Culture and Faith Book Review
Yet to be revised and edited properly
Culture and Faith
Ebe Sunder Raj (and a team of 25 scholars), OM Publications.
3 A Definition of Culture:
The following are some quotes:
…If a distinction is to be made between the two words, one may say that the word `culture’, being neutral in meaning, is the better one to use than the word `civilization’. The latter word is often employed for an advanced stage of social development and is contrasted with the stage of primitive or barbarian societies. People often speak of primitive culture but rarely, if at all, of primitive civilization.– P.V.Kane. History of Dharmasastra, vol.V, part.II, Ch.XXXVI. p.1616
A culture cannot be consciously created. It is an available source of ideas that are imbedded in a complete and homogeneous society…Allen Tate, New England Culture and Emily Dickinson, in The Recognition of Emily Dickinson, Selected Criticism Since 1890, Ann Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press 1964, By Blake, Caesar Robert, Ed. Wells Carlton, p. 163
Culture not only filters human experience- but organizes behaviour.
Culture is a generalized image of behaviour from which in fact it is inferred i.e. … it is not a mathematical construction or a free invention but a real type.
The culture of any country will be the sum total of the thought patterns of its people.–Harry Rimmer. The Miracle Book-`Power’.
Collectivism doesn’t create culture, but only the conditions for culture…The greatest achievement of civilization is culture, which, in its turn, is the fruit of the individual personality.–D.R.Davies, 30 Minutes To Raise The Dead, pp.105-06
The cultural impoverishment is the symptom of a profound moral and spiritual perversion and disintegration.–ibid. p.117
…Most of us Christian people have a set of cherished beliefs and practices, probably inherited from our parents or learned in childhood from the church. Too many of us have accepted them uncritically enbloc. And evangelical believers are by no means free of this tendency. For example, our “touch not; taste not; handle not” (Col.2:21) has often been “smoke not, drink not, dance not.” I am not expressing an opinion on whether we should or should not engage in these habits. What I am saying is that Scripture contains no explicit pronouncement about them. These prohibitions belong therefore to “to traditions of the evangelical elders.” They are not part of the Word of God. No Christian can escape the responsibility of trying to think biblically and to decide conscientiously about such ethical questions as these. He then has liberty to refrain or to practise at his discretion. But he has no liberty either to impose his traditions on others or to stand in judgement on others if they disagree with him. We need to say to ourselves again and again, as Christ taught the Pharisees, that “Scripture is obligatory, but tradition optional.”–John Stott; Christ the Controversialist; p.86
WHO ARE THEY?
‘This small new group has the task of explaining its identity. How will it do it? List all the possible descriptions of this new disciples group (a) By itself, (b) By its society, (c) By the missionaries. See the wide differences in the three perceptions and identify sources of conflicts. How will you resolve these conflicts? (p.7)
My comments:
Limiting to the Indian context, where society is strongly organized and not RELIGION, first this small new group should not feel that they should ‘have’ a ‘new’ or a ‘different’ identity apart from its society. Gospel introduces new values-which only Transforms both an individual and a society from within and Regenerates him/her/it and never tries to Reform. So the new group should not be pressurized by the Missionaries to have a separate identity.
Of course this Regenerated and (generally) transformed group will challenge certain unbiblical values in its community/society-not necessarily with any open confrontation. At the same time it will preserve all the other basic values of its community/society, which are part of its worldview. Then here alone the given community and society will try to give a separate identity (as we find in Acts 3:26 by calling the bhaktas of Christ as ‘Christians’ by OTHERS, that too in a mocking way!)1 Then the new group should try to explain that they do not need a separate identity within the community/society. But their life should prove the ‘NEW’ identity with Jesus as transformed persons.
If I were the missionary, I will explain this clearly to the new group. Even the New group, due to any other reasons insists to have a separate identity, then I will explain to them that such a desire is unbiblical, motivated by carnal desires and above all against their call to be a witness to their own people. As Gospel is at stake, they themselves should not become a separate group outside their community, which will create an ‘otherness’ in the minds of their own people and even may close the door for the gospel further to penetrate their society.
By itself this New Group should call themselves as bhaktas or follower or anuyayi, disciples etc. of Jesus. What their community/society will call them depends upon the initial steps or mistakes committed by the New Group and the Missionaries.
