs we do use some Sanskrit, and that too after giving the entire meaning of those slokas. Even in the marriage under discussion all the meanings of the Sanskrit slokas were given in
print to all to follow the meaning. I too agree that if our Lord ‘came
to India in our day, He wouldn’t be speaking Sanskrit;’ certainly also He would not be speaking in English, and definitely He wouldn’t use any Greek words (as we often find in church sermons, usually only to parade the speaker’s knowledge).
We find that, as a musical language, some use of Sanskrit adds richness in a wedding ceremony. Even in most of the Hindu rituals where Brahmins are not involved there are rituals conducted in Sanskrit, and no one minds that at all. It should also be noted that in the marriage in question the use of Sanskrit was meager compared to the use of Hindi and English. It seems that this Sanskrit problem influenced another comment of Sri Chandy that I really cannot understand at all. He says, ‘mediation by a priest is a total denial of the Christian doctrine of…the priesthood of all believers.’ But what was different here from what is done in every denominational church? When I explained certain ceremonies and explained the meaning of the Sanskrit slokas and other symbols, I was not mediating between the congregation and the Lord. Would one suggest that the commentator of a sports match was influencing the players to win or lose the match? Philip was not a mediator when he explained the message to the Ethiopian minister! It seems to me here that Sri Chandy was so prejudiced against this type of wedding that he cannot see things properly in their true light and context—both in the Bible and in this wedding. By quoting Lewis he has done a great service to evangelicals and Indian church people, if indeed they will start to use normal vernacular speech and not church language and pulpit terms. When most “Hindi” churches in North still use age-old Urdu-based hymns and service books, surely Sri Chandy should first remove the log from his own eye before trying to remove a splinter from our eyes.
I don’t know much Sanskrit, but even from childhood I heard and learnt many slokas and mantras taught by my parents. Even today it helps me to
remember lots of things. As I always read my Bible either in Tamil or
Hindi, I cannot say even one verse properly in English. But if I read the same verses in Sanskrit, it seems to automatically record in my mind. That is the way my mind (and this is true of many Hindus) was disciplined. Give anything in poetic form and we remember it, but in prose form we cannot memorise. At the same time among my friends in Tamilnadu, we never use Sanskrit much, but only vernacular Tamil—thankfully not non-Hindu Tamil.
Some relatives of these Muktinath bhaktas, who participated in our satsangh and worship, could even join in and sing most of our songs. So I think we are the ones who promote and encourage the use of the vernaculars. If Sri Chandy takes a survey he will realize the many Indian non-Hindus do not even know how to pray in their mother tongue. In Tamilnadu one Tamil non-Hindu speaker was speaking in English to a Tamil non-Hindu audience and another Tamil non-Hindu was translating it into (church) Tamil. For many Indian non-Hindus, English is their mother tongue and they feel shy in using their vernacular in communication and in worship, perhaps thinking that speaking only in
English to their children is the best way to help them to grow as good
non-Hindus.
6. Power of Om
A full article could be written in response to Sri Chandy’s ‘fear’ about OM. But I will limit myself to a few points. He says, ‘For argument’s sake, let us accept the notion that it is a meaningless sound. Then, we must ask (p. 25) what is a Christian doing offering what is meaningless to God in worship?’ (pp. 25-26, Aug. 2004) I have thought very similar thoughts when I listened to church music which has no meaning for our ears. Their organs, guitars and several other instruments only make noise for us, without any meaning. At the same time, I agree with Sri Chandy that Christians have no right to use our symbols selectively in their worship. But as Hindus we surely can use OM before we begin our satsanghs. The sound which it gives helps create a calm and tranquil atmosphere in which we focus our minds on the Lord. We never use it as a ‘magical’ way. The problem and beauty of Sanskrit is that the same word can have different meanings according to the context. For example ‘sankhya’ is ‘number’ both in common use and in Sankhya-Yoga philosophy, but it means ‘renunciation’ in the Gita. If John ‘did not invest the [logos] concept with its Greek meaning’ (p. 26, Aug. 2004), then why do both Sri Chandy and Guptara think that we use OM with a magical meaning? ‘For John the Logos was word, fitting in with the Old Testament view that God created by His Word…In the end the Word was incarnate’, (p.26, Aug. 2004); so then OM, which is also called ‘Pranava,’ both sound and word, surely can be given a similar interpretation. However, I personally do not like to invest OM with heavy theological meaning; as I am neither a theologian nor a Sanskritist I dare not do that; so we use it only as a musical symbol and respectful word.
Sri Chandy knows the Bible better than I so I need not point out the way EL is used in the Old Testament for YHWH. Several pagan words, rituals Psalms etc. are used without any hesitation in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament. When God made a covenant with Abraham he asked him to cut the animals in two and do the very same practice which was familiar among the pagans while making a covenant. God never hesitated to use this which Abraham was familiar with. Several books have been written and papers presented on this subject, and I could send detailed information if Sri Chandy would like. In the case of Aaron, out of fear and not knowing what happened to Moses, he misled the people, who were rebellious in every way. When we use OM we are not misleading our own people, but give them the reason why we are using it in our worship. Similarly, non-Hindus need not sit before any idol of Ram/Shiva etc. to meditate on our Lord, but they do seem to have several other idols in their church and life. Their alter, pulpit, printed bible (I mean the book itself), cross, etc. often seem to displace Jesus from their life. Well, that is their problem and perhaps prophets like Sri Chandy will deal with it. But in one CSI Church synod meeting held at Palayamkottai the following prayer was used verbatim: ‘Jesus who is the Siva, the kind one, Allah the merciful one and Buddha the compassionate one….’ etc. So perhaps Sri Chandy should just leave us Hindu Christ bhaktas alone and tell non-Hindus about the dangers of using OM and other such words.
A last point on OM; Sri Chandy wrote that ‘Om is a word that describes
something abstract and therefore its meaning is based on the history of its usage – past and current’ (p. 26, Aug. 2004). Well, this is a topic for a philologist. But just what history of usage does Sri Chandy have in mind? As Hindus we know enough about its current use as a political symbol, sectarian symbol, religious symbol etc., which are not the same as its ‘historical usage and past’. In the Indian worldview nothing is frozen in past history, and ‘Change and Continuity’ (see Jan Gonda’s beautiful book on this subject) is a basic foundational fact of this Hindu civilization.
7. Deifying Elders
Unlike most Western countries where many children neither respect nor take care of their elders, we Indians still know what it means to respect our elders. But Sri Chandy seems to make no effort to understand Indian/Hindu worldviews in their proper context, to the point of not even seeing the difference between respect shown to elders and deification. Hindu worldviews are complex and differ from place to place. But when Sri Chandy says, ‘Bible clearly teaches that they (parents) are not to be given the honour due to God alone’ (p. 29, Sep. 2004) it reveals his poor understanding of our worldview. Unless one is a Hindu perhaps he/she cannot understand what is our attitude of respect to our elders and parents. But certainly we know that touching the feet of elders is the way we salute and show respect to our elders. Now Sri Chandy in his support can perhaps quote a verse from the Bible, in which a worldview very different from that of India is reflected. One must ask to how many Hindus (not merely to converts) Sri Chandy spoke before he pronounced his verdict that ‘In Hinduism, parents [and by extension, all the elders of one’s family/community] have the rank or status of god and it is therefore proper to offer them the obeisance offered to god’ (p. 30,Sep. 2004). This is a comment that again shows Sri Chandy’s ignorance of Hindu practices and teaching and opinions. Each tradition has its own way of showing respect to elders. I have heard that in high Anglican churches they address their bishops as ‘Lord God’. But they don’t mean that that Bishop becomes their Lord or God. In Exodus 18:7 we read, ‘So Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him’. Does this mean that Moses actually worshipped his father-in-law or was it an Egyptian custom in which he was born and brought up? But this is all a big and complex subject so I leave it here.
That ‘washing the feet’ would be a functional substitute for touching the feet again shows a failure to think clearly. Washing feet is not
exclusively a practice of the Bible. Even in India we do it as Hindus.
But the difference here is that in some contexts when we wash the feet of elders and gurus, it is not merely showing respect but actually worshipping them as very God himself. I still remember when I was a boy, how my mother would welcome any Brahmin guest by washing his feet and taking the water to sprinkle on our heads as a blessing from God. So Sri Chandy needs to be careful to learn even about so-called ‘biblical’ practices which are copied from and present in pagan traditions, before passing on his interpretation and verdict on several of our Indian (Hindu) practices. In every major Hindu ceremony, at the end the couples (either in a marriage or in any other ritual function) finally have to wash the feet of their parents and elders, thanking them for coming and blessing them on that occasion. Even in the marriage in question, the man who acted as the foster father of the bride washed the feet of Jack to welcome him. This is not worship of the groom, but showing respect to him as he is going to marry his daughter. When Sri Candy seemed to follow all events one by one, why was this event not also referred to?
Those Hindu converts who were ‘offended by all of the Hindu rituals’ of
Jack and Jill’s wedding might have ‘given up these very things that were done at the wedding.’ And, as Sri Chandy raises the question ‘Were they wrong in giving up what they did?’ I (or we) will say ‘yes’. It is very sad that people like Sri Chandy fail to reckon with the pain and agony of the parents of their converts. Has he ever sat with such parents and talked with them to know their mind? The plight and story of ‘converts’ is a big subject on which several volumes could be written if someone conducted proper research. Some converts have been silent victims, suffering for what they have done without even knowing what it means to become a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath in India. Brainwashed by well-intending people like Sri Chandy, when they wake up to the truth of their situation it is too late. Once they have lost their identity and place in their own family and community, for the sake of survival they have to put on a brave face and parade with false enthusiasm about so-called persecution for the sake of Lord. May people like Sri Chandy never take as final the words and opinions of converts for understanding the plight of converts and their natural families in India.
8. ‘.. the Christian must not only be Christian, but appear to be
Christian…’—Chandy
This is a truly astonishing assertion; perhaps the joke of the millennium? Rather reflect on the famous words often addressed to non-Hindus in India, ‘show me that you are saved and then we will believe in your savior’. I think it was Zac Ponnen who once said, ‘whatever we Christians may preach, when it comes to money matters everybody has the same religion’ (I don’t remember his exact words). If I tried to share in response to this comment all that comes to mind of quotations and opinions of other Indians about non-Hindu Indians, people like Sri Chandy will find no place to hide. I read Sri Chandy’s article while staying with an Indian non-Hindu (Christian) professor, so I asked him, ‘show me sir, how we can know by your appearance that you are a non-Hindu?’ About which he could only laugh. To that professor Sri Chandy himself looks like a Muslim. Perhaps one must conclude that Indian Christians have not yet learned to send out the ‘non-verbal messages that a Christian sends out’ (p. 31, Sep. 2004).
9. Not a Patch
While Christ stands unique in several ways, yet ‘Christian faith’ (which is different from faith in Christ) and Christianity (both as a religion and a civilization) is nothing but a patchwork both in India and everywhere in the world. As someone well said, ‘Faith which started as a relationship with a Person at Palestine, when it went to Greek became a philosophy, to Rome and became an administration/organization, moved to Europe and became a culture, to America and became an enterprise, and came to India as imperialism and became personality cults, centered around individuals who can leave their own church and denomination and start own their cult group around them in the name of Christ, gospel and the truth’. Long ago I read a book where an American navigator lost his lifeboat and landed on a remote island where he was taken care of by the natives. He was impressed by their life and manners, and when he asked for an explanation they said, ‘your forefathers came and preached ‘Christianity’, but we took Christ seriously’. Christianity as a civilization and religion stands as an open shame to the Lord in every corner of the world. That’s why He is selecting some ‘fresh and new’ vessels to pour out His grace instead of trusting the Christian patchwork in the world. Non-Hindus in India in their separate communities with their organized religion and patchwork of components from Western and Indian civilizations can never help us Hindus to follow the Lord as we read about Him in the Bible. I respect all those who fall within this generalization but truly and humbly seek to follow Christ, and even ask for forgiveness as my words might hurt some of them. But the pain and the burden that we Hindus in Christ carry is surely greater than yours. So for me Christianity (equivalent to what they call as ‘Christendom’ in some Western countries) is a patchwork faith, religion and civilization, which missionaries propagated in India. But faith in Christ is what we try to follow, patching it with our Hindu/Indian civilization.
