Dialogue with Christians Yet to be edited Part Two

Becoming Hindu and what is the use: From my diary of October 3, 1998.

From evening 4.30 p.m to7.30 p.m. one after another three students came who participated in the class.  They asked usual questions.  But Roy asked that to share or to win Hindus is it necessary that we should become Hindu (this question he asked because of my principle of becoming all thigs to all men).  “No”, I responded and continued, “you cannot become a Hindu and we don’t want you to become a Hindu.  But when you lead a Hindu to Christ you should make it clear to him/her that he/she need not become a ‘CHRISTIAN’ like you.  He/She can very well remain both culturally and socially as a Hindu and follow Christ.  Then in order to teach him/her you can become a Hindu to him/her.  Because as such  new believers—out of over zeal or emotionalism always want to become a ‘Christian’ like you, mere teaching won’t help as their mind is closed because of emotion.  Above all they want to avoid some of their immediate responsibility to their family/community in the name of ‘Conversion’.  So in such a situation an evangelical Christian should become a Hindu/Muslim to guide only such a new believers and not to other Hindus/Muslims in general.

Similarly the girl who finally came was much disturbed.  She said, “In their need they come to us.  When we listen, share and pray they pay attention to what all we share.  But once their problem is solved, they forget everything we shared and go back as they are.  Then I’m disturbed  What is the use of all these sharing.  Similarly considering several struggles within me I think that there is some problem in my spiritual life.”  In response I said, “The main reason for such discouragement is that we always want to serve or share others expecting some results.  But here we should follow the teaching of Gita’s Nishkamyakarma.  When others approach us in their need, we should consider it as God given opportunity to serve them.  A true bhakta of Christ should always wait for the opportunity and if possible seek for such opportunity to serve others without attaching  any importance to the result.  Regarding spiritual life, as circumstance, advancement in age, purpose, meaning of life always change there will be fluctuations also in our spiritual life.  As long as our basic conviction and commitment to the Lord remain the same, we need not be disturbed because of fluctuation in our spiritual life.

@@@

Dear Swami Dayanand Bharati,
My humblest and sincerest greetings from Mt. Pleasant!  I’m thinking of possibly doing a thematic message entitled International Grace this weekend. Could you help by sharing with me how you explain ‘grace’ in reference to the dharma of the land of India?  In other words, does your culture in any way embrace or have a way of understanding biblical grace?  What might be some of the cultural roadblocks than hinder an Indian from being able to understand and receive biblical grace.  In contrast, what are the things in the dharma of the land that naturally incline an Indian to understand and receive grace? Your wisdom in this matter is very much valued by me. I’d appreciate any insights you could give. – Barry

Dear Barry

Shanti!

Grace is a common topic in the Indian Religious world.  Several sects insist upon the total dependency to the grace of god and urge the seekers totally surrender oneself to that grace.  But the relationship between grace and dharma is not often discussed.  Because dharma, technically duty, order is the normative value for each and every individual.  I think you too understand the word dhama, which is not religion, though often used by common people as religion.  Dharma is, in a sense a secular word (Indian secularism) which binds every one, whereas grace is more a religious term, which a devotee received that too initiated from god. 

Indian religious worldview, irrespective of some extreme denominations (sampradayas) like advaita, insists on the grace of god.  However, here also, in one Vaishnav sect, there are two schools, regarding our relationship with god in receiving the grace—cat and monkey schools (like cat, which carries its kitten, we are helpless and totally depends upon the grace of god; the other schools says, though we depend upon the grace of god, yet like the baby monkey, we have to cling to the god, as the baby monkey cling to its mother).  But various sects though talks in different terms about grace, yet the over all Indian religious worldview is that God shows his grace towards his devotees.