Based on this argument, it is obvious that Missionaries should not attempt to give any separate identity to the New believers and the New group itself should not have a separate identity, however its own members will brand them initially.
CULTURE Vs FAITH:
f. Morally and scripturally traits:
…modest dress for women– what about men?
LESSON 1: …. ‘who were influenced more by the Christian faith for about 1000 years.’ (p.9)
–If there exists no ‘Christian Culture’, then there exists no ‘Christian Faith’! This very term become a problem in India. So ‘when more people in a culture become disciples of Christ more its core values (called “worldviews”) will become biblical. At least in Indian minds there exist no different from Christian values and Western values. The word ‘Christian’ should die in India for Christ Jesus to live among Indians. (see the first line in page 25)
LESSON 2: …. ‘the pastor or evangelist must make a serious study of the culture and draw his own demarcation lines for a particular culture,…’ (p.9)
–here alone the problems begins. However an evangelist or pastor may study another culture as he can never be a part of the other community, he cannot and should not ‘draw his own demarcation’ in the name of guiding the new group. If the evangelist or pastor is from the New group, before he is thoroughly ‘brainwashed’ by the Missionary, he should be encouraged to study afresh his own culture first and then allowed to form his own demarcations. He may go wrong initially as he attempts to study his own culture (world views) ‘OBJECTIVELY’. But let him do mistakes which can be corrected gently rather than doing permanent damage for the furtherance of the gospel. The best example we find in Bruce Olson, Bruchko, England, New Wine Press, 1973. Here I would like to recommend one more book which all the evangelicals should read: Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, WS Publishers, 1997. (I have prepared a synopsis cum review of this book, which I am happy to share with others).
A word about making a ‘serious study” about cultures. As ‘action in accordance with culture is generally at the subconscious level’ (p. 4) every study about the culture either by an outsider or by the native becomes ‘OBJECTIVE’, only. And most of the written materials available for such an ‘objective’ studies are done by outsiders. Though such ‘objective’ materials may give technical terms, precise scientific (anthropological) definition about a culture, which are very helpful to comprehend the subject under study, however, should not become one’s guiding principles, particularly in making ‘demarcations.’ So an outsider, after having some subjective involvement in the cultural aspects of a particular community/society alone can do any serious study about a culture. Regarding the native, his new faith in Christ or the prejudice of the missionaries towards his world views should not hinder his objective study about his own culture. He must be given freedom to draw his own conclusions about his culture from his ‘objective’ studies. When he sought help, the outside missionary can only help to that extent as Bruce Olson has done when Bobby sought his advice regarding fighting against the encroachers of their land.
9 MEMBERSHIP VS DISCIPLESHIP.
4. … ‘This is however, not true with the lower classes and castes of India to whom the church is a source to meet most of the above social needs as well’. (p.16)
–is it true? In most cases, the local churches among the lower classes or Tribes itself is from its own community. Except the urban churches, most of the social needs of the lower classes or tribes are also met by its own community churches. Ex. Marriage. So this claim that the ‘church’ meet most of the social needs of the lower classes in India is doubtful. One good example is education, where the local church run schools to provide education for high caste people, whereas most of the lower class people are deprived such good education (this fact is acknowledge by the Bishop in their conference to which they have invited Arun Shourie to share). Thank God that the Church/Christianity as an organized religion never substituted the function of the organized societies in India. Only in those churches which have mono-ethnocultural group, the church may play an important role in providing the social needs of her members. There too if the pastor is from a different community, then he will dominate all the administration and there will be some tension between the congregation (at least with the committee) and the pastor. So, in meeting the social needs, the church could serve successfully only among the same ethnocultural group to some extent successfully. Ex. Widows feeding in Acts chapter six.
One more question? What is precisely the social need? Money, education, birth, marriage and death rites? At present both birth and death are not serious issues. Even in a multi ethnic church, all the caste people are buried in the same graveyard of the church (including the low caste). Only in the matter of marriage alone most of the time the social needs come very strongly. Here too, even in a multi ethnic Urban church ‘birds of the same feather flock together’. Even in a CSI church in Chennai, except rare exception, only a Nadar boy marries a Nadar girl. So even among the Christians in India, most of the time the social needs of the people are met by the respective community not by the Church.