10. Points of Contact
‘In no uncertain terms, He (Jesus) denied the validity of beliefs that did not come from the revealed truths of God. Beliefs and practices that do not have their origin in the revelation of God cannot be regarded as a step in the direction of God. They are not a way to experience God or serve Him. Jesus definitely did not subscribe to the view that “all roads lead to God” and therefore it was possible to accept the customs of those who did not live by the revelation of God’.—Chandy, p. 32, Sep. 2004 I am not sure if Sri Chandy, as an ex-Methodist pastor and now an independent pastor, ever had any personal experience of what is happening outside his organized church experience. I know he is a scholar and an excellent preacher, though I do not know him in person. But all that has happened in the history of missions from early times—since Paul delivered the gospel from its Jewish captivity and Luther the church from Latin captivity, clearly shows exactly what he says above. Neither I nor the Bible or any bhakta of the Lord is saying that ‘all roads lead to God’. But concepts and principles in the Bible have their own textual, theological and historical context. Well, I am neither a theologian nor a missiologist to write with any authority on these subjects. But out of my limited understanding about the Bible and some reading about church, mission, Christianity, Churchianity, etc., one should never put our God in any kind of captivity to revelation narrowly related only to the Bible. As Rev. John Stott said, God’s common grace is there for all, but His saving grace which we receive through our Lord is unique. So various customs and practices which we find in several civilizations and
traditions are also a gift from God, provided they do not oppose biblical principles. Yet what is truly a biblical principle is a great question, as each one gives their own interpretation, often according to their own convenience (not necessarily based on conviction). So let no outsider decide which is acceptable for a particular group to worship and serve the Lord. Irrespective of claiming ‘one faith, one God, one Scripture’, If the church has 45,000 and more denominations, all tall claims about the correct interpretation of biblically correct forms is surely extremely dubious. Non-Hindus always have their ready-made answer for such challenges; as that they believe in unity not in uniformity. But the world has yet to see that unity, while it is well aware of their non-uniformity. At least we Hindus believe and practice what we say: avibaktam vibakteshu = unity in diversity. As our worldview is pluralism, we respect and accept others’ views with much respect, however we may disagree with them, never abusing them. Multi-centred-pluralistic-inclusivism is our worldview. Whereas non-Hindus in theory proclaim exclusivism, but in reality live with multi-centred-pluralistic-exclusivism. As our worldview is ‘unity in diversity’ we can be excused. But insisting the theory of ‘unity not uniformity’, and claiming that they alone have God with them, the true scripture (Bible) to guide and the Holy Spirit to lead, they have no excuse on their part to explain away the lack of unity among them. It is well said that no one ever lived above his/her own creed.
Recently I saw a video of an international gathering of native Christians in which one from a tribal background very well said that ‘missionaries never brought God to us, but only the gospel’. So much that he knew from his own tribal traditions and customs was definitely also a revelation from God through which he now wants to worship God.
11. ‘What is happening is the Hinduisation of Christianity.’—Chandy, p. 33
Sri Chandy may be right about what some Christians in the name of
indigenization attempt to do. But for us Hindus in Christ, what
Christianity stands for and presents to the world is not the product of the Bible alone but a complex amalgam of various civilizations, of course keeping ‘Bible and Jesus,’ but often as ‘merely a point of contact’. In fact Christianity has become ‘larger than that starting point’ as an organized religion, not a faith. Well, let the non-Hindus fight and decide what it is or is not. But for us, we don’t want to Hinduise Christianity. In fact, we don’t even want to go to their organized churches and disturb them in any way. Let James live peacefully at Jerusalem; but if Judaizers come and disturb us, then like Paul we have to stand and fight for the truth and the gospel, not allowing it (and us) to be enslaved by Christianity. One non-Hindu, with real concern according to his understanding, once said to me, ‘what you people try to promote is Christo-paganism’. In response I said, ‘that is a thousand times better than the Western paganism of Christianity and Churchianity; at least our paganism is Christ centred, whereas your paganism is centred on various things, keeping Jesus and the Bible merely as starting points.’
12. Is it Western?
‘It is true that the format of Christian worship does not resemble what
happens in a Hindu temple.’—Chandy, p. 33, Sep. 2004.
All that Sri Chandy and similar non-Hindus seem to know about worship in India and Hinduism is their limited observation of what happens in the temple. I am not even sure they know much about temple worship. When some say that church worship (and in all other matters) in India is Western, why does Sri Chandy immediately want to compare this with Hindu temple worship?
Especially if India is not Hindu, then when someone says that church
worship is not Indian this does not mean that it fails to resemble Hindu forms of worship. The fact is that while keeping so many of its Western forms, the church in India has also heavily borrowed from Hindu
superstitions for their church worship and daily life. The caste problem in the church itself is enough to point out the Hinduisation of
Christianity, done by non-Hindus themselves.
13. Danger or blessing?
‘As Christians we should not place stumbling blocks in the path of those who look to us for guidance in matters of faith’.—Chandy, p. 34, Sep. 2004.
The first stumbling block for the gospel and the kingdom of God in India are the non-Hindus. People like Sri Chandy surely are well aware of this. Though some new ‘converts’ look to the traditional non-Hindus for guidance in matters of faith, some at least soon realize that they are looking to the wrong people. However, there are some good people among the non-Hindus also and I also was very much benefited by them. But in the case of most of the new bhaktas of the Lord, one of the first lessons they learn is that for help in growth in the Lord, these non-Hindus are not reliable.
Related to the some of our methods, way of life, worship and seva, etc., causing a stumbling block for the weak, I say try to make them strong in the Lord. If some of our actions offend traditional non-Hindus, tell them not to associate with us and we promise not to come disturb them. And if still they insist that we are causing them to stumble, then our answer is ‘try to become strong or continue to live in your own weakness. You are not our concern and priority. As Hindu bhaktas of the Lord we want to live and grow in the Lord, first inheriting all that is good and beautiful in our culture, tradition and civilization. Then by this we want to live as a witness for the Lord in our families and communities.’ (But note that this is not any evangelical strategy on our part to win our own people by any ways and means to Christianity in the long run.)
I am in total agreement with Sri Chandy on his point that ‘Accept what you find in the marketplace and in the commonplace situations of life, but do not accept what comes from temples of idolatry’ (p. 34, Sep. 2004). But for those who have to live in their homes and families, who cannot be and need not be extracted from their situation in the name of ‘conversion’ and ‘fulltime ministry’, at times the approach must be closer to what Naaman has done than to what people like Sri Chandy recommend.
14. ‘On the other hand, the beliefs and worship rituals of Christians
cannot bear any similarity to those of non-Christians. Such a difference must be expected and safeguarded.’—Chandy, p. 35, Sep. 2004
This is where Sri Chandy and I clearly differ. Sri Chandy quote from Lev.18:3. But in the Old Testament and New Testament there are so many
beliefs, worship practices and rituals which Israelites and followers of the Lord in NT times not only borrowed, but they also kept several of their own traditions and customs which are mostly pagan in nature. Even when God gave so many things for Israel after coming out of Egypt, most of the customs and instructions are also found in the pagan world and its rituals. Circumcision, making covenant and even baptism rituals did not exclusively belong to Israel. Even washing feet is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, which might have entered into the Jewish community from the pagan world. Your X-mas is an outright copy of a pagan festival. I need not mention about the origin of the Easter egg, carol music, gothic church buildings, altar, pulpit, etc.. So many things in the Christian world and even in the Old and New Testaments are copied from the pagan world.
When our Lord washed the feet of His disciples, He never questioned the
origin of such a practice, but gave it a new meaning and interpretation. What was merely a ceremonial ritual in Jewish tradition, which mostly a slave would perform, now our Lord made a symbol of service and humility. There are several such things in the Bible which would mean one thing in their (pagan) origin, but with a new interpretation gained a new meaning in the Bible. Even slavery can be mentioned. Paul never encouraged his slave ‘converts’ to rebel or fight for their freedom because of their faith in the Lord. Rather, he encouraged them to serve their masters more sincerely. Now this is not ‘good news’ for a slave. But Paul was very sensitive to the social and political issues of slavery. To their shame it took more than 1500 years for the Christianity to get rid of this inhuman practice. So we too need to be sensitive to cultural and social issues on which the Bible is silent.
So let us take the example of burial. When one of my non-Hindu friends
talked about ‘Christian burial’, I pointed out him that burying the dead is not merely a non-Hindu or Jewish practice. People everywhere dispose of their dead according to their convenience. At present in countries like England they have begun to cremate, since if everyone buries their dead, soon that country will become a complete graveyard. There are several Hindu communities in India who bury their dead. If still the non-Hindus insist about the so-called ‘non-Hindu’ burial and began to quote our Lord’s word, ‘let the dead bury the dead’, then they should follow the practice of the Jews, who did not bury their dead but put them in a cave. I have heard that now in the Philippines burial is such a costly matter that one can rent a chamber to keep the dead body of her/his relative for a period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and then it will cleaned to rent to some others.
The Bible is silent about birth, marriage and death rituals. Moses, who
took so much pain and time to give all kinds of laws and minute details, never said anything about the rituals for marriage. When Abraham’s slave brought Rebecca for Isaac, nothing is mentioned about any marriage rituals. Thankfully, the Bible never gives any pattern for us to imitate but principles which we need to adopt according to our situation. We need not greet each other by giving a holy kiss, but we have our own way of greeting each other in India. Similarly, several rituals and customs in Indian traditions and particularly in Hindu civilization are social and cultural, yet they are given in the name of religion. But what is cultural and what is religious is not for an outsider to decide. Leave it to the new bhaktas to decide. Don’t rush to stop any of her/his customs and rituals in the name of teaching. One quick step in the wrong direction, then a lifetime must be invested in correction. Even if new bhaktas do make some mistakes, before trying to correct her/him try to understand what a particular ritual, custom, tradition and value really means to her/him. Because of your non-Hindu background, certain things look pagan and unbiblical to you. But most of the things which non-Hindus object to are coming from their prejudice and wrong understanding and misinterpretation of both the new believer’s traditions and biblical views.
There is no point of going further point by point on all these subjects. I tried to outline some of them in the book “Living Water and Indian Bowl”. The sad fact is that of three published reviews which one convert and two traditional non-Hindus wrote, none addressed the issues which I raised but each merely tried to give their own verdict. I know most of the things that I shared in that book are not acceptable to non-Hindus and that people like Sri Chandy are not going to agree with us. But my main aim is neither to please non-Hindus nor to convince outsiders, but rather to warn the so-called ‘converts’ about the dangers of aping non-Hindus in the name of following our Lord.
By saying this I or we never say to all non-Hindus that ‘we don’t need
you’. We are ready to have fellowship with you, provided you are ready to accept us as we are. We don’t want you to give up your non-Hindu identity and the security that you find in your church and communities. But if you insists that we will be acceptable to you on your terms and conditions, not necessarily based on the Bible—however you claim all your interpretations are biblical—then our only possible request to you is: Leave Us Alone. We believe in the universal church as the body of the Lord, but not in any of your ecclesiastically organized and institutionally Christianized churchianity. Our Lord is enough for us. Even if I am the only person left to live as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I am happy about it.
Sri Chandy has every right to write as he did as this is his fight among his own people. But as he also dragged me into this and gave his own interpretation about customs, rituals, views and values in our Hindu world, I have given this response. When some of my friends read my responses to such matters, they again and again say one thing to me: ‘IGNORE THEM’. However, sometimes I have to draw the sword with a few, not to defend our position but to point out their folly. As others involved in this discussion may perhaps write further, I will close here with one final comment based on my experience regarding contextualization and indigenization:
When I comprehended the gospel, I understood it as a Hindu. Even though in the early days of my faith I struggled a lot with Indian non-Hindus (and the church in a very limited way), my struggle with them really began as soon as I started to raise some questions about what they say and practices in their life. I found my answer for the struggles in life in the Lord, but to my struggles with the non-Hindus and church even He cannot give any answer. As a book worm I began to read as many books as possible on the Bible, mission, evangelism, contextualization, etc. And to my dismay I found how the Indian non-Hindus remain caught between a rock and a hard place. As they say in Hindi: dobi ka kuta na raha gharka na ghatka (very difficult to translate in English as I have not found its equivalent in English—roughly it means that they belong nowhere); they have become a peculiar people in the entire world. In other places also new believers had to struggle a lot, but what missionaries and the church have done in India seems truly unique. I may be wrong but this is what I feel: the mission and church only used the Indian non-Hindus to expand their own respective denominational kingdoms. They never taught self-respect to the Indian non-Hindus or equipped them to be a witness for the Lord. If the salt lost its essence then we can throw it out, but here in India, it sits alone unable to exercise its essence to expand the kingdom of God in India. If they wish to remain in their social and cultural isolation it is not our problem or business. But when they try to drag us to join them in the name of ‘conversion’ or commitment, body of Christ, etc. we prefer to stay on our own. When the church at Jerusalem was trapped in its own problems, forgetting its call to witness for the Lord, then God had to raise His true church outside it. The condition of the Indian church is hardly different from that of the early Jerusalem church. God knows how to redeem them, but we are not called for that purpose as we have our own God-given responsibilities to live and serve Him among our own people. And we know and trust He who called us for this purpose will enable us to carry out His work according to His will and plan.