Biblical grace, on the other hand is undeserving mercy of God.  The only and main stumbling block for the Hindus to understand is how someone could be punished for my sin or error.  Whatever one has doe, she has to face the consequence.  I should be punished for my sin and not some one else.  Even if someone else is ready to take away my punishment, the law of karma will work in such a way that either in this life or future life, I cannot escape from the consequences of sin (or karma).  Even I heard some people saying that it is wrong to punish someone else for my sin and it increases my sin and burden.  At least in the religious ideal, no one can take away another person’s sin.

Just for the sake of argument a Hindu might argue in above line.  However in other areas of life, they won’t mind to see that someone else is punished for their mistakes.  Suppose if I have to pay the penalty and someone else is come forward to pay or I make some one else to pay for it, then I won’t mind.  I have rarely seen a Hindu come forward to rescue another person when she is caught or punished for her mistake.  But when we say that Jesus was punished for our sin, then they began to argue. 

However an Indian understand the religious view about grace, yet it and every other doctrines run parallel with karma.  Yes one can receive grace that too freely, but one cannot avoid her own karma because of grace.  At the same time the grace of god has every power with it to remove any kind of obstacle to bestow salvation and joy in the devotee’s life.  Two contradictory views happily co-exist in Indian religious worldview without much tension, because a common Hindu never lives with any deeper doctrinal aspect of her religion, but more carrying out her (family) tradition and simple daily rituals.  The following are some of the points from the scholars on this subject of grace:

  The Vedas employ a term for grace which, unlike later words of common use, implies forgiveness pure and simple.  The Gods are requested to forgive Man’s real sins and also his constitutional shortcomings.  Man is never worthy of grace from the divine (Cf.Rv.I,17,1; I,36,12; I,94,12; I,114,2;9; II,27,14; II,33,11;14; IV,43,2; VII,93,7; VIII,48,9; X,25,3; X,34,14; X,64,1-2).  Mrdiika, though occurring only nine times in the Rg Veda (Cf.Rv.I,25,3;5; IV,1,3;5; VI,33,5; VI,48,12; VI,50,1; VII,86,2; VIII,48,12; X,150,1-5), denotes the grace that elevates Man and wipes away all his stains (The root mrd-, Rg-Vedic mri-, means first of all to forgive, and then to be merciful, gracious, to bestow favour).  We have here a forgiveness that comes, unpredictably and undeservedly, from the divine.–Raimundo Panikkar, The Vedic Experience, Second ed.1989, All India Books, Pondicherry, Sin and Mercy, p.484 [Panikkar is a liberal Catholic]

…Ksamaa means the patience and forbearance of the Gods with us mortals, and hence comes to mean mercy, compassion.  Dayaa is mercy that is prompted by a sense of compassion and sympathy.  The later words for grace, anugraha and prasaada, have altogether different implications.–ibid. p.485

            The grace of the lord varies in accordance with the purity of emotions.  Due to grace, eschewment of rites results.  Here the eschewment is of the fruits of rites and not the rites themselves.(35)…. Some soul is liberated even while in the womb; another even while being born; a third whether he be a boy or a youth or an old man.(42)  A soul born as a lower species, a soul undergoing torture in hell, a soul achieving a heavenly region may be liberated when the tenure is over.(43)  Some soul may return after the enjoyment of heavenly region and then liberated.  Still another soul may be liberated on its way.(44)  Hence there is no stipulated mode or order in the attainment of liberation.  The supreme bliss is in accordance with the knowledge and emotion and attained by the grace of the lord.(45)— ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana Four Volumes, VAAYAVIIYASAMHITAA, Section I, 1:42-45, p.1784

               …The wickedness of the wicked is due to the absence of the grace of the lord.(2)  It is clear and certain that nothing can be done without the grace of Siva, the perfect and supreme soul.(3)—ibid. VAAYAVIIYASAMHITAA, Section I, 31:2-3, p.1879

…Human aspiration is necessary for grace.  ‘It is the occasion, not the condition or the cause.’  Hunger is not the cause of the food, but the condition for the enjoyment of the food.  ‘We must choose to be chosen.’….— P. Nagaraja Rao, Essentials of Hinduism, Mumbai, Sudakshina Trust, 1978 p.159

Dayanand.