‘A devotee of shivites temple these days, though the two were poles apart a century ago’. (p. 16)
–A devotee of Shiva, except some extreme sects like Veera Saivam and Kabalikas, always can visit any temple. But this is not acceptable in principle and in practice by a Vaishnavite, even today. There may be a few exceptions. Even a liberal Vaishnavite, mostly will only worship non-vaishna deities that have in some ways been Vaishnavized. Ex. Thumbikai Alvar, the name given to Pilliar in Srirangam temple.2
‘…If any one and every one can give baptism then anyone and every one can be baptised and the church will soon become an undefined crowd with hardly any spiritual, religious or ethical identity or accountability and will loose its witness.’ (p.17)
–In a Hindu community ‘any one and every one’ cannot give deeksha. When a guru is satisfied with the spiritual (or ritual in case of Tantrics) progress of his seeker, then alone he will give deeksha and will make that seeker as the follower of his sect. This concept is very much lacking in the church. In the name of ‘win the winnable while they are winnable’, in several cases baptism is given to a seeker without any understanding on his part about salvation. (I have this experience in Malto Tribe where we arranged to give baptism only for seven but ended in giving for more than 200 people). Of course discipleship is a life long process. And it is difficult for any one to fix some criteria to give baptism. But in the name of ‘church growth/planting’ what is being done at present is neither biblical nor acceptable to those who oppose such conversion.
‘…but the screening of the new believers (candidates) must be done by a pastor/ priest / elder / evangelist of say 10 years pastoral experience.’ (p.18)
–this also cannot be universalized. This means a sincere seeker first should become a member or at least should be well known to a ‘pastor/priest/elder/evangelist’ etc. of a church to be scrutinized by him to receive baptism. There are few cases where some individuals are led to the Lord by lay people of the congregation, who alone can understand the seeker. In those cases, just for the sake of keeping the same tradition of certain position (pastor etc.) should be attached for one to give baptism, is not acceptable. If ‘in the New Testament church and early centuries, all disciples gave baptism to the new disciples,’ (p.17) why now we need any ‘pastor/priest/elder/evangelist’ to screen and give baptism now? In a Hindu community a guru need not be a Sannyasi to give deeksha. Even in several samprdayas (and sects) family people become guru to make followers for their sects. Ex. Kabir pantis. These family people are lay people according to the Christian point of view.
11 UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST- THE GREAT OFFENCE.
…’The old testament writers and prophets used the primitive language and thought patterns and communicative tools of their times and cultures to stress the uniqueness of their God by contrasting Him with the vile ‘gods’ or ‘non gods’ of their neighbours.’ (p.23)
–There too the prophets addressed to the chosen people when they forsaking their god , went after other gods, which was strictly forbidden. (See p. 30 3rd paragraph).
‘heathen’-have we to use the very word?
…’What we Christians call personal faith (as apart from our inherited faith) is the re-affirmation of our inherited parental faith at adolescence or early adulthood by what is called ‘confirmation’ in liturgical churches and ‘personal salvation’ in non liturgical churches.’ The equivalent is Upanayana’ (p.23) 3
–Upanayana gives social status to perform rituals as the initiated boy becomes an official, accepted member of that community. No faith is transmitted at upanayana-though Gayatri mantra is whispered to the boy, yet it is not transmitting some kind of faith. In that case what about girls and Shudras who were prohibited (see notes 3 for the reference about girls receiving Upanayana) to receive Upanayana. Though Kane equates Upanayana with baptism (see notes no. 3), yet his understanding of ‘born again’ is not biblical, as no one can attain personal salvation through some ritual. ‘Confirmation’ can come closer to Upanayana. But if ‘confirmation in liturgical churches equal to “personal salvation”‘ (which is doubtful), then that option is also left out to equate with Upanayana. Faith is practised and taught by elders and children learn it by observation, where as Social status/identity based one caste is inherited in Hindu communities.
Shuddi (p.27)
–In a Hindu mind Shuddi is some kind of prayaschitta performed by an excommunicated person or person for violating his/their social norms. (Brahmabandhab Upadhyay performed this only on this understanding. 4) Shuddi, with its present meaning of conversion was introduced by the followers of Swami Dayanand Saraswati of Aryasamaji. 5 Now that word means re-converting Christians and Muslims to Hindu fold. So better avoid this word.