Our fight is not with any individual like Sri Chandy, but regards basic
principles. Yet I am not a fool to say that we attack only principles and not the person, because principles become abstract values without any person to implement them, and persons become mere living creatures without principles to make her/him human. Yet when, because of difference of opinion some circumstance force us to draw the sword it is not to hurt any individual but to uphold our principles, even when this may not be acceptable to others. So let us agree to disagree with much respect and dignity.
Our bhakti in the Lord is never exercised in isolation. Thankfully, He is with us along with other bhaktas of the Lord. Whether we stand or fall, He is able to keep and restore us, as we know whom we are trusting.
Kanpur, September 23 & 24, 2004 (subsequently revised).
@@@
…Hindus—a term that may be used by default to denote its etymological equivalent “Indian.”— The Indian Sciences. Introduction. Frits Staal, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, p.346
A Response by Dayanand Bharati
I wish to respond to some selective comments in the articles in ‘Light of Life’ magazine by Kuruvilla Chandy. My aim is not to attack anyone, certainly not Sri Chandy. However, some of my words and the way in which I say things may seem not to support this statement. Sometimes people don’t grasp a point if it is not told with powerful words and illustrations. Still, this is not an excuse on my part; and if my response hurts any one, then I am truly sorry for that.
1. ‘They derived all their notions of contextualization from a religion, scriptures and cultures that were non-Christian.’-Chandy.
Response:
To begin with, why are we all the time called as ‘non-Christians’? I have raised this matter other times also. Only Christians use this terminology. I never heard of or read any Muslim referring to others as ‘non-Muslims’ or the Hindus as ‘non-Hindus’. However, in this dialogue I myself am going to use the word ‘non-Hindus,’ referring to Christians in particular. Perhaps Sri Chandy, who seems averse to the very word “Hindu,” will feel uncomfortable even at this identification as ‘non-Hindu’. But perhaps it will do some good to return to him the same kind of terminology that he uses towards others. Those like Chandy who ‘have no desire to appear to be one or to be mistakenly identified as’ Hindu might have to bear this as a cross.
2. ‘The performance of aarti (offering flowers before an idol), intoning om (the sound representing the primal energy of Brahma) and so on were considered unacceptable forms of indigenization.’-Chandy
I don’t have any prior information on Sri Chandy’s knowledge about Hinduism or even about India. (Indian Christians generally are living in their own little world, separating themselves socially and culturally from the mainstream of Indian life.) But from his comment here about ‘aarati’ meaning the offering flowers before an idol it is clear that he knows little about even the commonest Hindu rituals. Aarati is the waving of a lamp and colored water. (One might note that the water is prepared in different ways in different parts of India. In Tamilnadu they will mix tamarind powder in the water and add a bit of lime to make it red, but in the north chindur (kunkum) powder is used to prepare this red coloured water). This practice of waving the lamp and water has different purposes and meanings according to the context in which it is undertaken. It has even been shown on TV news that when ‘non-Indian’ cricket teams arrive India a few women will do ‘aarati’ viz., waving the plate with colored water in front of them and applying the tilak (i.e. taking a bit of the coloured water and putting on the forehead of the team members-yes, even on the foreheads of ‘non-Indians’). By doing this they say to them, ‘we wish success and victory for your team and welcome you to this land’. But when the same aarati is done before an idol in a temple, usually with camphor or wick burning in ghee, then the grace and power of the idol is considered to be transformed to the flame, which the devotees will take on their hands and then apply on their face and eyes, symbolizing receiving the grace and the power of the deity. In marriages aarati is done on various occasions, each with a different meaning-sometimes to ward of the evil eye, other times to welcome the new couple inside the home, etc., etc.
Sri Chandy’s lack of understanding of Hindu realities is further reflected in his discussion of OM. Some people are in the habit of selectively using Hindu scriptures or one particular interpretation that serves their purpose, all the while conveniently neglecting many other scriptures and interpretations. Sometimes, as in this case, they will take the authority of a ‘Hindu Convert’ (a convert, or only one having a Hindu background?) like Prabhu Guptara. Even the beginning student of Hinduism learns that OM has various meanings and interpretations and there has been a long history of development. So when Sri Chandy gives one meaning and interpretation for OM, it shows his limited understanding. Christians like to think there is one meaning for all their terms, based on one book (despite their hundreds of denominational differences), and so they look for similar things from Hindus. But one must to read not only Vedas, but also Upanishads, Puranas and even the scriptures of Jains and Buddhist. Even the Sikhs use OM. Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs (despite Sangh Parivar claims) are not Hindus. But I agree with Chandy that the Christians should not be to using our ‘symbols’ and ‘forms’ in their worship and other places. But we Hindu bhaktas of the Lord want to use everything that is good, noble and true in our cultures and traditions (including religious matters) as part of our bhakti to the Lord. This we do neither to ‘express’ or to ‘communicate’ or to ‘evangelize’ others, but because it is our birthright to use our own values and symbols which are not opposed to biblical principles. I do not want to speak of ‘redeeming’ these things for the Lord as I don’t feel that the cultural values and symbols of Hindus are created by the devil and need to be redeemed for the Lord. Every good thing in this world is a gift from God, and we are using only God-given gifts in our sadhana.
3. ‘Hindu style wedding ‘; ‘A Christian Wedding’; ‘a church wedding’.-Chandy (p. 22, August 2004).
I am not an expert on the subject of weddings. But surely a wedding is a social event; ‘cultural’ practices along with some religious rituals are developed according to the convenience and needs of the marriage parties. If non-Hindus like Sri Chandy think that all marriages that are arranged and conducted by non-Hindus pastors are religious events, then let them live with that blissful ignorance. Without a secular marriage license given by the Indian govt. these non-Hindu pastors cannot perform marriages in their churches. In mainline churches when a pastor is ordained he automatically gets that license, whereas independent Pastors have to apply for it separately. That’s why several Pentecostal people who refuse to go to the mainline church for worship yet keep their membership in order to fulfill their social needs (‘hatch’ ‘match’ and ‘dispatch’). A Tamil Christian told me that since only the certificate given by a mainline church pastor is legal, he continues to keep his membership in the CSI church. So in some of these matters churches in India are functioning as proxy govt. agencies to provide legal certificates to the Christians.
Generally, Hindus are very naïve on most areas related to religion and ritual. When they first attend some ‘church’ wedding they might naturally remark that ‘it was the most meaningful wedding they had attended.’ (***It is like some non-Indians awestruck after seeing the temple rituals or Ganga aarati [which recently introduced for tourist attraction in North India] or temple festivals all parts of India].***One might think to ask some of them what they have done with the order of service which they took home after that church wedding service? Are they going to incorporate any of those ‘meaningful’ orders in their ‘Hindu’ weddings?) In India, do even educated Hindus know the real meaning of non-Hindu weddings? For them the real meaning of the wedding lies not in the order of service or the ‘message’ given by the pastor (which most people never listen to during marriage activities), but rather in the way the couple live out that meaning in their life. (And statistics show that the divorce rate is higher among non-Hindus, irrespective of their pious ‘church’ weddings with meaningful orders of service and a wonderful message by the pastor.)
In a later context Sri Chandy talks about ‘elders offering words of counsel’ (p. 27, Sep. 2004) to Jack and Jill, which ‘replaced the traditional wedding sermon’ (p. 27, Sep. 2004). Then he go on listing all the good that such a sermon does to its listeners who participate in a church wedding. But the fact is, as the Hindus never pay much attention to all the rituals and ceremonies in their weddings, most Christians never pay any attention to sermons, particularly those given during a marriage when they are all busy to greet each other, with the parents of both bride and groom taking care of other activities and the couple having a thousand and one things on their minds. I have witnessed a few church weddings in South India. When I asked one of my non-Hindu friends with whom I went to a marriage ‘why the pastor gave such a short message, whereas they usually love to talk too much in the name of a sermon’, he said, ‘these marriage messages are mere church rituals to which no one pays any attention’.
Sri Chandy perhaps should attend some Hindu weddings. Hindus never pay any attention to the rituals or the meaning of the marriage ceremony. It is an occasion of joy and happiness where relatives gather to be witnesses to the marriage. For them the real meaning lies not in the rituals or all that happens on the marriage day, but the way the young couple live after that event.
Now in the reception hall, when some ‘non-Hindus’ were disturbed and requested Sri Chandy to exercise his ‘authority as pastor and ask the hosts to remove the idols of Ram and Sita on the salad table’, he said, ‘I’m going to do no such thing. It’s their party. If you feel uncomfortable about the idols, just don’t eat the salad. There are other things you can eat” (p. 23, August 2004). Apparently to a ‘non-Hindu’ pastor like Sri Chandy only the ‘salad is objectionable’ because the idols of Ram and Sita were kept near it. But if they had inquired, then the hosts would have said, ‘all that is provided here to eat is Prasad, not the salad only’. But in this matter I appreciate Sri Chandy for his sensitivity and refusal to exercise his pastoral authority. Following Paul’s principle he rightly says, ‘Accept what you find in the marketplace (I Cor. 10.25-26) and in the commonplace situations of life (v. 27), but do not accept what comes from temples of idolatry (v. 28)’ (p. !
34, September 2004).
For Sri Chandy, the ‘wedding of the two Christians Jack and Jill was totally Hindu in appearance.’ (p. 23, Aug. 2004). But he seems to have failed to observe (perhaps refuses to acknowledge?) that almost all ‘non-Hindu’ (even ‘church’) marriages have several aspects which not only ‘appear’ as Hindu but are verbatim Hindu practices. I don’t know much about North Indian non-Hindu marriages, as I have never attended one, but I have participated in a few South Indian non-Hindu marriages and several Hindu practices are followed in their marriages. Most striking would be the wedding chain with a ‘cross’ pendant attached to it, a mild substitute for the Hindu ‘mangalyam’ or ‘thali’. They even call Hindu musicians to play Nadaswaram (equivalent to the North Indian Shanai). They will never arrange marriages on Tuesday or Saturday as both these days are considered inauspicious by Hindus. A CNI Pastor once told me that in the old ‘church’ marriage service the applying the sindur on the forehead of the bride was present, but this has now been removed. One could make a strong case that most ‘non-Hindus’ in India live like Christians for only three hours in their church on Sundays, and the rest of the six days and 21 hours of the week they are in no way different from us. I have no real problem with ‘non-Hindus’ aping our cultural and religious forms, but people like Sri Chandy should think a bit more clearly before bragging about the way he conducted a ‘church’ wedding in a so called ‘non-Hindu’ way, and now criticizing Jack and Jill’s Hindu wedding!
Regarding the ‘swamiji’ who was going to be in charge of the wedding ceremony and who failed to defend his practices, please note the following. Jack and Jill might have their own personal reasons for not acknowledging in public all that I contributed from the beginning to their marriage (perhaps they wanted to spare me from the wrath of several non-Hindus like Sri Chandy). But almost all the wedding ceremony and rituals, including how to begin and how to end, was planned and discussed between Jack and Jill and myself. So if there is to be blame or if there are demands for explanations for the rituals and forms in the marriage, they would need to be directed to me rather than to the other Swamiji who quite understandably did not respond when asked about such things. (That Swamiji contributed a great deal to the marriage by making all the physical arrangements with his other friends at Varanasi.) This other swamiji was keen to play the role of Brahmin (priest), and was strongly supported by both Jack and Jill. It was I who personally objected and arranged for another person to sit in front and do the rituals; since a sannyasi should not conduct a marriage, I used my influence to bring about this change.
