Edited by Chatgpt
During my talk with a Hindu convert to Christianity, he lamented the lack of understanding in contextualization and the needs of converts by Christians. He thought I would agree with him and support his view. But my support for the Christians surprised him. I said:
Why should the church and Christians adjust and accommodate the needs of the converts? They have every right to maintain their traditions in which they feel comfort and conviction in their church orthodoxy. If a Hindu wants to become a Christian, then she should adopt and adapt to church life and the Christian community’s demands, rather than expecting the church and Christians to make concessions out of sympathy.
For me, Hinduism gives immense freedom to worship the Lord while remaining a Hindu. There is strong support for this in Muktiveda and Hindu tradition. If any Hindu wants to give up this freedom and chooses to become a Christian for whatever reason, then she should not expect the church and Christians to change to accommodate her. (Though I never shared this illustration, it will help emphasize my point.) If an Indian wants to become an American citizen (here I am not talking about those who stay temporarily), then she must accept the laws of that country. She cannot expect the American government to give her concessions in civil and criminal laws because of her Indian origin. She has to officially give up her Indian citizenship and become an American. Of course, in India, she might have the status of an NRI, yet in America, at least legally, she must become an American, no matter how much she struggles to integrate with their life and values. Likewise, a Hindu can remain a Hindu and become a bhakta of the Lord or become a convert to Christianity. Of course, she will have the new tag of a Hindu convert (which they take as a credit) or First Generation Christian. And imitating other caste groups among Christians like Nadar Christian, Dalit Christian, these converts could have their own caste identity as Brahmin Christian, Mudaliyar Christian, Reddy Christian, etc. But she cannot expect some kind of NRI status back in her family and community. Of course, some converts manage to handle both groups by remaining Hindu at home and Christian in their church, thereby enjoying the best of both worlds but not identifying with the struggle of either. Maybe they are the ones who strictly follow Sevanand’s (Paul’s) principle of becoming all things to all men.
I also said that from the beginning, I understood the gospel as a Hindu. So there is no need for me to contextualize the gospel. Once I allowed the gospel to incarnate within my Hindu worldview, my understanding of bhakti in the Lord became natural and spontaneous. Of course, I struggled to articulate it openly, though I had some understanding from the early times. That is why, even from 1982, I began to record my thoughts in my diary under the heading: Where We Failed; Why We Failed; and How We Failed in Communicating the Gospel. But I never shared these thoughts with anyone for fear of being misunderstood. Though I began writing Tamil Bhajans in 1980, I never used or shared even one of them with any Christians, except with a few individuals (like Kannan, Sudharsan, etc.). Later, Rajesh encouraged me to share my writing with others (only after 1992), which resulted, with his help, in publishing a few articles and two books.
After he left, I further reflected on these points, which is the title of this article. A Hindu has two choices: either remain a Hindu and worship/follow the Lord, or become a Christian. She cannot run away from all kinds of struggles in either step. But a hostile home is better than a suspicious but friendly neighbor. Church and Christian communities are that suspicious friendly neighbor. Irrespective of all hostility and struggle in her home situation, keeping her Hindu identity is her God-given birthright.
But every Hindu bhakta of the Lord will be branded as syncretistic by the church and Christians. And any Hindu convert who fights to contextualize her bhakti in the Lord within the church tradition and orthodoxy will be branded as a heretic. Those who want to avoid these two labels should give up their birthright and settle as compromisers within the church. Many converts do this for their own reasons. Others—both Hindu bhaktas of the Lord and contextualizing converts—will be branded by these names.
Regarding the danger of contextualization within the framework of a church (by any Hindu convert), I would like to give one illustration—but not with any intention to hurt anyone, particularly Seventh Day Adventists.
Contextualizing the Name “Seventh-Day Adventist” in Tamil
The task of contextualizing the name “Seventh-Day Adventist” (SA) in Tamil for a new convert is challenging, especially considering the cultural and religious connotations associated with certain days in Hinduism. The direct translation, “Yezhaam Naal Varuhai Kararhal” or “Seventh-Day Adventists,” does not convey much meaning to those outside Christianity. Here are some points to consider for contextualization:
1. Cultural Sensitivity: In Hinduism, days of the week have specific religious significance, like Tuesday and Friday being important for visiting temples and performing puja. This needs to be considered when contextualizing the name for a denomination that emphasizes Saturday worship.
2. Literal Translation Issues: Translating “Seventh-Day Adventist” literally might not resonate with the local culture. The phrase “Yezhaam Naal Varuhai Kararhal” (ஏழாம் நாள் வருகை காத்திருப்போர்) in Tamil could be too abstract or technical for the general population.
3. Negative Connotations: Using “Sani” (சனி) in Tamil for Saturday carries the risk of being associated with the planet Saturn, which is often considered inauspicious. A term like “Sani Sabai” (சனி சபை) could be misinterpreted as “Satan Church,” which is undesirable.