13 ROLE OF CLERGY IN CONVERSION:
‘non-Christian’- (p.28)Again a wrong word to identify a Hindu or Muslim etc. Even such a small word must be removed from the heart and minds of the Christians.
16 TILAK:
‘However, some take it from their pooja (worship room). However, all Hindu women, when at the temple, take the powder from the pooja priest. Thus there is a wide variation in the association of the tilak as a religious rite.’ (p.33)
–In the temple too a widow cannot take and apply the red power (Kukumam) on her head.
Now when a Hindu woman (especially in an orthodox family) becomes a disciple of Christ she faces the most difficult choice regarding tilak. If her orthodox husband insists that she must wear the tilak as a mark of their wedded status, she has very little choice nor logic to refuse…..As days go by the husband may not insist on the tilak, but this is for the husband and wife to decide not the pastor.’-(p.33)
–Why? What is there even to decide. Even any such a decision is nothing but brain washing or putting indirect pressure on the woman by the congregation. Any small tragedy or problems comes in the life of such new believer, then it will be put on her for not obeying God by removing tilak. Whereas when some tragedy or problems come in their life, even after removing pottu, some other explanation will be given by them. Poor new believer, taking their words as final authority in her spiritual life, she will even go against her husband/family decision and create unnecessary problem for herself. (See Living Water and Indian Bowl for further points. 6)
‘When slowly a Christian community grows in the context the tilak can wade off as the people see and accept an alternate cultural style (for married women).’.-(p.34)
–This is again dangerous. If there exists no Christian culture (see p. 9, Lesson 1), why a New alternate cultural style in the name of ‘Christian Community’ should raise? Even if such a Christian Community raises in one locality and wade off certain cultural practices (like tilak) of Hindus, how their relatives living in another area are going respond to such changes? A Hindu society is not only restricted to local communities alone, but have close contact with extended families living in different places. So such unnecessary, unbiblical changes just to please or accommodate the feelings of the fifth generation Christians will only hinder the furtherance of the gospel. So for the sake of the gospel, and to become ‘all things to all men’, even the fifth generation Christian wives too should wear the tilak. (see page 35: ‘…the cultural identity must continue; the content is not a matter of contention as long as the woman maintains the form.’) In North Indian I have seen several Muslim women even keeping both sindhur and tilak. If an alternate cultural style just for the sake of fashion raises, it is a different issue. But in the name of gospel and Christ, what they call as alternate culture is nothing but imposing their own (Western) World views on the new converts. It is always a tragedy in the(Indian) Christianity that all the time only the new believers are expected to adjust themselves according to the whim and conveniences of the traditional Christians, even at the cost of losing their social identity and security, just to survive among them. Whereas following the biblical pattern of ‘becoming all things to all men’, the church is not ready to crucify its carnal worldviews for the sake of Christ and His Gospel.
‘Some have used a small red cross on the forehead as a functional substitute. There are other innovative substitutes that Christian women may use. However, all functional substitutes should move over a time frame closer to the Biblical values. If a cultural value sustains or enhances a biblical value it should be retained permanently. The above time frame must be decided by mature Christian leaders of over 20 years field experience not by over zealous novices.’ (p. 34)
–there exists no functional substitutes for any cultural identity/values, which can be replaced by biblical values. Even after several generations, still (Tamil) Christian women are keeping their wedding chain (tali) with a cross substituting Hindu tali, which has more religious significance than pottu (see Living Water for this point7) which has only cultural value. Whether it is a red cross or round pottu, cultural symbols can have different form but cannot substitute one with another , which finally should or could wade. If the Christian tali with a cross or a Hindu tali with their respective sect’s symbol, has not yet waded even after two hundreds of Christianity, even as a functional religious substitute. Then why a cultural value should be waded just to accommodate the sentiments and feelings of some traditional Christians, who are not ready to have the same respect for others sentiment and cultural values? Above all the new converts should carry on to keep their cultural identities, not just to win some of their relatives or for the sake of ‘contextualisation’, as it is their birth right.
Even a Christian leader after having 20 years of field experience, if he is an outsider, has no right to decide on cultural values, unless he has been subjectively involved with those cultural values. Remember that even after 200 years, they could not simply make the Christian tali to wade.