Finally related to this I should add that I find it quite offensive that Sri Chandy used the word ‘so-called’ in reference to Swamiji. How will he feel if I call him ‘the so-called’ pastor or Rev.? When that swamiji took deeksha as a sannyasi, I saw the desire and dedication that he had to totally commit his life in this way. This he has done not as an evangelistic strategy or to please any Hindus or his relatives, but as his call and commitment for the lord. This is his vocation and life and no one has the right to judge other’s motives and intentions to lead a life for which God has called them. I wish Sri Chandy and others like him would learn to respect others’ feelings and convictions.
4. ‘At various points during this wedding, there was one swami introducing some aspect or the other of the rituals, saying that it was according to Indian culture. First of all, this notion that “Indian” is “Hindu” must not only be rejected, but it must also be opposed.’-Chandy, p. 23, Aug. 2004
This is a big subject. I certainly respect (and agree with) Sri Chandy when he says that ‘I am not Hindu, and indeed have no desire to appear to be one or to be mistakenly identified as one’. We Hindus never expect or even wish any non-Hindus or Muslims etc. to appear as or identify with us as Hindus. Still, they have no right to dictate terms and conditions to us such as that ‘If something is to be classified as embracing the essence of what is Indian, it must have features that are common to all, and not what will serve to narrow down its identity to any one community of India’ (p. 23).
Well, even before Indians were made Hindus (by outsiders) almost all the worldviews and values here were commonly shared by all of us as Indians. Then when we all were made Indians by the constitution, those values and views never become the property of any one religious community. When several Hindus became ‘non-Hindus’ by conversion they didn’t reject most of these things but kept them, sometimes using different names and forms. (Narasimha was still a Hindu deity’s name, for whom Sri Chandy performed a ‘church’ wedding.) But some non-Hindus reject some of these views and values and replace them by non-Indian views and values which are not even biblical. And if some non-Hindus (like Sri Chandy) like to think that they hold Indian but not Hindu views and values, they have every freedom to do so. But they have no right to insist that what is Indian is necessarily different from what is Hindu. We were neither Indian nor Hindu before the time of British rule. For example, even when Gandhiji went to England, some of his own community people raised objections by saying that it is against their religion and community. But what was their religion and community? Not Hinduism or Hindu community, but Vaishnavism and Bania community. So this pan-Indian and Hindu identity is not based on religion or any caste/religious community, but rather on a common civilization. Thus ‘to have Hindu ceremonies on the grounds of appearing Indian’ is not ‘utter nonsense’ in our view. Sri Chandy says that I ‘protested too much’, to promote Indian as Hindu. But why should I protest and to whom? Even in this wedding, I explained, as I do often when there are non-Hindus and non-Indians present, certain symbols, customs and cultural values/views of Hindus. This I do not to protest or to plead for them to accept my view. I don’t expect their recognition for what I am doing, but in order to help them to participate joyfully or to reject with some understanding I give some explanation. If he said, ‘he tried to promote his views among his non-Hindus audience’, some truth will be in it, but I don’t need to protest or protect myself to please non-Hindus.
Of course, non-Hindus may not agree or accept this perspective, and we respect that. But who are they to say that ‘Hindu’ cannot be synonymous with ‘Indian’? When I introduced every ceremonial act in that wedding as an aspect of Indian culture I was not ‘foisting’ anything on the gathering, but with clear conviction I shared my view, knowing that some of those present in the gathering might not agree. But many Hindus who participated in that ceremony came to me that same evening and said, in Hindi, ‘aap sabkutch vidivat karaaya’ (you have done everything according to the order/tradition). I was really taken aback by their comments, because in fact, in order to accommodate the sentiment of the bride, I agreed to some changes in the traditional order (particularly performing saptapadi before sindur, whereas saptapadi should be performed after sindur). But this shows again that for Hindus the order and rituals are not important, but rather the form in which things are done is important. As Narasimha and Bapita’s Hindu relatives appreciated Sri Chandy’s church wedding service, so Hindus appreciated my Indian wedding ceremony for Jack and Jill. We Hindus are naive on such matters and not Pharisees to impose legalism on lay people. So in Chandy’s ‘church’ wedding the Hindus took copies of the printed order of service, and in Varanasi there remains talk in a few Hindu pockets about how two non-Indians came to India to conduct their marriage in an Indian-not Hindu-way!
Of course, Indian non-Hindus who are still living under English personal law and ape all kinds of non-Indian forms of worship and lifestyle, claiming that as part of the universal or even cosmic church (or Jewish synagogue, p. 33, Sep. 2004), cannot understand what it means to be Indian in India.
Sri Chandy says that ‘Nothing just happened in due course, but needed a swami to constantly instruct the bride and groom, and other key participants and all the guests what to do, as no one knew what exactly was the Indian thing to do’ (pp. 23-24 Aug. 2004). But in which church wedding does everything just happen in due course without a pastor to instruct the bride and groom and other key participants? One American who participated in that wedding told me that when he went to England to marry his wife he was completely ignorant of all that happen in the ‘church’ wedding in England, as they have a different type of order and procedures from America. Even Hindus who are familiar with their own cultural and ritual traditions need to be instructed by a priest and elders on what to do during marriage and death rituals.
When Sri Chandy says that ‘My observation has been that among Protestant Christians, the indigenization movement is made up of Westerners or those Indians who want to impress Westerners with a view to extracting more monetary support for their work’, he exposes something that should be a great embarrassment to all Christians. This is the typical full-time worker mentality of doing things for the sake of money; let us face it, in India pastors, priests, pujaris, molwis, etc. are religious brokers mainly interested in the income to make a living rather than being interested in the spiritual life of their people. But for his information let me say that I neither received any money nor any support from Jack and Jill. They never even paid my travel bill. We Hindus do not need monetary support to do what we want to do in India. Sri Chandy’s observation might be correct among fulltime workers from non-Hindu backgrounds who for the sake of making a living do such things. But we are doing these things not to impress or influence any outsiders, but as our birthright. Even before I met any non-Indians during my seva I practiced and promoted such views. Some may object to this view, but I have influenced the ways and life of non-Indians rather than doing anything to impress them to make a living. This is perhaps a madness like that of the apostle Paul in defending himself, but a pastor like Sri Chandy should learn the facts before bearing false witness against people. Perhaps since fulltime ministry supported from abroad helps solve the unemployment problem among non-Hindus in India, they can only interpret others’ seva in like way; this is perhaps their inherited mission-mentality, from which God alone can redeem them.
5. Use of Sanskrit
It seems odd that a person like Sri Chandy ,who conducts his church services in English even for people who know their mother tongue Hindi very well, should lament our use of Sanskrit. If our ‘Lord’s intentions of how His message is to be represented are critical to understanding and appreciating His work,’ then Indian non-Hindus and particularly those who work in the church have to think seriously how to communicate our Lord’s message. No Hindu ever understood or ever will understand all the pulpit terms and evangelical slogans or even most of the words in the Bible in almost all our vernacular languages. Well, that perhaps is an altogether different issue. But we neither use Sanskrit to impress others or to impose our language hegemony on others. But in our personal sadhana and in satsanghs we do use some Sanskrit, and that too after giving the entire meaning of those slokas. Even in the marriage under discussion all the meanings of the Sanskrit slokas were given in print to all to follow the meaning. I too agree that if our Lord ‘came to India in our day, He wouldn’t be speaking Sanskrit;’ certainly also He would not be speaking in English, and definitely He wouldn’t use any Greek words (as we often find in church sermons, usually only to parade the speaker’s knowledge).
We find that, as a musical language, some use of Sanskrit adds richness in a wedding ceremony. Even in most of the Hindu rituals where Brahmins are not involved there are rituals conducted in Sanskrit, and no one minds that at all. It should also be noted that in the marriage in question the use of Sanskrit was meager compared to the use of Hindi and English. It seems that this Sanskrit problem influenced another comment of Sri Chandy that I really cannot understand at all. He says, ‘mediation by a priest is a total denial of the Christian doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.’ But what was different here from what is done in every denominational church? When I explained certain ceremonies and explained the meaning of the Sanskrit slokas and other symbols, I was not mediating between the congregation and the Lord. Would one suggest that the commentator of a sports match was influencing the players to win or lose the match? Philip was not a mediator when he explained the message to the Ethiopian minister! It seems to me here that Sri Chandy was so prejudiced against this type of wedding that he cannot see things properly in their true light and context-both in the Bible and in this wedding. By quoting Lewis he has done a great service to evangelicals and Indian church people, if indeed they will start to use normal vernacular speech and not church language and pulpit terms. When most “Hindi” churches in North still use age-old Urdu-based hymns and service books, surely Sri Chandy should first remove the log from his own eye before trying to remove a splinter from our eyes.
I don’t know much Sanskrit, but even from childhood I heard and learnt many slokas and mantras taught by my parents. Even today it helps me to remember lots of things. As I always read my Bible either in Tamil or Hindi, I cannot say even one verse properly in English. But if I read the same verses in Sanskrit, it seems to automatically record in my mind. That is the way my mind (and this is true of many Hindus) was disciplined. Give anything in poetic form and we remember it, but in prose form we cannot memorise. At the same time among my friends in Tamilnadu, we never use Sanskrit much, but only vernacular Tamil-thankfully not non-Hindu Tamil. Some relatives of these Muktinath bhaktas, who participated in our satsangh and worship, could even join in and sing most of our songs. So I think we are the ones who promote and encourage the use of the vernaculars. If Sri Chandy takes a survey he will realize the many Indian non-Hindus do not even know how to pray in their mother tongue. In Tamilnadu one Tamil non-Hindu speaker was speaking in English to a Tamil non-Hindu audience and another Tamil non-Hindu was translating it into (church) Tamil. For many Indian non-Hindus, English is their mother tongue and they feel shy in using their vernacular in communication and in worship, perhaps thinking that speaking only in English to their children is the best way to help them to grow as good non-Hindus.
6. Power of Om
A full article could be written in response to Sri Chandy’s ‘fear’ about OM. But I will limit myself to a few points. He says, ‘For argument’s sake, let us accept the notion that it is a meaningless sound. Then, we must ask (p. 25) what is a Christian doing offering what is meaningless to God in worship?’ (pp. 25-26, Aug. 2004) I have thought very similar thoughts when I listened to church music which has no meaning for our ears! Their organs, guitars and several other instruments only make noise for us, without any meaning. At the same time, I agree with Sri Chandy that Christians have no right to use our symbols selectively in their worship. But as Hindus we surely can use OM before we begin our satsanghs. The sound which it gives helps create a calm and tranquil atmosphere in which we focus our minds on the Lord. We never use it as a ‘magical’ way. The problem and beauty of Sanskrit is that the same word can have different meanings according to the context. For example ‘sankhya’ is ‘number’ both in common use and in Sankhya-Yoga philosophy, but it means ‘renunciation’ in the Gita. If John ‘did not invest the [logos] concept with its Greek meaning’ (p. 26, Aug. 2004), then why do both Sri Chandy and Guptara think that we use OM with a magical meaning? ‘For John the Logos was word, fitting in with the Old Testament view that God created by His Word. In the end the Word was incarnate’, (p. 26, Aug. 2004); so then OM, which is also called ‘Pranava,’ both sound and word, surely can be given a similar interpretation. However, I personally do not like to invest OM with heavy theological meaning; as I am neither a theologian nor a Sanskritist I dare not do that; so we use it only as a musical symbol and respectful word.
Sri Chandy knows the Bible better than I so I need not point out the way EL is used in the Old Testament for YHWH. Several pagan words, rituals, Psalms etc. are used without any hesitation in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament. When God made a covenant with Abraham he asked him to cut the animals in two and do the very same practice which was familiar among the pagans while making a covenant. God never hesitated to use this which Abraham was familiar with. Several books have been written and papers presented on this subject, and I could send detailed information if Sri Chandy would like. In the case of Aaron, out of fear and not knowing what happened to Moses, he misled the people, who were rebellious in every way. When we use OM we are not misleading our own people, but give them the reason why we are using it in our worship. Similarly, non-Hindus need not sit before any idol of Ram/Shiva etc. to meditate on our Lord, but they do seem to have several other idols in their church and life. Their alter, pulpit, printed bible (I mean the book itself), cross, etc. often seem to displace Jesus from their life. Well, that is their problem and perhaps prophets like Sri Chandy will deal with it. But in one CSI Church synod meeting held at Palayamkottai the following prayer was used verbatim: ‘Jesus who is the Siva, the kind one, Allah the merciful one and Buddha the compassionate one..’ etc. So perhaps Sri Chandy should just leave us Hindu Christ bhaktas alone and tell non-Hindus about the dangers of using OM and other such words.