NB.

Are you the pastor of the Young Church?

@@@

Dear Madhu,

Shanti!

Two days back through K.C. George, one Campus Crusade person approached me to give one T.V. programme for Easter celebration.  When K.C. first approached, I told him that I am not interested in such programme produced by Missions or Churches, and requested him try to avoid that person.  Anyhow, not convinced by the explanation, that Campus Crusade person again contacted me along with K.C.

But I told them that first of all as a Hindu Bhakta of the Lord, I don’t want to associate with any Christian activity by the Missions or Church.  Next that though I am a single man, yet I am not alone and I cannot take my own decision as I am committed to others in this movement.  In our movement, in principle we have decided to not associate much with any Christian activity, and I cannot go against such collective decision, though there are few exceptions

When both of them continued to persuade, then I told K.C. first to convince Gladwin and Madhu and then call me back.  Anyhow they got my message.  However I want to inform you about any one contacting you to persuade me to accept for that programme.

Db.

@@@

Caste and Church.—Ebenezer Sunder raj

India Church Growth Quarterly, April-June, 1985. Vol. 7. No. 2

               The historic, social and religious backgrounds of Castes are important for a discussion of the issue of Castes today in the context of Indian society, Church and evangelism.

               In India, the roots of castes are racial, occupational and economic, migrational and religious.

               Of the several races that came into India, the Aryans conquered the Dravidians and enslaved them.  This was the origin of Caste gradation. This slavery basedon race was given religious sanction for three millennia. In spite of this race segregation, there was metisation (mixing of blood), which gave rise to the shudra castes.  However, total segregation was elaborately enjoined in the epics and smirities.

               Pollution based on occupation is found in some degree in all civilizations. The Churas (cleaners of Punjab(, the Chamars (tanners of Central India) and the Shanars (toddy tappers of Pandya Land) are examples of occupational pollution.

               The socio-political and religious upheavals in India produced migrations of several ethnic groups (Saurashtras in Tamil Nadu, Syrians in Kerala) which later became castes.

               In India, there are about 59 religions and several subreligions. Many of these, like Kabir Panthis and Lingayats have been classified as castes.

               These four roots producing castes gave rise to segregation and untouchability which were made complete by the Brahminic era.

               Though caste gradation could not be introduced for the Dravidians on the basis of colour, occupation gave rise to gradation and untouchability. This Aryanisation and enforcement of Varnashra dharma are happening among the non-Aryan tribals today. (p.81)

               From these we find:

1. Caste is found in every Civilisation.
2. But, the Brahmin introduced caste gradation, and petrified it into its rigid structure with divine sanction,
3. “The acceptance of the supremacy of Brahmin” is stated as the first of the ten marks of a Hindu.¹
4. The one and the only reason, that the vast multitudes, tongues, races and people groups in India, yielded and succumbed to this, Brahminic domination was the inherent human desire to belong to ‘his own’ people, cherish and preserve his ancestry, lineage, identity, way of life, culture and blood.  Unfortunately the Anglo Saxon protestant missions of the 19^th Century did not see this point adequately.

Christian challenge to Brahminic Caste System:

               The first irrevocable change came with evangelical missions.

