When the missionaries came from the West, after managing to ‘convert’ people and establishing their (denominational) churches, unintentionally they created several ‘STRUCTURES’—physical (church buildings), mental (theology, etc.), social (conversion from one community to another), cultural (dress code, etc.), etc. There is no end to this list. Though they left and are now ‘OFFICIALLY ALLOWED’ not to come to India, still their SPIRIT looms over India, not only among the traditional Christians but also among those who try to do ‘indigenization’ and ‘contextualization.’
One problem with these structures is that, though they were created with good intentions, when left with the local followers of the Lord, they neither have the resources to maintain them nor find them useful anymore. But not learning from past mistakes, this spirit of creating structures (physical and non-physical) continues, of course with the same good intentions to serve us.
Several times their ‘seva’ becomes not only our ‘burden’ to carry their vision and mission but also a problem, exhausting us soon. Now time, energy, and resources are spent only to renew and maintain those ‘super structures,’ which are actually not required for us to keep our bhakti alive in the Lord. Of course, several justifications are given from their end, and that too from their point of view—particularly maintaining the(ir) status. However, we try to help them understand, but they are not in a position to understand it. So what is the option left to us? Don’t invest our time just for the sake of maintaining a certain status quo but use our time and energy for our daily life in the world and continue to keep our bhakti alive in our pluralistic society in India.
Though I gave a vague, superficial generalization, if we take several case studies, it will become clearer, which is not required at present.
The inherent problem with these structures is that several ‘dos and don’ts’ will be given for using those structures. Who should be allowed and who should not be allowed, what kinds of programs can be conducted, etc. Of course, they have every right to put these kinds of conditions as the structure belongs to them. But it will soon end in creating division among them as there will be differences of opinion. Though they will claim that concession and common sense will prevail at the end, in most cases, those who do not agree with that condition won’t cooperate wholeheartedly but remain on the margins of every activity. Nobody can avoid such strife, as any man-made structure (physical or non-physical) naturally inherits these kinds of issues and divisions. Agreeing with the core, giving concessions in the periphery, and showing charity all along will help keep the ‘UNITY IN SPIRIT’ in our seva for others. And structures are the first thing that becomes an impediment to such unity.
Does this mean that we can live without any kind of structure? No. But the solution for this is to think not only twice but thrice and even several times before creating any structure—even with good intentions to serve others. Is that particular structure necessary for the needs of those we want to serve? Others cannot carry our burden for a long time. Sometimes we can overcome the barriers of physical structures, but those created by non-physical structures are very difficult both to handle and overcome. Do we actually need these structures to exercise our bhakti in the Lord in our family and community? One criterion that will help us think before creating any structure is decentralization and localization by resisting homogenization. For this, the initiative should come from the local small mandalies rather than being imposed by others on them.
16-06-2019
I received a WhatsApp message in which one An Bayat shared the following message. I think this was in response to Tremph’s demand to open the church buildings in the USA for ‘worship.’ I am not sure. However, Bayat’s message triggered further discussion in an elite club, which was also forwarded to me. I already posted my view in an article on this topic, ‘Structural problem,’ on my blog. But some of the questions raised and responses given were worth reading to understand the main issue here.
As I already shared, having a building or any structure for people to gather is not a problem. But when
According to my limited understanding, for practical purposes, ‘Church’ as a building is not used exclusively to ‘worship God.’ It is a structure that is also used for ‘Christians’ to gather and worship the Lord (according to their tradition and understanding). As I already said, it is also used for several social needs like ‘hatch, match, and dispatch’ (celebration of birth, marriage, and funeral). It is also used for elections, etc. Of course, in emergencies, it is also used to give shelter to affected people. Now generously, they open it to Muslims also to come and offer Namaz on Eid, as happened in Germany. So, nothing wrong in having a building, unless it becomes a structure to create barriers.
But when it comes to the question of ‘worshipping,’ it definitely creates barriers. In most of the denominational churches, only their members are allowed to ‘participate’ in ‘their’ (form of) ‘worship.’ Of course, others can come to ‘observe’ their ‘worship’ but won’t be allowed to participate in their worship. This I experienced and also strictly implemented by several church denominations. My question is, will the Lord agree with such worship of ‘God’ in Truth and Spirit?