A last point on OM; Sri Chandy wrote that ‘Om is a word that describes something abstract and therefore its meaning is based on the history of its usage – past and current’ (p. 26, Aug. 2004). Well, this is a topic for a philologist. But just what history of usage does Sri Chandy have in mind? As Hindus we know enough about its current use as a political symbol, sectarian symbol, religious symbol etc., which are not the same as its ‘historical usage and past’. In the Indian worldview nothing is frozen in past history, and ‘Change and Continuity’ (see Jan Gonda’s beautiful book on this subject) is a basic foundational fact of this Hindu civilization.
7. Deifying Elders
Unlike most Western countries where many children neither respect nor take care of their elders, we Indians still know what it means to respect our elders. But Sri Chandy seems to make no effort to understand Indian/Hindu worldviews in their proper context, to the point of not even seeing the difference between respect shown to elders and deification. Hindu worldviews are complex and differ from place to place. But when Sri Chandy says, ‘Bible clearly teaches that they (parents) are not to be given the honour due to God alone’ (p. 29, Sep. 2004) it reveals his poor understanding of our worldview. Unless one is a Hindu perhaps he/she cannot understand what is our attitude of respect to our elders and parents. But certainly we know that touching the feet of elders is the way we salute and show respect to our elders. Now Sri Chandy in his support can perhaps quote a verse from the Bible, in which a worldview very different from that of India is reflected. One must ask to how many Hindus (not merely to converts) Sri Chandy spoke before he pronounced his verdict that ‘In Hinduism, parents [and by extension, all the elders of one’s family/community] have the rank or status of god and it is therefore proper to offer them the obeisance offered to god’ (p. 30, Sep. 2004). This is a comment that again shows Sri Chandy’s ignorance of Hindu practices and teaching and opinions. Each tradition has its own way of showing respect to elders. I have heard that in high Anglican churches they address their bishops as ‘Lord God’. But they don’t mean that that Bishop becomes their Lord or God. In Exodus 18:7 we read, ‘So Moses went out to meet his father-in-law and bowed down and kissed him’. Does this mean that Moses actually worshipped his father-in-law or was it an Egyptian custom in which he was born and brought up? But this is all a big and complex subject so I leave it here.
That ‘washing the feet’ would be a functional substitute for touching the feet again shows a failure to think clearly. Washing feet is not exclusively a practice of the Bible. Even in India we do it as Hindus. But the difference here is that in some contexts when we wash the feet of elders and gurus, it is not merely showing respect but actually worshipping them as very God himself. I still remember when I was a boy, how my mother would welcome any Brahmin guest by washing his feet and taking the water to sprinkle on our heads as a blessing from God. So Sri Chandy needs to be careful to learn even about so-called ‘biblical’ practices which are copied from and present in pagan traditions, before passing on his interpretation and verdict on several of our Indian (Hindu) practices. In every major Hindu ceremony, at the end the couples (either in a marriage or in any other ritual function) finally have to wash the feet of their parents and elders, thanking them for coming and blessing them on that occasion. Even in the marriage in question, the man who acted as the foster father of the bridge washed the feet of Jack to welcome him. This is not worship of the groom, but showing respect to him as he is going to marry his daughter. When Sri Candy seemed to follow all events one by one, why was this event not also referred to?
Those Hindu converts who were ‘offended by all of the Hindu rituals’ of Jack and Jill’s wedding might have ‘given up these very things that were done at the wedding.’ And, as Sri Chandy raises the question ‘Were they wrong in giving up what they did?’ I (or we) will say ‘yes’. It is very sad that people like Sri Chandy fail to reckon with the pain and agony of the parents of their converts. Has he ever sat with such parents and talked with them to know their mind? The plight and story of ‘converts’ is a big subject on which several volumes could be written if someone conducted proper research. Some converts have been silent victims, suffering for what they have done without even knowing what it means to become a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath in India. Brainwashed by well-intending people like Sri Chandy, when they wake up to the truth of their situation it is too late. Once they have lost their identity and place in their own family and community, for the sake of survival they have to put on a brave face and parade with false enthusiasm about so-called persecution for the sake of Lord. May people like Sri Chandy never take as final the words and opinions of converts for understanding the plight of converts and their natural families in India.
8. ‘.. the Christian must not only be Christian, but appear to be Christian.’-Chandy
This is a truly astonishing assertion; perhaps the joke of the millennium? Rather reflect on the famous words often addressed to non-Hindus in India, ‘show me that you are saved and then we will believe in your savior’. I think it was Zac Ponnen who once said, ‘whatever we Christians may preach, when it comes to money matters everybody has the same religion’ (I don’t remember his exact words). If I tried to share in response to this comment all that comes to mind of quotations and opinions of other Indians about non-Hindu Indians, people like Sri Chandy will find no place to hide. I read Sri Chandy’s article while staying with an Indian non-Hindu (Christian) professor, so I asked him, ‘show me sir, how we can know by your appearance that you are a non-Hindu?’ About which he could only laugh. To that professor Sri Chandy himself looks like a Muslim. Perhaps one must conclude that Indian Christians have not yet learned to send out the ‘non-verbal messages that a Christian sends out’ (p. 31, Sep. 2004).
9. Not a Patch
While Christ stands unique in several ways, yet ‘Christian faith’ (which is different from faith in Christ) and Christianity (both as a religion and a civilization) is nothing but a patchwork both in India and everywhere in the world. As someone well said, ‘Faith which started as a relationship with a Person at Palestine, when it went to Greek became a philosophy, to Rome and became an administration/organization, moved to Europe and became a culture, to America and became an enterprise, and came to India as imperialism and became personality cults, centered around individuals who can leave their own church and denomination and start own their cult group around them in the name of Christ, gospel and the truth’. Long ago I read a book where an American navigator lost his lifeboat and landed on a remote island where he was taken care of by the natives. He was impressed by their life and manners, and when he asked for an explanation they said, ‘your forefathers came and preached ‘Christianity’, but we took Christ seriously’. Christianity as a civilization and religion stands as an open shame to the Lord in every corner of the world. That’s why He is selecting some ‘fresh and new’ vessels to pour out His grace instead of trusting the Christian patchwork in the world. Non-Hindus in India in their separate communities with their organized religion and patchwork of components from Western and Indian civilizations can never help us Hindus to follow the Lord as we read about Him in the Bible. I respect all those who fall within this generalization but truly and humbly seek to follow Christ, and even ask for forgiveness as my words might hurt some of them. But the pain and the burden that we Hindus in Christ carry is surely greater than yours. So for me Christianity (equivalent to what they call as ‘Christendom’ in some Western countries) is a patchwork faith, religion and civilization, which missionaries propagated in India. But faith in Christ is what we try to follow, patching it with our Hindu/Indian civilization.
10. Points of Contact
‘In no uncertain terms, He (Jesus) denied the validity of beliefs that did not come from the revealed truths of God. Beliefs and practices that do not have their origin in the revelation of God cannot be regarded as a step in the direction of God. They are not a way to experience God or serve Him. Jesus definitely did not subscribe to the view that “all roads lead to God” and therefore it was possible to accept the customs of those who did not live by the revelation of God’.-Chandy, p. 32, Sep. 2004
I am not sure if Sri Chandy, as an ex-Methodist pastor and now an independent pastor, ever had any personal experience of what is happening outside his organized church experience. I know he is a scholar and an excellent preacher, though I do not know him in person. But all that has happened in the history of missions from early times-since Paul delivered the gospel from its Jewish captivity and Luther the church from Latin captivity, clearly shows exactly what he says above. Neither I nor the Bible or any bhakta of the Lord is saying that ‘all roads lead to God’. But concepts and principles in the Bible have their own textual, theological and historical context. Well, I am neither a theologian nor a missiologist to write with any authority on these subjects. But out of my limited understanding about the Bible and some reading about church, mission, Christianity, Churchianity, etc., one should never put our God in any kind of captivity to revelation narrowly related only to the Bible. As Rev. John Stott said, God’s common grace is there for all, but His saving grace which we receive through our Lord is unique. So various customs and practices which we find in several civilizations and traditions are also a gift from God, provided they do not oppose biblical principles. Yet what is truly a biblical principle is a great question, as each one gives their own interpretation, often according to their own convenience (not necessarily based on conviction). So let no outsider decide which is acceptable for a particular group to worship and serve the Lord. Irrespective of claiming ‘one faith, one God, one Scripture’, if the church has 45,000 and more denominations, all tall claims about the correct interpretation of biblically correct forms is surely extremely dubious.
Non-Hindus always have their ready-made answer for such challenges; as that they believe in unity not in uniformity. But the world has yet to see that unity, while it is well aware of their non-uniformity. At least we Hindus believe and practice what we say: avibaktam vibakteshu = unity in diversity. As our worldview is pluralism, we respect and accept others’ views with much respect, however we may disagree with them, never abusing them. Multi-centred-pluralistic-inclusivism is our worldview. Whereas non-Hindus in theory proclaim exclusivism, but in reality live with multi-centred-pluralistic-exclusivism. As our worldview is ‘unity in diversity’ we can be excused. But insisting the theory of ‘unity not uniformity’, and claiming that they alone have God with them, the true scripture (Bible) to guide and the Holy Spirit to lead, they have no excuse on their part to explain away the lack of unity among them. It is well said that no one ever lived above his/her own creed.
Recently I saw a video of an international gathering of native Christians in which one from a tribal background very well said that ‘missionaries never brought God to us, but only the gospel’. So much that he knew from his own tribal traditions and customs was definitely also a revelation from God through which he now wants to worship God.
11. ‘What is happening is the Hinduisation of Christianity.’-Chandy, p. 33
Sri Chandy may be right about what some Christians in the name of indigenization attempt to do. But for us Hindus in Christ, what Christianity stands for and presents to the world is not the product of the Bible alone but a complex amalgam of various civilizations, of course keeping ‘Bible and Jesus,’ but often as ‘merely a point of contact’. In fact Christianity has become ‘larger than that starting point’ as an organized religion, not a faith. Well, let the non-Hindus fight and decide what it is or is not. But for us, we don’t want to Hinduise Christianity. In fact, we don’t even want to go to their organized churches and disturb them in any way. Let James live peacefully at Jerusalem; but if Judaizers come and disturb us, then like Paul we have to stand and fight for the truth and the gospel, not allowing it (and us) to be enslaved by Christianity. One non-Hindu, with real concern according to his understanding, once said to me, ‘what you people try to promote is Christo-paganism’. In response I said, ‘that is a thousand times better than the Western paganism of Christianity and Churchianity; at least our paganism is Christ centred, whereas your paganism is centred on various things, keeping Jesus and the Bible merely as starting points.’
12. Is it Western?
‘It is true that the format of Christian worship does not resemble what happens in a Hindu temple.’-Chandy, p. 33, Sep. 2004.
All that Sri Chandy and similar non-Hindus seem to know about worship in India and Hinduism is their limited observation of what happens in the temple. I am not even sure they know much about temple worship. When some say that church worship (and in all other matters) in India is Western, why does Sri Chandy immediately want to compare this with Hindu temple worship? Especially if India is not Hindu, then when someone says that church worship is not Indian this does not mean that it fails to resemble Hindu forms of worship. The fact is that while keeping so many of its Western forms, the church in India has also heavily borrowed from Hindu superstitions for their church worship and daily life. The caste problem in the church itself is enough to point out the Hinduisation of Christianity, done by non-Hindus themselves.
13. Danger or blessing?
‘As Christians we should not place stumbling blocks in the path of those who look to us for guidance in matters of faith’.-Chandy, p. 34, Sep. 2004.
The first stumbling block for the gospel and the kingdom of God in India are the non-Hindus. People like Sri Chandy surely are well aware of this. Though some new ‘converts’ look to the traditional non-Hindus for guidance in matters of faith, some at least soon realize that they are looking to the wrong people. However, there are some good people among the non-Hindus also and I also was very much benefited by them. But in the case of most of the new bhaktas of the Lord, one of the first lessons they learn is that for help in growth in the Lord, these non-Hindus are not reliable.
Related to the some of our methods, way of life, worship and seva, etc., causing a stumbling block for the weak, I say try to make them strong in the Lord. If some of our actions offend traditional non-Hindus, tell them not to associate with us and we promise not to come disturb them. And if still they insist that we are causing them to stumble, then our answer is ‘try to become strong or continue to live in your own weakness. You are not our concern and priority. As Hindu bhaktas of the Lord we want to live and grow in the Lord, first inheriting all that is good and beautiful in our culture, tradition and civilization. Then by this we want to live as a witness for the Lord in our families and communities.’ (But note that this is not any evangelical strategy on our part to win our own people by any ways and means to Christianity in the long run.)
