Edited by Chatgpt
Rev. John Stott is one of my favorite Muktivedic scholars. He refused to join the army during the Second World War as his conscience and call to serve the Lord didn’t allow it. His estranged father, who was serving in the army as a doctor along with his mother and two sisters (who also were serving in the army), tried to persuade Stott to reconsider his decision by pointing out his obligation towards his country in such an emergency. But till the end, Stott didn’t budge and stuck to his conviction. His father even threatened to stop his financial support to continue his studies at Cambridge. However, Stott managed to persuade his father by presenting his position clearly. In the end, his father continued his support but with much pain. Though they managed to reconcile, the estrangement permanently left its strain on their relationship. Later, Stott’s attitude towards war changed.
When I was reading this in the biography about Stott, it reminded me of a similar story in the life of Madhusudan Dutt and his relationship with his father. When he became a Christian convert, his relationship with his father also became strained, but his father continued to support his education with the hope that one day he might return. However, he later stopped the support as he didn’t see any hope for it. Though Madhu reconciled with his father because of his mother’s tears, the pain he caused his parents remained forever. In this context, it is worth reading what the author of Madhu’s biography says:
“How did Madhu’s parents react when they failed to stop his conversion? The first thoughts that went through Rajnarayan’s mind must have been: ‘Who is now going to inherit my property? How will I stay in touch with my son? Will I not be socially ostracized?’ But, most importantly, he must have wondered, ‘If I don’t have a son, who will perform the last rites when I die?’ Both parents were heartbroken at the thought of losing their son. Yes, he was alive; but, given the circumstances, he might as well be dead. Madhu’s earlier biographers have not dwelt upon his parents’ anguish, possibly out of sympathy for Madhu. What must be remembered here is that, though he was hurt, Rajnarayan Dutt took steps without delay to ensure his son’s welfare. In due course, he spent a lot of money (certainly by the standards of those days) so that Madhu could complete his education. It could not have been easy to maintain contact with a son who was a Christian, as traditional Hindus no doubt frowned heavily on him. Being a lawyer, Rajnarayan was particularly vulnerable, as his success in procuring work depended on the goodwill of his fellow men.” (p.52)
The enormous complexities that arose between Madhu and his parents after his conversion settled down in a few weeks. Gradually, their relationship became better defined. In mid-April 1843, Madhu wrote a letter to Gour {Gourdas Basak}, saying, ‘I am not about to come and live with or rather near to my father.’ In another letter, he mentioned receiving a lot of financial help from home. But his dearest wish of going to England soon was not fulfilled. — Ghulam Murshid, translated from Bengali by Gopa Majumdar, *Lured by Hope: A Biography of Michael Madhusudan Dutt*, New Delhi, Oxford, 2003. pp. 52-53
The following is from Timothy Dudley-Smith, John Stott: The Making of a Leader, England, IVP, (1999) 2002. In order to relate the whole story, I have to quote at length from this book. See Part Two for this lengthy quote from Dudley. https://dayanandbharati.in/the-tale-of-two-converts-part-two/
When I was reading Rev. John Stott’s story about his conscience not allowing him to do his part in national service, even if it did not involve actual fighting but indirectly as “the government has many other plans and very few young fit men are going to get exemption” (p.163), there is one thing I cannot understand. He expected his father to continue to support his education from the salary which he derived from army service. Above all, as his mother rightly pointed out: “…everyone should give prior claim to service to the country to which after all you owe so many benefits and which is worth defending—to say nothing about the truly devilish things we are trying to put down…” (p.164).
In the case of Madhu, please read my review on the book Lured by Hope on my blog. All that Madhu’s father expected his son to do was to perform the prayashchitta (penance) so that he could return home to live with them. This even compelled his father to marry two more women after his mother’s death. But Madhu refused to do so. However, because of his mother’s tears, he reconciled with his father. After his parents’ deaths, he also inherited their property, which actually saved him from some financial crises.