31 COVERING OF HEAD:
‘Ethical purity in family life we see emerging in the Judo-Christian-Islamic (revealed) religions first. It then had its ethical impact on almost all cultures and religions around the globe.’-(p.59)
–this mean that all the ethical purity in family, community and society among the Hindus (Aryans) from vedic time to Puranas are derived from Judo-Christian-Islamic religions first? For example Taittira upanisad says [I.11, satyam vadah dharmam cara] ‘speak the truth, practise [your own] dharma etc.’ Similarly Bhagavadgita gives a long list of ethical values. If we are going to agree with Dr. Alexander & Co that these Sanskrit literatures derived all their teachings from the New Testament as Sanskrit is a language which came in to practice after New Testament period (therefore all the ethical teachings in all Sanskrit literatures, including Gita should have New Testament as their source), then only a Christian genius alone can create such a discovery. Leave Sanskrit literatures, what about the Buddhist, Jains ethical claims, and what are their sources? Are they going to say that the Ariyans learnt all these things from Hebrews? What about the Dravidian ethical teachings which predate first century BC? Even some primitive tribes like Jarawas (though they live nakedly) , yet have their own ethical values. Ethical teachings are given in the conscience of men by God, however they may be relative from society to society. From where they have learnt them? Hindu fundamentalists will see this as Christian arrogancy and others will laugh at such claims for not being ready to recognize the good values in other cultures, religions.
‘In our own mother land, most of our great grand mothers were hardly allowed to cover upper parts of their body. It was religious interdiction. It was the Jewish, Islamic and later Christian impact (like the historic Thole Cheelai Kalagam, ‘Upper cloth agitation; of Travancore of 1888) that brought dignity to our mothers. The same Judo-Islamic-Christian impact resulted in Indian Hindu women covering their heads, while they are outside their houses.
Gradually head covering assumed a status, symbol of good and noble character. Soon the royalty and the noble women started covering their heads most of the time except in the privacy of their homes. Most other women also covered their heads in public to varying degree of duration. Surprising the Aryan women who adopted this up from the revelationary religious (viz. Judo-Christian-Islamic) have so well internalised this into their cultures in the last 2000 years that today they (along with the Muslim and Sikh women) have made this as their own cultural trait.’—p. 59
–why not in South India? In South India, particularly in Tamilnadu, covering the head of a woman is an inauspicious sign. Only a widow can cover her head. So is it necessary to compel a new believer to cover her head while she is inside the church or in personal prayer? Further why ‘surprisingly the Aryan women who adopted this up from the revelationary religious (viz. Judo-Christian-Islamic) have so well internalised this into their cultures in the last 2000 years that today they (along with the Muslim and Sikh women) have made this as their own cultural trait’, failed to penetrate the Dravidian culture in the South, where it is always claimed that Christianity came first? Above all the Sikh women were once Hindus, so there is no point of making them an added category along with Muslim women for covering the head. Next is that according to the story behind Hindu women covering their head, particularly in North is that in order to protect their women from the invading Muslims, the Hindus adopted the same practice from the Muslim women. As Rev. (Late) Christdass (of Bethel Bible Institute, where he taught Church history in 1981, when I was a student there), the Muslim young men were trained as soldiers to invade India with a promise to provide as much women as they want once they conquer the land. That is why this pardha system of covering the head of the women was started in North much.
The reason why it was not adopted as a mark of dignity in South is that the South Indian Societies were not that much (initially) affected by the Muslim Invasion. Though politically and sometimes economically the South Indians were affected (when the Mugals invaded and looted initially the temples etc.), they could not much influence South Indian culture. This we can see also from the fact that the Rakshabandhan (tying thread by the Sisters to the brothers) was originally started in North, that too particularly by the Rajputs to seek protection by the Hindu Queens from other Hindu Kings against the invasion by the Mugals. Latter it was absorbed as a Social ritual that too mostly by the North Indians. So it is too much to say that the ‘Aryan women adopted this cultural trait of covering the head that too as a mark of dignity from the revelationary religions.’