I am in total agreement with Sri Chandy on his point that ‘Accept what you find in the marketplace and in the commonplace situations of life, but do not accept what comes from temples of idolatry’ (p. 34, Sep. 2004). But for those who have to live in their homes and families, who cannot be and need not be extracted from their situation in the name of ‘conversion’ and ‘fulltime ministry’, at times the approach must be closer to what Naaman has done than to what people like Sri Chandy recommend.
14. ‘On the other hand, the beliefs and worship rituals of Christians cannot bear any similarity to those of non-Christians. Such a difference must be expected and safeguarded.’-Chandy, p. 35, Sep. 2004
This is where Sri Chandy and I clearly differ. Sri Chandy quote from Lev. 18:3. But in the Old Testament and New Testament there are so many beliefs, worship practices and rituals which Israelites and followers of the Lord in NT times not only borrowed, but they also kept several of their own traditions and customs which are mostly pagan in nature. Even when God gave so many things for Israel after coming out of Egypt, most of the customs and instructions are also found in the pagan world and its rituals. Circumcision, making covenant and even baptism rituals did not exclusively belong to Israel. Even washing feet is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, which might have entered into the Jewish community from the pagan world. Your X-mas is an outright copy of a pagan festival. I need not mention about the origin of the Easter egg, carol music, gothic church buildings, altar, pulpit, etc.. So many things in the Christian world and even in the Old and New Testaments are copied from the pagan world.
When our Lord washed the feet of His disciples, He never questioned the origin of such a practice, but gave it a new meaning and interpretation. What was merely a ceremonial ritual in Jewish tradition, which mostly a slave would perform, now our Lord made a symbol of service and humility. There are several such things in the Bible which would mean one thing in their (pagan) origin, but with a new interpretation gained a new meaning in the Bible. Even slavery can be mentioned. Paul never encouraged his slave ‘converts’ to rebel or fight for their freedom because of their faith in the Lord. Rather, he encouraged them to serve their masters more sincerely. Now this is not ‘good news’ for a slave. But Paul was very sensitive to the social and political issues of slavery. To their shame it took more than 1500 years for the Christianity to get rid of this inhuman practice. So we too need to be sensitive to cultural and social issues on which the Bible is silent.
So let us take the example of burial. When one of my non-Hindu friends talked about ‘Christian burial’, I pointed out him that burying the dead is not merely a non-Hindu or Jewish practice. People everywhere dispose of their dead according to their convenience. At present in countries like England they have begun to cremate, since if everyone buries their dead, soon that country will become a complete graveyard. There are several Hindu communities in India who bury their dead. If still the non-Hindus insist about the so-called ‘non-Hindu’ burial and began to quote our Lord’s word, ‘let the dead bury the dead’, then they should follow the practice of the Jews, who did not bury their dead but put them in a cave. I have heard that now in the Philippines burial is such a costly matter that one can rent a chamber to keep the dead body of her/his relative for a period of time, say 10 or 20 years, and then it will cleaned to rent to some others.
The Bible is silent about birth, marriage and death rituals. Moses, who took so much pain and time to give all kinds of laws and minute details, never said anything about the rituals for marriage. When Abraham’s slave brought Rebecca for Isaac, nothing is mentioned about any marriage rituals. Thankfully, the Bible never gives any pattern for us to imitate but principles which we need to adopt according to our situation. We need not greet each other by giving a holy kiss, but we have our own way of greeting each other in India. Similarly, several rituals and customs in Indian traditions and particularly in Hindu civilization are social and cultural, yet they are given in the name of religion. But what is cultural and what is religious is not for an outsider to decide. Leave it to the new bhaktas to decide. Don’t rush to stop any of her/his customs and rituals in the name of teaching. One quick step in the wrong direction, then a lifetime must be invested in correction. Even if new bhaktas do make some mistakes, before trying to correct her/him try to understand what a particular ritual, custom, tradition and value really means to her/him. Because of your non-Hindu background, certain things look pagan and unbiblical to you. But most of the things which non-Hindus object to are coming from their prejudice and wrong understanding and misinterpretation of both the new believer’s traditions and biblical views.
There is no point of going further point by point on all these subjects. I tried to outline some of them in the book “Living Water and Indian Bowl”. The sad fact is that of three published reviews which one convert and two traditional non-Hindus wrote, none addressed the issues which I raised but each merely tried to give their own verdict. I know most of the things that I shared in that book are not acceptable to non-Hindus and that people like Sri Chandy are not going to agree with us. But my main aim is neither to please non-Hindus nor to convince outsiders, but rather to warn the so-called ‘converts’ about the dangers of aping non-Hindus in the name of following our Lord.
By saying this I or we never say to all non-Hindus that ‘we don’t need you’. We are ready to have fellowship with you, provided you are ready to accept us as we are. We don’t want you to give up your non-Hindu identity and the security that you find in your church and communities. But if you insists that we will be acceptable to you on your terms and conditions, not necessarily based on the Bible-however you claim all your interpretations are biblical-then our only possible request to you is: Leave Us Alone. We believe in the universal church as the body of the Lord, but not in any of your ecclesiastically organized and institutionally Christianized churchianity. Our Lord is enough for us. Even if I am the only person left to live as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, I am happy about it.
Sri Chandy has every right to write as he did as this is his fight among his own people. But as he also dragged me into this and gave his own interpretation about customs, rituals, views and values in our Hindu world, I have given this response. When some of my friends read my responses to such matters, they again and again say one thing to me: ‘IGNORE THEM’. However, sometimes I have to draw the sword with a few, not to defend our position but to point out their folly. As others involved in this discussion may perhaps write further, I will close here with one final comment based on my experience regarding contextualization and indigenization:
When I comprehended the gospel, I understood it as a Hindu. Even though in the early days of my faith I struggled a lot with Indian non-Hindus (and the church in a very limited way), my struggle with them really began as soon as I started to raise some questions about what they say and practices in their life. I found my answer for the struggles in life in the Lord, but to my struggles with the non-Hindus and church even He cannot give any answer. As a book worm I began to read as many books as possible on the Bible, mission, evangelism, contextualization, etc. And to my dismay I found how the Indian non-Hindus remain caught between a rock and a hard place. As they say in Hindi: dobi ka kuta na raha gharka na ghatka (very difficult to translate in English as I have not found its equivalent in English-roughly it means that they belong nowhere); they have become a peculiar people in the entire world. In other places also new believers had to struggle a lot, but what missionaries and the church have done in India seems truly unique. I may be wrong but this is what I feel: the mission and church only used the Indian non-Hindus to expand their own respective denominational kingdoms. They never taught self-respect to the Indian non-Hindus or equipped them to be a witness for the Lord. If the salt lost its essence then we can throw it out, but here in India, it sits alone unable to exercise its essence to expand the kingdom of God in India. If they wish to remain in their social and cultural isolation it is not our problem or business. But when they try to drag us to join them in the name of ‘conversion’ or commitment, body of Christ, etc. we prefer to stay on our own. When the church at Jerusalem was trapped in its own problems, forgetting its call to witness for the Lord, then God had to raise His true church outside it. The condition of the Indian church is hardly different from that of the early Jerusalem church. God knows how to redeem them, but we are not called for that purpose as we have our own God-given responsibilities to live and serve Him among our own people. And we know and trust He who called us for this purpose will enable us to carry out His work according to His will and plan.
Our fight is not with any individual like Sri Chandy, but regards basic principles. Yet I am not a fool to say that we attack only principles and not the person, because principles become abstract values without any person to implement them, and persons become mere living creatures without principles to make her/him human. Yet when, because of difference of opinion some circumstance force us to draw the sword it is not to hurt any individual but to uphold our principles, even when this may not be acceptable to others. So let us agree to disagree with much respect and dignity.
Our bhakti in the Lord is never exercised in isolation. Thankfully, He is with us along with other bhaktas of the Lord. Whether we stand or fall, He is able to keep and restore us, as we know whom we are trusting.
Kanpur, September 23 & 24, 2004 (subsequently revised).
Swamiji & Co,
Pranaam
It is a mildly interesting article but falls far short of an understanding of incarnation and contextualisation… perhaps this was my middle of the road stance in hopes of being ‘biblical’ some years ago. The great fear of incarnating within a wholistic culture rather than a gnostic one like the west that neatly seperates the so called sacred from the secular.
I think a key sentence is that this is truly the balanced “CHRISTIAN” perspective but falls again far short of a new Hindu believer in Christ and again far from a balanced Hindu Yeshubhaktas perspective. The balanced Christian will refuse to compromise to the many H formats that are being adopted by many of our brothers and sisters and preach Christ in the best form of language (written and sung) dress code, dance and food etc. The church has always been shy of the dance approach since the Indian dancer has dances rooted in H and it is almost impossible to separate the two and present a sound, pure Indian format which I am praying that god will show me one day.
shanti,
Jai
Latest message was:
What an excellent response from Swamiji. This is the same battle that went on in Jesus’ time and still rages: are we going to live by law or by the Spirit? Law says, “be conservative, do not trust anything ‘foreign’ or ‘new’; criticize every attempt at change”. The Spirit says, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”, and “to the Greek I became a Greek, and to the Jew I became a Jew. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I might save some.” Law says “we must have regulations and rituals in uniformity”, which is total hypocrisy, with so many denominations. But the Spirit says, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” We need to leave the issues of Law behind and focus on the real Issue, Jesus.
Om Kristave’ namah
Latest message was:
H. L. Richard wrote a response to one aspect of the Light of Life articles. His original response included details about Raj’s family situation; at the request of the family those details have now been removed. There is much to reflect on and learn from the life of this fellow-pilgrim. Comments and discussion on some of the points to learn will be appreciated.
Raj’s Story
by H. L. Richard
Introduction
Since I can now easily count down the days to my fiftieth birthday, it cannot be a surprise that after that span of life in a fallen world I can compile a painfully long list of events that I look back on with sadness and regret.
One of the great privileges of my life was an encounter that was also one of the most perplexing and surely among the most painful. I knew a remarkable man, a trophy of God’s grace if there ever was one, and a true modern pioneer for the gospel. Of course, he had feet of clay, and no one knew this more than he himself did.
For years I have deeply regretted that I have been unable to write a fitting tribute to my friend, who was taken into the presence of God some years ago. I first met him in 1981 when he was still rather young in Christ and I was still quite new in India; we were both idealistic dreamers, and despite a language barrier a bond grew between us. We had very little contact for quite many years, and both of us learned how little is ideal in the world, in the church, and in missions, all the while holding on to Christ and a vision of His kingdom.
We later became close friends and I had the privilege of offering spiritual and emotional support from afar for the pioneering work of this man. I gradually learned his perspective on various aspects of his life. I also walked with him through the darkest days of his life. He was a man of God who I was privileged to call a friend; he was certainly not a case study or an experiment, so I never probed deeply or recorded in writing his perspective on his life. When God took him from us at a still-young age I regretted that I had not done more to uncover all the facts of his life.
There had been a terrible misunderstanding and a very painful break with a church fellowship. I knew in general outline my friend’s perspective on this incident, but to just tell in skeleton his side of the story did not seem right. Since I was known as his friend, it was a sensitive situation for me even to probe the other side(s) of the story. I finally found a Christian leader who had been very involved and who said he also thought my friend’s story should be told. But when he finally sent me some reflections, he was clearly sliding past the painful situations which I thought needed to be uncovered. I tried my best to locate an evangelical missionary who had been in the mix of that painful situation, only to eventually learn that that man had converted to Islam. With deep regret I decided I could never uncover enough information to be able to tell with confidence the true story of my friend’s life.
Telling the story
Then in August of 2004 someone else decided to tell my friend’s story. He did not name my friend, but called him Raj. He also did not name me, but clearly I was the villain of his little anecdote which set the stage for a long discourse against contextualization of the gospel among Hindus. Here is Raj’s story from the perspective of one of the few Christian leaders that Raj would have considered a loyal friend:
Quite a few years ago, I had a friend who was converted from Hinduism and had become an ardent defender and propagator of the Christian faith among non-Christians. Raj would boldly and uncompromisingly present the Gospel.
He gave up his construction business because of the pressures of corruption in that line of work. Then for a while, he worked as a radio speaker for a Christian broadcasting ministry. However, they also required him to raise funds for the ministry, and when he proved unsuccessful, they terminated his services.