In both cases, the parents had to suffer a lot and pay the cost for the convictions of their sons. What I cannot understand is that they wanted their support and even inheritance (in the case of Madhu) but did not want to fulfill their social obligations as children in the name of their conscience and call. In most cases, either the converts or their Christian mentors always parade some story of persecution because of conversion and all the suffering that any convert undergoes. But they all easily forget the cost that the parents and other family members have to pay for that conversion. Of course, there are several genuine persecutions, and I am not denying it. But if we conduct a proper study and research, we can note that in most cases, particularly in India, the parents and relatives suffer more than the converts because of their conversion. I have witnessed several such parents whom I met in person who poured their hearts out to me. In general, in most cases, the parents do not even expect their converted child or children to give up their faith in the Lord, but to fulfill their social obligations, which wouldn’t force those converts to compromise their faith in the Lord. All the talk about compromise and syncretism is a misunderstanding of Muktivedic principles about our bhakti (devotion) in the Lord and our social obligations towards our parents, family, and nation. Here, the Christian mentors often fail to learn properly from Muktiveda about it and also fail to teach and guide their converts. One can write a separate book on this subject by analyzing several case studies.
Don’t make others suffer and pay a cost for your conviction in the Lord because of a poor understanding of Muktivedic principles on the subject of social obligation. Every family is a gift from God, and everyone has both a moral and social obligation towards their family and country when the time comes to do that. In one place, when a Hindu convert challenged my approach before others, I told him: “You want your family name, fame, property, and other things. But when it comes to your social obligation, you want to run away in the name of your faith. Then give up everything. Are you ready for it?” For this, he had no answer.
Refusing to participate in family functions, not obliging the parents’ expectations—if not in the choice of life partner, at least conducting the marriage according to family tradition, refusing to perform the final rites for the parents, not serving the nation in emergencies, etc. [there is no end to this list] are some areas where wrong teaching is given to the converts. They simply use two words ‘compromise’ and ‘syncretism’ without even understanding what these two words actually mean. Of all the religions in the world, Christianity is the most syncretistic religion, and we conveniently forget all the compromises that we make in so many areas in our personal life when it comes to our commitment to the Lord. But we want to parade about our faith/bhakti while others pay the cost for it.
25-7-2019
Rev. John Stott is one of my favorite Muktivedic scholars. He refused to join the army during the Second World War as his conscience and call to serve the Lord didn’t allow it. His estranged father, who was serving in the army as a doctor along with his mother and two sisters (who also were serving in the army), tried to persuade Stott to reconsider his decision by pointing out his obligation towards his country in such an emergency. But till the end, Stott didn’t budge and stuck to his conviction. His father even threatened to stop his financial support to continue his studies at Cambridge. However, Stott managed to persuade his father by presenting his position clearly. In the end, his father continued his support but with much pain. Though they managed to reconcile, the estrangement permanently left its strain on their relationship. Later, Stott’s attitude towards war changed.
When I was reading this in the biography about Stott, it reminded me of a similar story in the life of Madhusudan Dutt and his relationship with his father. When he became a Christian convert, his relationship with his father also became strained, but his father continued to support his education with the hope that one day he might return. However, he later stopped the support as he didn’t see any hope for it. Though Madhu reconciled with his father because of his mother’s tears, the pain he caused his parents remained forever. In this context, it is worth reading what the author of Madhu’s biography says:
“How did Madhu’s parents react when they failed to stop his conversion? The first thoughts that went through Rajnarayan’s mind must have been: ‘Who is now going to inherit my property? How will I stay in touch with my son? Will I not be socially ostracized?’ But, most importantly, he must have wondered, ‘If I don’t have a son, who will perform the last rites when I die?’ Both parents were heartbroken at the thought of losing their son. Yes, he was alive; but, given the circumstances, he might as well be dead. Madhu’s earlier biographers have not dwelt upon his parents’ anguish, possibly out of sympathy for Madhu. What must be remembered here is that, though he was hurt, Rajnarayan Dutt took steps without delay to ensure his son’s welfare. In due course, he spent a lot of money (certainly by the standards of those days) so that Madhu could complete his education. It could not have been easy to maintain contact with a son who was a Christian, as traditional Hindus no doubt frowned heavily on him. Being a lawyer, Rajnarayan was particularly vulnerable, as his success in procuring work depended on the goodwill of his fellow men.” (p.52)