The main cultural trait (whatever may be its origin) behind this covering the head by the women is to differentiate between the daughter and daughter-in-law. Women born in a village even after their marriage need not cover their heads when they visit their parents; but only women who come to the village from outside as the wives of the menfolk of that village have to cover their heads. This is to recognise who are the daughters of the village and who are daughters-in-law and such a practice is not present in south India. Even till this day in several parts of North India (Ex. Rewa in MP and Jhat areas in Haryana) outsiders cannot see the face of any married women whereas even the married women, while staying in their parents house needed not cover their head even before an outsider, except when some elders from their husband’s house visit her parents’ house. Similarly, generally most of the North Indian (married) women, whenever worship their gods, have to cover their head. They won’t even offer water from their lota (vessel) without covering their head. But this is not in practice in South India. Then why the revelationary religions, particularly Christianity, which claim to have came to South India first, could not make any influence for this noble and dignified cultural trait on them?
Interestingly in a few parts of North India (Rewa in MP and Jhat areas in Haryana), I have seen that married women even could not speak with the elderly male members of her husband’s family. Even when serving food they cannot even ask about any need, but only the father-in-law can gave instruction. In Rewa I have seen that a women cannot even wash the plate of her husband’s elder brother. Likewise in high caste houses (at least in the villages) a man cannot carry his own child in front of his father. But such practices are unimaginable for South Indians, even for the members of revelationary religions belonging to South India. So who influenced who? Cultural traits in India are mostly relative and though certain aspects of them were due to the influence of Islam, it is not necessarily because of some positive values learnt from the revelationary religions. Now in some places, even this status sign is considered as a mark of slavery and I myself have personally witnessed as a schoolgoing boy, the way a Muslim lady teacher took all the bundle her pardha and threw it in the face of her husband in front of my house, when she removed it to board the bus to go to her school. (We lived very near to the bus stand and her husband was my teacher. He would always turn to my mother and say, ‘see amma, what can I do?’)
35 MARRIAGE OFNEW DISCIPLES:
‘The command in Timothy “no to be yoked…. Or culture.’-(p.67)
–here too the context is not about marriage. 8
36 POLYGAMY AND NEW DISCIPLE:
‘The Holy Scriptures prohibit polygamous living only for church leaders and pastors. The story is told in Africa that a polygamous husband went and killed all his wives except one to qualify to become a member of the church. (I hope this is only a story).’-(p.69)
Here is a true story from Roland Allen (op. cit)
…Take, for instance, the case of Big Hunter. Big Hunter was a chief among the Sioux who fled from the States into Canada and put themselves under the protection of the Canadian government. Presbyterian missionaries visited them and taught them, and many of them embraced the Christian teaching, and amongst these Big Hunter. He wished to become a Christian, and was told that he must put away all his wives except one. After a long struggle he at last determined to obey, but not knowing how to obey because he did not know to arrange for his wives, he hanged them. Then he came to the missionaries and told them that he had done what they demanded. Thereupon they drove him away as a murderer, and in despair the man abandoned all hope of ever becoming a Christian, returned to his heathen gods, married two new brides, and lived as a heathen till the day of his death, in spite of the fact that his children became Christians…-pp. 65-66
Notes
1. “One important result of all this activity was that for the first time the disciples became known as ‘Christians’ (W. Grundmann, TDNT, IX, pp. 536). Luke specially mentions this because ‘Christian’ had become a familiar term in certain areas at the time when he wrote. Early in the second century the name is attested for Rome, Asia Minor and Antioch, and nothing prevents the view that it first came into use at Antioch. The ending of the word (Christians) indicates that it is a Latin word, like ‘Herodian’ and that it refers to the followers of Christ. ‘Christ’ will then be understood as a proper name, although its original use was as a title, ‘the Messiah’, for Jesus. The verb, ‘were called’, implies in all probability that ‘Christians’ was a nickname given by the populace of Antioch, and thus ‘Christ’ could well have been understood as a proper name by them, even if at this stage the Christians themselves still used it as a title; it was not long, however, before the title became increasingly more like a name for Jesus. It is likely that the name contained an element of ridicule (cf. Acts 26:28(I); I Pet. 4:16(I), its only other New Testament uses). The Christians preferred to use other names for themselves, such as ‘disciples’, ‘saints’ and ‘brothers’.6 (emphasis added.)– Marshall, I. HowardV, The Acts of the Apostles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, IVP, London, 1983, p. 203.