Another group then employed him as they were venturing into contextualized evangelism among Hindus. Even though the group had a fairly large number of Hindu converts with sufficient knowledge of the Bible and Christian doctrine, the theologian for this effort was an Occidental, who had no real understanding of things Indian. Theoretically, John Smith was an expert. He had read more books on Hinduism and Indian Christian Theology than most Indian Christians, including myself. He insisted that Raj should no longer attend church services so that his Christian identity would be hidden.
Raj’s wife who had followed him into the Christian faith had given up putting sindhoor (vermilion powder-the mark of the North Indian Hindu married woman) in the parting in her hair. Now Raj asked Nalini to put on sindhoor again. She refused. She said that putting it on again would be like going back on her commitment to Christ. John Smith then went to Raj’s home and said to Nalini, “Please put it on for my sake.” John Smith triumphantly told me that Nalini had done so voluntarily. I said, “Nonsense! It just shows how little you understand the Indian psyche. As a guest in her home, and a white man at that, she was simply pressurized by you.”
Later on I challenged John Smith to give back the old Raj who so uncompromisingly had stood for Christ. As time went on, Raj’s marriage was strained more and more, his home broken, and he died without any Christian fellowship. (Kuruvilla Chandy, ‘No Patchwork Faith’, Light of Life, August 2004, pp. 20-21)
This unworthy caricature of a man of God provides me a framework for telling my friend’s story as he saw it. I have already explained my regretted inability to properly write a biographical account of my friend; but I can respond to the story above with an account of Raj’s story from his own perspective as told to me. Raj would not be at all surprised that such an attack against him prompted the telling of his true story. He walked by faith, with an astonishing trust that God does no wrong and can turn for right and good what is false and evil.
I remember a time when Raj was accused by a Christian leader of being a liar. He was stunned, and deeply wounded. He knew the accusation had been made rather casually, but why should a Christian leader speak casually at all, let alone such hurtful words? Raj’s real name was that of a paragon of virtue in Hindu civilization, and he recounted to me how from childhood people said he was rightly named as he never lied. Now, in Christ, how much less could he imagine ever telling a lie; and yet he was accused of just this by a Christian leader.
This memory of Raj demands that the telling of his story adhere to the highest standard of truth. Raj was a very emotional man who lived through some incredibly painful experiences. In a few incidents that I was personally involved with I felt that Raj’s emotions had influenced his perceptions, but I never doubted that what he was telling me was a faithful account of what he perceived. This reality, along with the commitment to truth just mentioned, means that the story which follows will have many qualifications and many tentative suggestions. (A further qualification on Raj’s story as told to me is that due to my shameful language limitations Raj communicated with me in English, and he was far from fluent in that medium.)
One last caveat should be shared before starting the story. Raj’s widow still lives, as do their children. Christian leaders who interacted with him continue in their ministries. This demands that conflicts and controversies be handled with great sensitivity, and in fact some aspects of Raj’s life need to remain veiled for some more decades, perhaps never to be publicly discussed. But his story needs to be known for the vital lessons it contains. This account will be shared with all who knew him, and will be altered with yet further qualifications or with corrections and additions as other friends of Raj may point out to me inadequacies in the account that follows. With this writing of the life of my esteemed friend I get the privilege of removing at least one regret from near the top of the list of regrets in my life.
Raj turns to Christ
I only knew Raj in Christ, and can remember only one time that he spoke of his early years (the incident about lying recounted above). He was from the caste of warriors and kings, and was a fitting heir of that lineage. He worked as a building contractor and made a very good living on that line. For at least some years he was a deeply religious Hindu, and once told me of the numerous gurus he followed at times in a search for truth, and of his dismay at coming up empty the deeper he probed into the ways and teachings of some of his gurus.
Raj was married and had four children. Some years after his marriage many things were going wrong in Raj’s life. Marital discord certainly played a part. I particularly regret that I never got the details of this story clear, but somehow, I think by some mystical means, as Raj’s situation deteriorated and he became increasingly depressed he somehow in his mind latched hold of a strange phrase about ‘way, truth and life’.
Christianity
The day came in 1974 or 1975 when Raj decided to end his life. He was heading across the city to the river where he intended to drown himself, but stopped at a restaurant where for no particular reason he rather abusively insisted that a charpoi (rope cot) should be moved outside for him to sit on. As he sat there in extreme agitation, a man came along selling New Testaments, claiming the message of life was in that book. Raj flew into a rage, abusing the man for suggesting anything so ridiculous as a solution to life’s problems in a book. But the man countered back, that this book told of Jesus Christ who said ‘I am the way and the truth and the life.’
Raj was dumfounded, quite literally. All he could think to do was to take a copy of the book and find out where that man was staying. All thoughts of suicide were left behind. He later went to find that man to discuss the life-changing stirrings that he was experiencing since their ‘chance’ encounter. He found that this man was part of a group of men who were selling New Testaments in that city at that time. As he entered the room he was quite taken aback that the man he had encountered seemed to have no time for him, but called to another man to go with Raj and help him. (Raj told me he had never told this story to anyone, as he was very thankful to this group for helping him to Christ and he did not see any point in telling this rather embarrassing story.) As Raj walked away with this man, the man said ‘why would you want to join [this organization] when you already know English and have a good job?’ Raj had never even heard of the organization this man named, but Christ h!
ad taken hold of his heart in such a way that even such encounters did not cause him to stumble.
Soon Raj was introduced to a local church. He had many questions, and when the answer to one about following Jesus included baptism, he said ‘please baptize me’. This was quite a problem for that church. High caste and well employed men do not walk into churches and say ‘please baptize me’, so some other factors must be in play here. Raj indicated to me that even when he was baptized in that church there were church leaders who were convinced he was from the secret police, probing the internal affairs of their church.
Problems in the church
Raj joined this church which was very zealous for the Bible and for spirituality. Everything was viewed in a spiritual light, and that fitted Raj’s idealist perspective just fine. This was a group of followers of Jesus who at least professed to take all the teachings of Jesus seriously, and among those teachings are some radical words about money and wealth. Raj was taught, and acted on the teaching, that it is wrong to save money. He entered into some kind of spiritual partnership with a Christian man, the details of which I never probed. But in the end it failed and Raj lost a considerable sum of money. He told me this story with not the slightest trace of bitterness or even of regret. But in his last years, after his life had completely fallen apart, he told me more than once that his greatest regret in life was that he had left his job to enter full-time Christian work.
To tell Raj’s story, his account of leaving this church needs to be told. There are no doubt numerous other perspectives on this story, and I will edit other perspectives into this story if they are shared with me. But this is Raj’s account of a supremely painful episode. Mature followers of Christ will be not be surprised that this church was not quite as spiritual as it had at first seemed, but that came as quite a shock to Raj. Especially he found it hard to deal with criticism against the main leader from other younger leaders, among whom Raj himself was now numbered (he was a strikingly effective witness for Christ among Hindus; the number of people he led to Christ would not be very large, but it dwarfed what most others did). There was no public criticism of the main leader, but a kind of gossipy talk behind his back. Raj thought some of the criticisms were just, and went to the main leader to confront and resolve the issues. This was not considered appropriate behavi!
our; Raj was perceived as a trouble maker who was concocting stories; in a meeting of the leadership team Raj was challenged by the main leader about his far-fetched accusations. Raj recounted to me that in that setting he was completely unwilling to point to his co-leaders and identify who had said what against the main leader; and since all of those people sat in silence while Raj was falsely accused, he decided to quietly leave that church.
A change of focus
Raj went with his family to another church, much less suitable culturally for him and his family. He became a speaker for a radio ministry in the Urdu language. It was at this stage of Raj’s life that I started to meet him again (after having stayed in his home for a few days years previously when I was accompanying someone else). I was probing issues in contextual ministry among Hindus and wanted to understand Raj’s life and experiences, and we started a relationship that would only end with his death.
Raj loved the Bible study that was essential to his radio work. He was teaching a series of messages surveying the Bible, funded by an American group that provided the books he was to be teaching from. I questioned why he was speaking in Urdu medium, the language of north Indian Muslims, and he replied that he had grown up around that language and could speak it well and since it was so hard to find a good speaker in that medium the ministry leaders had placed him there.
I felt Raj had potential far beyond the radio ministry he was engaged in, and sought ways to free him into a ministry among his own Hindu people. The last person I wanted to mention this to was Raj himself, as I sensed from getting to know him that he would jump at an opportunity to share the way of Christ contextually among his own people. So I initiated plans with others and a programme was put in place in case a suitable person was found and finally as the last piece of the puzzle I went to Raj to see if indeed he was interested in the project.
Before I could even finish what I wanted to say, Raj was interrupting me with information that six years previously already he was telling a Christian leader whom I knew that new churches were needed where only Hindu converts would attend. There was no doubt that Raj would join whole-heartedly into the new venture; only some complicated details had to be sorted out for that to happen.
The great tragedy of the remaining years of Raj’s life relate to the breakup of his family, mentioned in the account above. Thus it is ironic indeed that the first priority in assisting Raj into his new ministry was to care for his family. It was felt that for the sake of his family there should be minimum disruption to the routines of life, so there would be no relocation. The family would stay involved with the church which they had now attended for a few years, the leaders of whom were well known to the leaders of the new organization that would be supporting Raj. Everyone was naively confident that all would be well.
Raj needed to transition out of his radio ministry, so we discussed what date to set for his resignation. He would have nothing to do with it. I was frustrated by his idealism, but the leader of this new ministry was going to be Raj and I was committed to a role of help and support rather than leadership or decision making. Raj said he was now about to enter his true life’s work, and he wanted to start on proper terms with no hard feelings. He could not go to his radio ministry leaders and tell them he was leaving as of such and such a date. It was so hard to find a good Urdu speaker, he had served happily for some years, so the only right thing for him to do was to go and inform that he was being led to a new ministry and he would begin that new ministry as soon as the radio people saw fit to release him from his present responsibilities.
As mentioned, I was frustrated with this approach. Raj hoped that he would be released when he finished his current cycle of programmes, a few months hence, but also thought that perhaps he would be kept on for another year and a half until a major unit was completed. I happened to be leaving the country for some months, and thought perhaps it was best that Raj did not start his new work until I returned. But Raj was not reading that situation properly at all; when he went to his ministry leaders with his idealistic “resignation at your convenience” speech, he was told to leave immediately if he was leaving. (Kuruvilla Chandy’s report that Raj was dismissed due to failure to raise funds was a complete surprise to me; perhaps that explains the abrupt dismissal?) So Raj started his life work from yet another shattering experience at the hands of Christian leaders.
Problems in the new work
Raj now began to speak in a new idiom; he was no longer a Christian but a Hindu follower of Christ. He was adamant that he had never renounced being Hindu, but while he had once learned to call himself a Christian also, he would now no longer accept that label but would fully affirm his Hindu identity. Raj understood that “Hindu” is a civilizational identity more than what in the West would be considered a “religious” identity, and he knew full well that Hindus consider “Christianity” as a civilizational entity as well. But this type of change, understandably, stirred suspicion and rumours within the small Christian community in his city.
Raj started to work in the city itself and soon had meetings and contacts. He was a powerful communicator with a gift for touching hearts. Within weeks of starting, however, there was a major blow-up with the church he had been attending. When word got around that he would not bring the fruits of his ministry into association with that church, he had crossed a line that could not be tolerated.
By the time I learned of and got involved with matters again, Raj’s ministry in the city that seemed to have so much potential had been shut down and he was told to work in rural areas outside the city. With that much distance from the church, things should work smoothly.
Probably related to some of these problems and controversies, the leaders of the new organization were careful on a number of occasions to insure that Raj’s wife was happy to go along with all his new developments. I remember once sitting with an Indian Christian leader of that group as he carefully weaved his way into a discussion of these issues with Raj’s wife. When she got the gist of his probing her response was brief and to the point; they had always been Hindus and should always have lived and worked in the contextual approach they had now adopted.
Raj has some co-workers with him, one of whom stayed faithfully for some years and had the highest esteem for Raj. A few others came and went, not fitting in properly but generally not causing problems either. People came to Christ in the villages, and Raj performed the water initiation service for quite a few. He was especially excited with one new follower of Christ who soon was himself actively sharing the way of Christ with others. This man’s eldest son also seemed to Raj to have great potential for kingdom service.