Given these challenges, the SA convert might need to choose a name that avoids negative connotations while still conveying the essence of their faith. Here are some suggestions:
1. **Yezhaam Naal Sabai (ஏழாம் நாள் சபை)**: This means “Seventh-Day Church” and avoids the problematic word “Sani.” It is straightforward and retains the significance of the seventh day.
2. **Sabbath Sabai (சப்தாஅபத் சபை)**: Using “Sabbath” directly might also be an option. It is a term with biblical roots that might be more neutral and easier to explain. But other than Christians no one will understand the word ‘Sabbath”.
3. **Varuhai Sabai (வருகை சபை)**: “Coming Church” could emphasize the Adventist belief in the second coming of Christ, though it might require additional explanation to convey the full meaning.
Contextualization as a Hindu Bhakta
As a Hindu bhakta, you don’t feel compelled to contextualize the gospel or your bhakti because you perceive the gospel through your Hindu worldview. You can use Hindu terms and symbols without feeling they distort the gospel, even if this approach is not widely accepted by other Hindu converts to Christianity or mainstream Christians.
Your stance is that it is preferable to be labeled a “syncretist” by Christians than to give up your cultural identity and face the struggles of contextualizing your faith within the church. This approach allows you to maintain your Hindu identity while following the teachings of Christ, even if it leads to criticism from others.
Conclusion
Contextualizing religious terms and names is a delicate process that requires balancing respect for cultural identities with the clear communication of religious beliefs. For Seventh-Day Adventists, finding a culturally appropriate name in Tamil that avoids negative connotations is crucial. Meanwhile, as a Hindu bhakta, you have found a way to integrate your faith naturally within your cultural context, even if it means facing criticism from different quarters.
The following point will highlight my point further:
…We are conditioned by a particular time and place, by our family and group and society, by “culture” in fact. In Christ God accepts us together with our group relations; with that cultural conditioning that makes us feel at home in one part of human society and less at home in another…
The impossibility of separating an individual from his social relationships and thus from his society, leads to one unvarying feature in Christian history…. (p.7)
The fact, then, that “if any man is in Christ he is a new creation” does not mean that he starts or continues his life in a vacuum, or that his mind is a blank table. It has been formed by his own culture and history, and since God has accepted him as he is, his Christian mind will continue to be influenced by what was in it before. And this is as true for groups as for persons. All churches are culture churches—including our own.
….Along with the indigenizing principle which makes his faith a place to feel at home, the Christian inherits the pilgrim principle, which whispers to him that he has no abiding city and warns him that to be faithful to Christ will put him out of step with his society; for that society never existed, in East or West, ancient time or modern, which could absorb the word of Christ painlessly into its system. Jesus within Jewish culture, Paul within Hellenistic culture, take it for granted that there will be rubs and frictions—not from the adoption of a new culture, but from the transformation of the mind towards that of Christ. (p.8)—Andrew f. Wall, The Missionar Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], Tenth Printing 2002, pp. 7-8
Of course I need to ‘contextualize’ even what Walls try to share. But I find no need for it here.
Db.
Gurukulam.
November 5, 2012
The following two points will help us to understand the word Syncretism. First from Nicholson:
1.. …Although “syncretism” in modern English usage refers to the merging of religions or philosophies that are properly separate, the original Greek term synkretismos used by Plutarch meant something different. It referred to a custom of people on the isle of Crete to overcome local feuds and to form a sacred alliance in order to withstand foreign aggression {Jan Assmann, “Translating Gods.” In The Translatability of Cultures, edited by Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser, 25-36. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 1996. 34}….— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 190
The next one by N. T. Wright will help us to understand from the seva of Sevanand:
…in 2 Corinthians 10:5, that of ‘taking every thought captive to obey Christ’. This line of thought has been explored often enough in terms of Paul picking up his opponents’ slogans in order to do something new with them. What is not so often noted is precisely what it is that he does with them. He seems to have believed what he (or someone else) wrote in Colossians 1:17—all things were created through Christ and for Christ. He need not be afraid, then, in taking over, and using, key concepts from opposing systems of thought.
This does not lessen his opposition to the system in question. It does not mean that he has compromised, that he has taken a step down the slippery slope towards syncretism…. whatever faults Paul may have had, syncretism was not one of them. But Paul’s theology of creation was sufficiently robust for this not to be a problem. He took the high ground: all truth was, for him, God’s truth, and when he took on an idea from pagan culture he made sure it was well and truly baptized before it could join the family. He claimed the high ground of the creational monotheist, not the split-level world of the worried dualist. Confrontation does not simply mean head-to-head total disagreement.— N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997, p.81
Edited by Chatgpt
During my talk with a Hindu convert to Christianity, he lamented the lack of understanding in contextualization and the needs of converts by Christians. He thought I would agree with him and support his view. But my support for the Christians surprised him. I said:
Why should the church and Christians adjust and accommodate the needs of the converts? They have every right to maintain their traditions in which they feel comfort and conviction in their church orthodoxy. If a Hindu wants to become a Christian, then she should adopt and adapt to church life and the Christian community’s demands, rather than expecting the church and Christians to make concessions out of sympathy.