“lit. ‘they did business (Gk, chrematizo) under the name of Christian’, i.e. became commonly known by this name. Only from Gentiles could they have received this name (meaning ‘Christ’s people’) for ‘Christ’ was a mere personal name in Gentile ears, whereas to Jews it meant ‘Messiah’s people””– Bruce, F. F. (I), in Guthrie, D. and Motyer, J. A. (eds), New Bible Commentary, Inter-Varsity Press, third edition, Leicester, 1978, p. 987.
2. Only Smarta Brahmins and other Shivites worship all other deities as Sri Adi Sankaracarya established ‘pancayatanapuja’ for this purpose. But a strict vaishnavite will never worship shivite deities. Even to day they are poles apart theologically.
‘Among the gods popularly worshipped the principal ones are Visnu under various names and in various avataras. Siva in his various forms, Durga, Ganesa and the Sun. The [p.716] worship of these deities (called pancayatanapuja) is said to have been popularised by the great Samkaracarya…’-History of Dharmasastras, P.V.Kane. Vol. II. Part.II. Ch.XIX. Devapuja. pp.714-17.
3. “…Aap.Dh.S. says [I.1.1.16-18] ‘the teacher causes him [the boy who is initiated into Vedic study] to be born from vidyaa [i.e. by imparting Vedic knowledge], that birth is superior, the parents produce only the body. Upanayana is like Baptism and St. John [3.3] also says ‘except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.’ Manu II. 147-48 [=Visnu Dh.s. 30.45-46] convey the same idea…Atri [141-42] says ‘a person is known as a braahmana by birth, he is said to be a dvija [twice-born] on account of samskaaras, he reaches the position of a vipra by learning [study of the Veda]; he is called srotriya on account of all these three’…-P.V. Kane. History of Dharmasaastra. Vol.II. Part. I. Ch.VI. Samskaaras. p.189.”-Though Kane equate Upanayana with Baptism, yet his understanding of ‘born again’ in John 3:3 is not biblical. See the following points to know that how Upanayana is more a social than a spiritual samskaara.
The word samskaara hardly ever occurs in the ancient Vedic literature, but the root ‘kr’ with ‘sam’ and the past passive participle ‘samskrta’ occur often enough…. In Jaimini VI.1.35 the word samskaara stands for upanayana. Sabara explains samskaara as that which being effected makes a certain thing or person fit for a certain purpose and the Tantravartika says that samskaaras are those actions and rites that impart fitness…[p.191] the word samskaara does not occur in most of the grhyasuutras [it occurs in Vaik.], but it occurs in the dharmasuutras [vide Gaut. VIII.8, Aap.Dh.I.1.1.9, Vas.IV.1]–ibid.Vol.II. Part.I. Ch.VI. Samskaaras. p.191.
… If we look at the list of samskaaras we shall find that the purposes [p.192] of samskaaras were manifold. Some like Upanayana served spiritual and cultural purposes, they brought the unredeemed person into the company of the elect, they opened the door to Vedic study and thus conferred special privileges and exacted duties. They have also psychological values impressing on the mind of the person that he has assumed a new role and must strive to observe its rules…. -ibid. Vol.II. Part.I. Ch.VI. Samskaaras. 192-93.
…The word ‘upanayana’ can be derived and explained in two ways: [1] taking [the boy] near the aacaarya, [2] that rite by which the boy is taken to the aacaarya. The first sense appears to have been the original one and when an extensive ritual came to be associated with upanayana the second came to be the sense of the word…–ibid. Vol.II. Part.I. Ch.VII. Upanayana. p.269.
…In the Gobhila gr. II.1.19 it is said “leading forward towards the sacred fire [from the house] the bride who is wrapped in a robe and wears the sacred thread [slung from her left shoulder, in the yajnopaviita mode] he [the husband] should murmur the verse ‘Soma gave her to Gandharva’ [Rg.X.85.41]”. It is clear that the girl, according to Gobhila, wore the yajnopaviita as a symbol of the rite of upanayana…[p.294] Yama says ‘in former ages, tying of the girdle of munja [i.e. upanayana] was desired in the case of maidens, they were taught the vedas and made to recite the Saavitrii [the sacred Gaayatrii verse] either their father, uncle or brother taught them and not a stranger and begging was prescribed for a maiden in the house itself and she was not to wear deer-skin or bark garment and was not to have matted hair’..[p.295].-ibid. Vol.II. Part.I. Ch. VII. Yajnopaviita. pp.294-95.