Crises
It does not seem wise or appropriate to go into details about the problems that developed in Raj’s family. For over a dozen years he had followed traditional Christian teaching and rejected even the most innocuous of Hindu ceremonies, and insisted on his family living in that way. Now he was wrenching his family around again. There were prophesies against him in the church with some of his family present. The turmoil took a toll on everyone.
Not unrelated to these problems, Raj developed serious physical ailments and eventually was taken for psychiatric treatment due to his inability to sleep. He spent over a year in a new city, hoping to develop again a standing in the Hindu community with a secular job. But his health and age militated against his return to the work world. Yet in that city he again led a bright young Hindu man to faith in Christ.
Finally Raj returned to his own city and took up again, so far as his health would permit, the work in the villages. But he was now a broken man, and one day quite unexpectedly he fell ill. Within 24 hours in the hospital he had died, on Feb. 16, 2000, probably of a heart attack. Raj’s Christian friends did not even learn of his death until after his Hindu friends had seen to the cremation of his body.
Conclusion
Perhaps some who read this account of Raj’s life will know little of the history of Christianity among high caste Hindus, and might think this an isolated story. But, rather, this is one of many similar stories that can be told, and some of them have been told. Raj’s tragic story is one more in an illustrious line, particularly in line with Brahmabandhab Upadhyay and Manilal Parekh, both of whom died in vastly deeper estrangement from Christianity than Raj did. Raj is a pioneer of new patterns in presenting the way of Christ to Hindus, along with Krishna Mohun Banerjea, Narayan Vaman Tilak, R. C. Das, K. Subba Rao, and many others.
The immediate cause for writing this reflection on Raj’s life is to set straight the record about an illustrious child of God who gave himself for the cause of the gospel among his own people. But it is presented with a wider hope that it will instruct and inspire many individuals, and perhaps even, by God’s grace, many generations.
I close this tribute to Raj with an anecdote from the happy days when he dreamed of the prospects of the gospel among his own people when he was freed from his radio ministry to start his new contextual ministry. I was visiting his family along with an Australian coworker, and that man asked Raj what he would do if his new ministry failed. There was a language problem, but there was also a conceptual problem as Raj did not think in such terms. But my friend persisted and finally got his strange question through to Raj, who with set countenance simply affirmed “then we will die”.
And so it proved to be. The story of Raj’s life and work is no success story in human terms. He gave his life to a great dream, and he died with that dream unfulfilled. But this is a man who had put his hand to the plow, and he never looked back. He never for a moment doubted that living as a Hindu for Christ was pleasing to Christ and was the only fruitful avenue for kingdom living. This was a man who could say with the apostle Paul, “I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race” (Rom 9:3); yea, he could say with Paul “I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me – the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24).
Raj’s race is over; without doubt he ranks with the saints of Heb. 11:35b-38, those who by this world’s standards were miserable failures, but in fact were those of whom the world was not worthy. He is now among the great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1), one of the spirits of righteous men made perfect to whom also we come (Heb. 12:22-24). He, though dead, still calls to us; still speaks of the glory and the agony of the life of faith. May we be found worthy to follow in his footsteps.
Dear Swamiji
I have looked through this but as the computer at my mom’s house here is attacked it seems by a virus, it is very slow in WORD so i cannot even scroll down the page easily. I will wait to return to sarah in toronto on monday and go through it properly. I am only worried it is too long for the magazine. They would have to publish it in two or three sections over many months and i don’t know if they are willing for that. Is there any way I can cut it to be more concise? Grammatically it is really only a few typos, very few so that is not a problem. Length is my only concern, and also i feel there is a little to much “jabbing in the non-hindus ribs”. Swamiji, really honestly is this in the spirit of Christ’s Righteous anger, and whipping in the temple? DId he really ask us to follow his example when he drove out the money changers, or was that something only he could do because he was sinless? Should’nt we rather follow his example when he said, “he who is without sin throw the first stone” IN my heart I just feel that all of us are guilty of the same things in this life, of judgementalism against others because they are different than us, of wanting to get back at others, of being fearful than another’s way will cancel our way. SO though I derive satisfaction from reading your answers to Kuru I am not at all sure that this satisfaction that I feel is a righteous God-blessed satisfaction but perhaps more likely a malicious satisfaction. I know that YOU do not feel malice in your heart, but if I do to a certain small extent by reading your answer to kuru, what will other krist bhaktas feel, and what will the non-Hindus feel when they read it? I am not afraid for me and sarah in any way in this concern. We will never bear the brunt of this because we are WHite and are protected by our race by the non-Hindus. THey will never attack us for long. But CHrist bhaktas i am concerned for and I wish that there was a way to write an answer which uses none of the same weapons that Kuru used, but rather the weapons of a gentle but strong word. I do not mean to criticize my guru here, and maybe it is my oversensitive musician personality which worries about the tone.
love
chris
Dear Shara and Chris, December 17, 2004.
Shanti!
I am praying for your music consort today. Hope God blessed your efforts for His Kingdom sake.
Regarding to your recent mail on my response to Kuru, let me take point by point:
Christ: ‘really honestly is this in the spirit of Christ’s Righteous anger, and whipping in the temple? Did he really ask us to follow his example when he drove out the money changers, or was that something only he could do because he was sinless? Should’nt we rather follow his example when he said, “he who is without sin throw the first stone” ‘….
–I agree with you that we cannot take stone to throw at others if we have the very spirit of the Lord. But I think you mix the two context which stand on different level. The context of chasing the money changers is different from the saying of ‘he who is without sin throw the first stone’. I think you know the context of chasing the money changers. First it looks very strange as Jesus disturb the very process by which the Jews from distant land can carry out their religious obligation. Because the money changers and those who sell animals for sacrifice are actually helping the people who come from long distance to buy animals (as they cannot bring their own, they sell and bring the money and buy one) for sacrifice and money changers help people to get ‘temple’ money to pay their temple tax. So it looks Jesus actually giving trouble to His own people to fulfill their religious duty. The fact is that Jesus is not against money changers or those who sell animals. But as they occupy the outer court which belongs to the gentiles, who are not allowed to enter the temple, He become upset and cleaned the temple. See the NIV Study bible notes on Jh. 2:14, p. 1597.
As you know the context of ‘stoning the stone’ I don’t want to repeat it here. Now, when it comes to give the response to people like Kuru, we have to think of not only our attitude, but also the people who are going to be affected as well as challenged. Here I feel that it is better to have the spirit of Paul in Galatian, as he has to defend the faith of the new believers. Paul’s policy was this: let James live peacefully at Jerusalem but if the Judaizers come and disturb the Galatian church, then he has to stand and fight’. The ‘sinlessness of Jesus could never be a criteria for us to follow in any area of life. If Paul and Luther followed it, then the gospel would have remained in Jewish and Latin (Rome’s) captivity.
Chris: ‘IN my heart I just feel that all of us are guilty of the same things in this life, of judgementalism against others because they are different than us, of wanting to get back at others, of being fearful than another’s way will cancel our way.’
–Excuse me! I never wrote my response with any spirit of judgementalism or fear of canceling my way to follow the Lord. It may sound arrogance, but I feel one thing strongly in my mind that I (we) don’t need the approval of any Christian group to be a Hindu and a bhaktas of our Lord. So following Paul I too with much respect to agree that others will be different from me (us). As I told in my response, ‘we are ready to accept the Christians as they are—with their church identity and cultural differences. The same way we expect them to accept us as we are’.
Chris: I know that YOU do not feel malice in your heart, but if I do to a certain small extent by reading your answer to kuru, what will other krist bhaktas feel, and what will the non-Hindus feel when they read it?
–In his article at one point kuru said that Muktanand couldn’t answer to several of his questions because ‘that swamiji has no answer’. Muktanand told me in person at Chandigarh that when he was talking with Joe (of Luknow) he told to Muktanand that some one should give strong response to Kuru. Otherwise he will think that no one has any response to his challenges. What other’s feel in not the main question, but what kuru thinks is the main issue. The krist bhaktas are not much worried about either kuru’s writing (as Chakaravarthy of Bangalore said, ‘Chandys of the world’) and also to my response (he also rebuked me that I am wasting my time by giving such long response to kuru). My concern is not much what the non-Hindus think about my response. However I feel that if you do not want to send my response as it is, I have no problem. I leave it to you to decide what you want to do with my response regarding sending to Light of Life.
Chris: ‘We will never bear the brunt of this because we are White and are protected by our race by the non-Hindus. They will never attack us for long. But Christ bhaktas i am concerned for…’
–I think the time has gone for the white people to feel that the non-Hindus will protect them anymore. Rick told me in person that he had tough time with Kuru. Even in his article, I feel that Kuru attacks both you and Rick than any of us. People like Kuru knows that none of their writings or views are going to change the views of Christ bhaktas. I think he is more concerned about those people, particularly the non-Indians for their support and promotion of the so called contextualization and Indegenization of the gospel and the church.
Well Chris I gave this response to you not to convince or to force you to send it to Light of Life. Once I wrote my response, I feel my duty is over. I have several such writings, articles, book reviews and dialogues, all buried in my files (now in Computer and CDs). I don’t expect all should read them. I write several things either to answer several questions and challenges or to my own need. So feel free what you want to do with my response. God bless you.
Do you think that you can post your mail to me and my response to Rethink Forum site? I want to share your views with other Christ bhaktas in our e-bhakta’s group discussion. But I need your permission to do. Thanks. However I am sending a copy of this to Rick.
Dayannad
The following is the response that posted to Rethinking site:
Latest message was:
What an excellent response from Swamiji. This is the same battle that went on in Jesus’ time and still rages: are we going to live by law or by the Spirit? Law says, “be conservative, do not trust anything ‘foreign’ or ‘new’; criticize every attempt at change”. The Spirit says, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”, and “to the Greek I became a Greek, and to the Jew I became a Jew. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I might save some.” Law says “we must have regulations and rituals in uniformity”, which is total hypocrisy, with so many denominations. But the Spirit says, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” We need to leave the issues of Law behind and focus on the real Issue, Jesus.
Om Kristave’ namah
Dear Dayanand
Sarah and I greet you dear brother!
We finally decided after long deliberation, frustration, some anger, and prayer, to drop the whole Light of life thing and not send anything to them as response, Thank you for your long response which encouraged us personally a lot.
The reasons were mainly that since a wedding is a private thing between husband and wife, relatives and friends, it would be wrong to further publicize what was already publized without our blessing,
My mother and father and none of her family even know till date that such an article was published., i would like to keep it like that, so that they can continue to have peace. Especially my parents had specifically requested that our wedding not be publicize for the sake of their Nepali converts who would clearly not understand why we got married in this way.
We have learned a lot from it all, most of all, WE LOVE TO SHOW THE PHOTOS, to our friends and especially to Hindu friends who come to our house for dinner,. All these articles have not spoiled our joy in our wedding one bit, Thank you again for all you did to make it such a joyful and memorable occasion, By now you must have seen the photos that i sent to your mother’s address?
much love
Chris and sarah
@@@
Carik: Many Indians are becoming western and therefore nothing wrong in presenting the gospel in the way they can accept in a western form. There is no point in insisting to preserve their own original cultural, which they do not want to follow any more.
Dayanand: Though superficially there is some change in Indian culture and society accepting western form, yet certain core values are not yet completely changed or given up by those westernized Indians also. Above all the point here is not about the single individual or family, which wants to become western so that we need not insist in Indianization. But our concern is about their family members and relative who cannot be reached out by such western form of Christianity.
Carik: I do agree on that and there, following Pauline principle, we should encourage that individual Christian to contextualise the gospel so that he can ‘WIN’ others for Christ.
DB: This is what I disagree with. A westernized Indian convert or Christian should not be encouraged to contextualize the gospel just only a means to an end, viz., just to win some of his own people to the Lord. But we should remind him that it is his birth right to be an Indian and not for the sake of his own people and the gospel but as God has allowed him to born in such a situation, we should teach him that to preserve his cultural and traditional values which are not opposed to God and the gospel are his birth right and duty. As no culture or tradition is better than the others, however one prefers other culture, we should tell them that all the culture and tradition has their own inherent strength and weakness and one need not give up his culture and tradition to follow the Lord. If a secular man, for his convenience or personal desire wants to change his culture or value, that is a different issue. But my main concern is that contextualization should never be treated as a means to the end. That can be done by an outsider to effectively present the gospel in a cross culture, but the natives should preserve their culture and tradition as a birth right and not as a means to the end.
Ranikhet, September 25, 2000.
Leave a Reply