For me, Hinduism gives immense freedom to worship the Lord while remaining a Hindu. There is strong support for this in Muktiveda and Hindu tradition. If any Hindu wants to give up this freedom and chooses to become a Christian for whatever reason, then she should not expect the church and Christians to change to accommodate her. (Though I never shared this illustration, it will help emphasize my point.) If an Indian wants to become an American citizen (here I am not talking about those who stay temporarily), then she must accept the laws of that country. She cannot expect the American government to give her concessions in civil and criminal laws because of her Indian origin. She has to officially give up her Indian citizenship and become an American. Of course, in India, she might have the status of an NRI, yet in America, at least legally, she must become an American, no matter how much she struggles to integrate with their life and values. Likewise, a Hindu can remain a Hindu and become a bhakta of the Lord or become a convert to Christianity. Of course, she will have the new tag of a Hindu convert (which they take as a credit) or First Generation Christian. And imitating other caste groups among Christians like Nadar Christian, Dalit Christian, these converts could have their own caste identity as Brahmin Christian, Mudaliyar Christian, Reddy Christian, etc. But she cannot expect some kind of NRI status back in her family and community. Of course, some converts manage to handle both groups by remaining Hindu at home and Christian in their church, thereby enjoying the best of both worlds but not identifying with the struggle of either. Maybe they are the ones who strictly follow Sevanand’s (Paul’s) principle of becoming all things to all men.
I also said that from the beginning, I understood the gospel as a Hindu. So there is no need for me to contextualize the gospel. Once I allowed the gospel to incarnate within my Hindu worldview, my understanding of bhakti in the Lord became natural and spontaneous. Of course, I struggled to articulate it openly, though I had some understanding from the early times. That is why, even from 1982, I began to record my thoughts in my diary under the heading: Where We Failed; Why We Failed; and How We Failed in Communicating the Gospel. But I never shared these thoughts with anyone for fear of being misunderstood. Though I began writing Tamil Bhajans in 1980, I never used or shared even one of them with any Christians, except with a few individuals (like Kannan, Sudharsan, etc.). Later, Rajesh encouraged me to share my writing with others (only after 1992), which resulted, with his help, in publishing a few articles and two books.
After he left, I further reflected on these points, which is the title of this article. A Hindu has two choices: either remain a Hindu and worship/follow the Lord, or become a Christian. She cannot run away from all kinds of struggles in either step. But a hostile home is better than a suspicious but friendly neighbor. Church and Christian communities are that suspicious friendly neighbor. Irrespective of all hostility and struggle in her home situation, keeping her Hindu identity is her God-given birthright.
But every Hindu bhakta of the Lord will be branded as syncretistic by the church and Christians. And any Hindu convert who fights to contextualize her bhakti in the Lord within the church tradition and orthodoxy will be branded as a heretic. Those who want to avoid these two labels should give up their birthright and settle as compromisers within the church. Many converts do this for their own reasons. Others—both Hindu bhaktas of the Lord and contextualizing converts—will be branded by these names.
Regarding the danger of contextualization within the framework of a church (by any Hindu convert), I would like to give one illustration—but not with any intention to hurt anyone, particularly Seventh Day Adventists.
Contextualizing the Name “Seventh-Day Adventist” in Tamil
The task of contextualizing the name “Seventh-Day Adventist” (SA) in Tamil for a new convert is challenging, especially considering the cultural and religious connotations associated with certain days in Hinduism. The direct translation, “Yezhaam Naal Varuhai Kararhal” or “Seventh-Day Adventists,” does not convey much meaning to those outside Christianity. Here are some points to consider for contextualization:
1. Cultural Sensitivity: In Hinduism, days of the week have specific religious significance, like Tuesday and Friday being important for visiting temples and performing puja. This needs to be considered when contextualizing the name for a denomination that emphasizes Saturday worship.
2. Literal Translation Issues: Translating “Seventh-Day Adventist” literally might not resonate with the local culture. The phrase “Yezhaam Naal Varuhai Kararhal” (ஏழாம் நாள் வருகை காத்திருப்போர்) in Tamil could be too abstract or technical for the general population.
3. Negative Connotations: Using “Sani” (சனி) in Tamil for Saturday carries the risk of being associated with the planet Saturn, which is often considered inauspicious. A term like “Sani Sabai” (சனி சபை) could be misinterpreted as “Satan Church,” which is undesirable.