The enormous complexities that arose between Madhu and his parents after his conversion settled down in a few weeks. Gradually, their relationship became better defined. In mid-April 1843, Madhu wrote a letter to Gour {Gourdas Basak}, saying, ‘I am not about to come and live with or rather near to my father.’ In another letter, he mentioned receiving a lot of financial help from home. But his dearest wish of going to England soon was not fulfilled. — Ghulam Murshid, translated from Bengali by Gopa Majumdar, *Lured by Hope: A Biography of Michael Madhusudan Dutt*, New Delhi, Oxford, 2003. pp. 52-53
The following is from Timothy Dudley-Smith, John Stott: The Making of a Leader, England, IVP, (1999) 2002. In order to relate the whole story, I have to quote at length from this book. See Part Two for this lengthy quote from Dudley. https://dayanandbharati.in/the-tale-of-two-converts-part-two/
When I was reading Rev. John Stott’s story about his conscience not allowing him to do his part in national service, even if it did not involve actual fighting but indirectly as “the government has many other plans and very few young fit men are going to get exemption” (p.163), there is one thing I cannot understand. He expected his father to continue to support his education from the salary which he derived from army service. Above all, as his mother rightly pointed out: “…everyone should give prior claim to service to the country to which after all you owe so many benefits and which is worth defending—to say nothing about the truly devilish things we are trying to put down…” (p.164).
In the case of Madhu, please read my review on the book Lured by Hope on my blog. All that Madhu’s father expected his son to do was to perform the prayashchitta (penance) so that he could return home to live with them. This even compelled his father to marry two more women after his mother’s death. But Madhu refused to do so. However, because of his mother’s tears, he reconciled with his father. After his parents’ deaths, he also inherited their property, which actually saved him from some financial crises.
In both cases, the parents had to suffer a lot and pay the cost for the convictions of their sons. What I cannot understand is that they wanted their support and even inheritance (in the case of Madhu) but did not want to fulfill their social obligations as children in the name of their conscience and call. In most cases, either the converts or their Christian mentors always parade some story of persecution because of conversion and all the suffering that any convert undergoes. But they all easily forget the cost that the parents and other family members have to pay for that conversion. Of course, there are several genuine persecutions, and I am not denying it. But if we conduct a proper study and research, we can note that in most cases, particularly in India, the parents and relatives suffer more than the converts because of their conversion. I have witnessed several such parents whom I met in person who poured their hearts out to me. In general, in most cases, the parents do not even expect their converted child or children to give up their faith in the Lord, but to fulfill their social obligations, which wouldn’t force those converts to compromise their faith in the Lord. All the talk about compromise and syncretism is a misunderstanding of Muktivedic principles about our bhakti (devotion) in the Lord and our social obligations towards our parents, family, and nation. Here, the Christian mentors often fail to learn properly from Muktiveda about it and also fail to teach and guide their converts. One can write a separate book on this subject by analyzing several case studies.
Don’t make others suffer and pay a cost for your conviction in the Lord because of a poor understanding of Muktivedic principles on the subject of social obligation. Every family is a gift from God, and everyone has both a moral and social obligation towards their family and country when the time comes to do that. In one place, when a Hindu convert challenged my approach before others, I told him: “You want your family name, fame, property, and other things. But when it comes to your social obligation, you want to run away in the name of your faith. Then give up everything. Are you ready for it?” For this, he had no answer.
Refusing to participate in family functions, not obliging the parents’ expectations—if not in the choice of life partner, at least conducting the marriage according to family tradition, refusing to perform the final rites for the parents, not serving the nation in emergencies, etc. [there is no end to this list] are some areas where wrong teaching is given to the converts. They simply use two words ‘compromise’ and ‘syncretism’ without even understanding what these two words actually mean. Of all the religions in the world, Christianity is the most syncretistic religion, and we conveniently forget all the compromises that we make in so many areas in our personal life when it comes to our commitment to the Lord. But we want to parade about our faith/bhakti while others pay the cost for it.
25-7-2019
Leave a Reply