Truth about Religious conversion: Book Review

Truth about Religious conversion: Book Review

Yet to be edited

The author begins defending ‘conversion’ in general and in Christianity in particular finally ends up with ‘Nicianity’.  Defending conversion from so called spiritual, social, religious, political and even economic reasons, the author finally gives a call for a peaceful co-existence of all Indians to become the ‘world guru’ as per the call given by Modi who never made any ‘communal’ statement.  This is another Christian apologetic work.  But the most important point to note is that he never substantiates his entire claim by quoting from Muktiveda.  Though he has wide knowledge about various Hindu scriptures, I am not sure how far he actually done any proper study on ‘missiology’ particularly related with ‘mass movements’.  Finally he also gives an open challenge for a debate before media for ‘any improper reason for religious conversion and defend one’s violence act for that’. (धर्म के नाम पर बवाल करने वालों के लिए मेरी खुली चुनौती है कि वे मीडिया के सामने आकार मुझेसे बात करें और “धर्मातरण” को अनुचित तथा उस पर अपनी हिंसक प्रतिक्रियाओं को उचित ठकराएं) He wants conveniently forgot that the same Christianity alone used violence like that of Islam ‘for conversion’ not only in India but many parts of the world.  As it is known to everyone I need not substantiate that point by giving various case studies.  Though I am not promoting violence of any kind against anyone, still the violence perpetrated by those against religious conversion are doing the same what the Christians done in the past in the name of religious conversion.  In fact they even defend their violence by saying that as Christians never understand their point of view when they present in a non-violence way, they have to resort to violence as that is the only language, according to them any religious fundamentalists understand.

 According to the author him:

What is told in the Veda as Prajapati, Brahm or Word, that Surdas says as Krishna who is everywhere?  Tulsidas who said that Rama who is everywhere, who is   without attribute, creator of everything and preserver and protector.   The same is told by the Saivites about Siva.  What the Muslims say as ‘Allahu-Akbar’ and ‘Layilahi illaala’ through Islam, is told in Hebrew and Greek as ‘Logos’ and ‘Nivos’.  The same is the Yahweh of the Bible, who is eternal, without attribute, without form, imperishable, all powerful, knows about all, merciful ‘Ishwar’. (p.38, a rough translation by me)@

If he claims that The Yahweh of Bible is the same as Krishna, Rama, Siva, Allah and Ishwar, then my question is why the Christians gives a call for the worshipers of other deities in various religion to give up their faith in their God and worship only Jesus who represents Yahweh?

According to my understanding of conversion, when the Christians share the gospel what they convey is that the god(s) who people of other faith worship is not actually god(s) or their understanding about god is wrong.  And to show them the real and true god and the true way of worship him they give the call for others to become Christians.  Here begins the so called spiritual dimension of conversion.  Of course among various sampradayas the similar attitude about one’s god and other’s deities is there.  But in general, they recognize the reality of other deities, but claim the supreme position to one’s own deity. 

As a Christian or ‘convert’ to Christianity, before he defend religious conversion, it would be better for him to explain what Muktiveda talks about ‘conversion’ and how it is wrongly understood and interpreted by quoting the verses out of context to claim such conversion where ‘religious, social, political or economic one’.  Of course Muktiveda claims about the exclusive nature of accepting the authority of the Lord in following him.  But this exclusivism stretched beyond its spiritual and textual context to justify any other kind of conversion as defended by the author is questionable which won’t with stand the scrutiny based on all the claims by the author. 

The dogmatic fact about the gospel is that its exclusivism cannot be watered down by any kind of argument to make it to create a niceianity.  One has to accept or reject the authority and the Lordship of the Lord.  But how to present that uniqueness is the art of communication.  But nowhere Muktiveda talks about the kind of conversion which the author tries to defend.    I cannot understand what he says at the back side of the cover in Hindi: लालच देकर धर्म बदलवाने की साजिश का पर्दाफाश =which means ‘the mask of those who do religious conversion by lure is exposed.  Whereas by writing this kind of book, the author alone exposes the religious conversion in Christianity.

It is worth closing this review with what Wright says:

…We don’t need…Christians who project their own insecurities out on to the word and call it preaching the gospel. We need – and it’s a scary thought – Christians who will do for the world what Jesus was doing.— N T Wright, Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. (England, SPCK, 1994) New Delhi, ISPCK, Indian edition 2015, The Servant King: Mark, p. 41

Dayanand Bharati

7-03-2019

वेदों ने जिसे “प्रजापति”, “ब्रह्मा” या “शब्द” कहा, उसे ही सूरदास ने “कण कण मे कृष्ण “, तुलसीदास ने “घट-घट व्यापे राम” कहा, निर्गुण राम, जो सकाल सृष्टि का कर्त्ता, धर्ता और भर्ता है| वही परिकल्पना “शैव” मतवादियों ने शिव के बारे मे की है| “अल्लाहु-अकबर” और “लाइलाह इलाल्लाह” के द्वारा “इस्लाम’ जो वताना चाहता है, वही मतलब यूनानी और ग्रीक मे “लोगोस” और ‘निओस” का है|  बाइबिल का “यहोवा” भी वही है, अविनाशी, अनन्त का परमेश्वर, निर्गुण, निराकार, अविनाशी सर्वसामार्थी, सर्वज्न, दयालू आधी इत्यादी| “ईश्वर”.—प। 38