Given these challenges, the SA convert might need to choose a name that avoids negative connotations while still conveying the essence of their faith. Here are some suggestions:
1. **Yezhaam Naal Sabai (ஏழாம் நாள் சபை)**: This means “Seventh-Day Church” and avoids the problematic word “Sani.” It is straightforward and retains the significance of the seventh day.
2. **Sabbath Sabai (சப்தாஅபத் சபை)**: Using “Sabbath” directly might also be an option. It is a term with biblical roots that might be more neutral and easier to explain. But other than Christians no one will understand the word ‘Sabbath”.
3. **Varuhai Sabai (வருகை சபை)**: “Coming Church” could emphasize the Adventist belief in the second coming of Christ, though it might require additional explanation to convey the full meaning.
Contextualization as a Hindu Bhakta
As a Hindu bhakta, you don’t feel compelled to contextualize the gospel or your bhakti because you perceive the gospel through your Hindu worldview. You can use Hindu terms and symbols without feeling they distort the gospel, even if this approach is not widely accepted by other Hindu converts to Christianity or mainstream Christians.
Your stance is that it is preferable to be labeled a “syncretist” by Christians than to give up your cultural identity and face the struggles of contextualizing your faith within the church. This approach allows you to maintain your Hindu identity while following the teachings of Christ, even if it leads to criticism from others.
Conclusion
Contextualizing religious terms and names is a delicate process that requires balancing respect for cultural identities with the clear communication of religious beliefs. For Seventh-Day Adventists, finding a culturally appropriate name in Tamil that avoids negative connotations is crucial. Meanwhile, as a Hindu bhakta, you have found a way to integrate your faith naturally within your cultural context, even if it means facing criticism from different quarters.
The following point will highlight my point further:
…We are conditioned by a particular time and place, by our family and group and society, by “culture” in fact. In Christ God accepts us together with our group relations; with that cultural conditioning that makes us feel at home in one part of human society and less at home in another…
The impossibility of separating an individual from his social relationships and thus from his society, leads to one unvarying feature in Christian history…. (p.7)
The fact, then, that “if any man is in Christ he is a new creation” does not mean that he starts or continues his life in a vacuum, or that his mind is a blank table. It has been formed by his own culture and history, and since God has accepted him as he is, his Christian mind will continue to be influenced by what was in it before. And this is as true for groups as for persons. All churches are culture churches—including our own.
….Along with the indigenizing principle which makes his faith a place to feel at home, the Christian inherits the pilgrim principle, which whispers to him that he has no abiding city and warns him that to be faithful to Christ will put him out of step with his society; for that society never existed, in East or West, ancient time or modern, which could absorb the word of Christ painlessly into its system. Jesus within Jewish culture, Paul within Hellenistic culture, take it for granted that there will be rubs and frictions—not from the adoption of a new culture, but from the transformation of the mind towards that of Christ. (p.8)—Andrew f. Wall, The Missionar Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, New York, Orbis Books, [1996], Tenth Printing 2002, pp. 7-8
Of course I need to ‘contextualize’ even what Walls try to share. But I find no need for it here.
Db.
Gurukulam.
November 5, 2012
The following two points will help us to understand the word Syncretism. First from Nicholson:
1.. …Although “syncretism” in modern English usage refers to the merging of religions or philosophies that are properly separate, the original Greek term synkretismos used by Plutarch meant something different. It referred to a custom of people on the isle of Crete to overcome local feuds and to form a sacred alliance in order to withstand foreign aggression {Jan Assmann, “Translating Gods.” In The Translatability of Cultures, edited by Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser, 25-36. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. 1996. 34}….— Andrew J. Nicholson. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Ranikhet, Permanent Black, (2010), 2011. p. 190
The next one by N. T. Wright will help us to understand from the seva of Sevanand:
…in 2 Corinthians 10:5, that of ‘taking every thought captive to obey Christ’. This line of thought has been explored often enough in terms of Paul picking up his opponents’ slogans in order to do something new with them. What is not so often noted is precisely what it is that he does with them. He seems to have believed what he (or someone else) wrote in Colossians 1:17—all things were created through Christ and for Christ. He need not be afraid, then, in taking over, and using, key concepts from opposing systems of thought.
This does not lessen his opposition to the system in question. It does not mean that he has compromised, that he has taken a step down the slippery slope towards syncretism…. whatever faults Paul may have had, syncretism was not one of them. But Paul’s theology of creation was sufficiently robust for this not to be a problem. He took the high ground: all truth was, for him, God’s truth, and when he took on an idea from pagan culture he made sure it was well and truly baptized before it could join the family. He claimed the high ground of the creational monotheist, not the split-level world of the worried dualist. Confrontation does not simply mean head-to-head total disagreement.— N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity, Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997, p.81
Leave a Reply