The SAMSKAARAS, USUALLY described as the sacraments of Hinduism, are rites by means of which a Hindu becomes a full member of the socio-religious community…–Klaus K. Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 1990, p.175
Rites of passage mould and help construct social identities. Indeed, the Sanskrit term for such rites is samskaara, `constructed’ or `put together’, implying the putting together of a person as a social actor and even, to some extent, defining ontological status…- Gavin Flood, An introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.201
…The samskaaras are rites of passage which serve to legitimize social order and to uphold social institutions. They are important not only for who they include, but also, Pierre Bourdieu has pointed out, for who they exclude and for the ordering of social groups;…-ibid. p.201
4 {In Upadhyay’s words}’By social expiation is not meant internal purification but the performance of a humiliating act prescribed by the injured society as a public confession of sorrow for the guilty attempt of breaking social integrity’. — Julius J. Lipner, Brahmabandhab Upadhyay, The Life and Thought of a Revolutionary, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 376
5. ‘…Swami Dayananda’s followers introduced shuddhi, a conversion procedure. Hitherto this term had described a purification ritual undertaken by individuals belonging to high castes who had suffered pollution from an impure contact.Since Hinduism lacked conversion techniques, the Arya Samaj reinterpreted this ritual as a means of countering Christian proselytism by imitating its conversion practices.’-Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925 to the 1990s With a New After word, Penguin Books India, 1999, p. 16
6. “Now every objective observer can see that keeping pottu (bindi, red dot) (I) is purely cultural for a woman, while not being so for a man. When a lady becomes a widow she loses her right to keep the bindi and sindur, but she can keep bhuti or vibhuti (ash) on her forehead, as this is indeed a ‘religious’ symbol. This itself proves that the former two are related to the cultural aspect. Another clear example is that the Vaishnavite ladies have to keep both srichurnam (namam) along with sindur and bindi, but when they become widows they can still keep the namam but not the others. Thus these are marks of marital status, not religious devotion.”-Dayanand Bharati, Living Water and Indian Bowl, ISPCK, Delhi, p.
7. It is also worth noting that the tali or mangalyam (wedding chain) worn as a symbol of marriage even by Christian women has far stronger religious associations than pottu does. Nowadays it is common practice during the month of March in a Tamil Brahmin’s house that all the women (except widows) observe karadayan nonbu. That day they fast and in the evening perform puja even for their tali (mangalyam). The religious sanction for it comes from the mythology of Satyavan-Savitri. Even at the time of marriage some sort of ceremony is performed with the tali. If the Christians find comfort and even have sentimental attachment with such a mangalyam and prefer to keep it, why do they entertain such an aversion towards pottu which has only cultural significance? If Christian women feel happy with a tali will it not be an injustice if they ask new converts to remove pottu? If they find it uncomfortable to keep pottu we understand their psychological problem which so far shaped such aversion towards it. But they must have sympathetic understanding towards the psychology of a new believer for whom removing pottu is difficult. So they should not compel removal, but rather should encourage them to keep it on.
8. ‘Quoting 2 Cor. 6:14-15(I) is of no use here. First note that in the whole book of 2 Corinthians Paul nowhere deals with marriage(I) and so these verses cannot be too directly applied to this area. Just taking the word ‘yoke’ and imposing marriage on that word is a false interpretation. Paul’s direct teaching on marriage is in First Corinthians chapter seven(I). There Paul’s instruction about the marriage of a widow is that it is to be with a ‘believer’. Because being a widow now she is free and no more under the direct control of her parents. So she should select a husband who must belong to the Lord. Whereas in the case of boys and girls who are living with their parents it is necessary to obey their parents. Should we not have faith, knowing that God is in absolute control and can overrule the parents for the sake of His child whose life is committed to His care? We can give several examples from the lives of converts who were blessed with suitable partners because of their trust in God and obedience to their parents. Of course in the case of an individual having a choice, they are to marry ‘in the Lord’.-ibid. p.
Leave a Reply