One person wrote, ‘We don’t need a building, but most people do need a community.’ Understood. But can we call those who gather for three hours in a building a ‘community’? It is what Christopher J.H. Wright rightly called only a ‘watery togetherness’ and not a community joining to worship the Lord. At least in India, people live their ‘community’ life outside the church, and no one requires a ‘community’ to worship God. Of course, in Hinduism, though ‘community’ celebrations are common during festivals, they are more for celebration and not exclusively to ‘worship God.’ Similarly, they go to the temple to worship ‘individually,’ and no temple is used for worship as a ‘community,’ though there exist several temples based on community identity in which people from other communities are not allowed to worship—which triggered clashes and even created law and order problems. At the same time group worship is performed in several temples but this should not be confused as ‘community worship’. Of course, ‘Indian Christian Community’ churches are no exception to such ‘community-based churches.’
Christians gather inside a building that they call a Christian community. But once the worship is finished, they go back to their respective Hindu communities to live as Christians in those communities. Inside the church building, they remain as a ‘Christian community,’ but outside, they live as Christians in Hindu communities. Of course, as noted above, there exist several Christian community churches like Nadar Church, Reddy Church, Chamar Church, Kamma Church, Kappu Church. In several metropolitan cities, there are several Christian churches in which Christians from various communities come together to worship God. Even in several caste churches, other community members can come and worship. They also can become members in it. But when it comes to elections to select committee members, Secretary, Treasurer, and other posts, the majority know how to manipulate and control to keep the power within their caste community. Secular politicians have to learn how to conduct elections by using all kinds of malpractices from those elections held inside the church.
Now tell me, is the church a temple to worship God? For me, it looks more like a Community Hall used for various purposes. Of course, in Hindu temples, all kinds of malpractices are used in selecting committee members, either by election or by hereditary basis. Then what is the use of saying, ‘we are different from them’?
Hindus conduct several samskaras like marriage, 60th wedding rituals, etc., in the temple premises. But they won’t use it for final rites as used by the church. Nothing wrong with using a building to cater to the needs of the respective community. But calling that building the identity for a particular community seems a bit artificial to me.
Is the church gathering for ‘satsang’ = to have true fellowship? Fellowship means taking an active part in others’ lives as well. I read somewhere that in the early ‘mandalies,’ the followers of the Lord actively participated in the needs of other bhaktas’ lives as well. The famous saying of Gibbon, the Jewish historian, about Christians was ‘how they love each other.’ Now can one find such ‘true fellowship’ among Christians inside the church? Of course, there will be fellowship for some talk and gossip after the church service. But church as the place for ‘satsang’ is not an Indian reality. For example, even in one church, two members who are sworn enemies and might even be fighting a court case against each other will come to worship ‘together’ (but not sitting next to each other) and will receive ‘communion’ (but not receiving next to each other). But we cannot blame the Pastor or other church members for this. If one member refuses to ‘forgive’ or ‘reconcile,’ he might be expelled. But he will easily find membership in another church. And if he is the most influential and wealthy person, then he won’t be expelled even if he alone has to be blamed. Above all, the church does not want to lose the income by expelling all erring members for one reason or another. Otherwise, soon very few members will be left in the church.
Samskaras are done at home in Hindu communities. Before or after the ritual, they might visit the temple as a family, but it is not essential. But few samskaras like ‘Vidyaramba’ [beginning education] is done by some parent’s in their preferred temple. Similarly, Christians also can perform all their samskaras at home, and they can gather at the church building for thanksgiving after the ritual is over. Several Hindu temples in India are not used exclusively for any kind of worship. Though all kinds of ritual worship are done there, nobody has to assemble at a particular time to perform worship. Even the Brahmin priests who perform those rituals do so for the sake of fulfilling their religious duties.
Now, the majority of Christians go to the church building for ‘worship’ for a few hours a week. No problem. However, the question is, what is happening in their lives and the lives of others for the remaining time? Will the Lord accept such worship when people don’t worship the Lord in truth and spirit in their daily lives? How can a structure (physical or non-physical) that is created for various purposes, even with good intentions, which I acknowledged above, bring people together to worship the Lord, in Truth and Spirit, which the Lord expects from His followers?
The essence of bhakti for the Lord is one’s relationship with Him and others and not the structure. Let the structure remain for any purpose, but it should not hinder worshipping the Lord, in Truth and Spirit, and it should not create any barrier to unity among the bhaktas in a particular locality. As noted above, decentralization and localization by resisting homogenization will definitely help us to remove those barriers.
Leave a Reply