1. With the exception of Islam, the pre-Christian egalitarian socio-religious movements did not succeed (except for marginal accomplishments) in re-ordering the Indian communities and peoples from the vertical Brahminic caste system, (i) for want of theological foundation and (ii) because of the unassailable religious power and royal backing Brahminism held for 3 millennia almost uninterrupted.
2. Christian challenge to the caste system was negligible, if any, before Zigenbalg.  The Protestant Missions varied widely in their theology, understanding, presuppositions and approach in handling the Brahminic Caste System. This had much to do with the missionary’s own cultural, educational, theological, social and economic background. However, they were unanimous that the Aryan Caste System, as existent, was fundamentally incompatible to Christian tenets.
3. The British civil government, though, maintained the expedient policy of status quo in matters socio-religious, nevertheless, by its objective judiciary and police became the mighty backbone for the Christian missionary’s effort in emancipating the outcaste, which in effect inflicted the first mortal wound on the Brahminic Caste System.
4. The post-colonial Christianity has for its prophetic ministry of re-ordering this unjust structure of society, adequate provisions in the constitution; the constitution is openly criticized by reactionaries as “Christian”.
5. Christian presence and preaching, however, weak or incomplete, steadily works against Karma and Reincarnation and, therefore, against the Caste System.  Admitting that the evil system is found in some forms in Christian congregations in several places, it must be noted, the evil is less inside the Church than outside.
6. In all cases of Indian Mission and Churches, when intercaste or non-caste egalitarian brotherhood was made as condition for entry, masses of “lower” classes entered.  When Caste System was partly or fully permitted inside the Church, some “higher” castes came into the Church, and the “lower” stayed out.  The happenings of 1980-83 in Tamil Nadu are pointers to this fact. ^{2, 3}

Cognitive Descriptions:

               To arrive at some action, it is necessary to concur on certain presuppositions.

Caste: The endogamous clans, subclans, tribes, extended family group where birth in the only qualification for membership.  Castes are found wherever peoples are found, is mild of wild forms.^{4, 5, 6, 7}

Class: Economic communities, where economic power (which includes intellectual, monetary and muscle power) is the dividing line. Caste and class are found almost identical in primitive societies, but they are not.  Class is often conditioned but not bound by birth.

Brahminic Caste System: The artificial vertical gradation and value created by Varnashra Dharma, on castes, and which deities the top and dehumanizes the bottom. (p.82)

Conversion: is the crisis and/or process element. The integrated Christian world view may take a life time of the convert.  Separation in the Scripture means spiritual distinction not segregation from one’s society. The three states of “rejection”, “accommodation” and “reestablishment of identity” are evidence in most cases of conversion, as Lausanne⁸ findings rightly emphasize.

Church: (1) The Body of Christ. (2) The worldwide body of those being discipled.  (3) The local congregation. ⁹

Thus, the Body of Christ is not a “bounded set” but a “centered set” centred around the Lord Jesus Christ.

               Thus, Biblically the “local Church” is modeled more as a “Gurusala” than a community club”.  Nurture, growth, test of growth, graded teaching and obedience are as applicable to “local Church” as to “Gurusala”. The “school” is a poor model. While “Gurusala” demands total obedience to what is learnt, the “school” does not.

Conclusion: The Syrian model¹⁰ to Robert De Nobili model¹¹, the Parava model to today’s CSI and CPM (Ceylon Pentecostal Mission) models are widely varying imperfect models God uses to bring individuals and family units to Himself.

Missions and Churches have made the mistake of searching for one code of conduct and policy for all the above models of Churches, peoples and evangelism. This is a search in futility.  Neither is one set of teachings for all the members of a local congregations, nor one set of standards for al ages. The following are a few humble recommendations from mission field experience:

• Equality of all men under Creatorhood of God and brotherhood of all believers under Fatherhood of god must be included, in detail, in all articles of faith, statement of doctrines, constitutions of religious bodies and ecclesiastical terms of services with punitive clause, for any believer who denies this tenet.
• The local Church in the society as salt and light must keep the leading pace in articulating this doctrine, ahead of all other secular or religious reformatory forces.
  • Church’s preaching/pulpit calendar must allot one Sunday a year as ‘Brotherhood Sunday’ for preaching against Brahminic Caste System in the Church.
  • All Christian journals and magazines allot one issue a year for this teaching.
  • All Sunday School/VBS/Christian education material in India must include one chapter or lesson on this.
  • Christian journalists must write regularly in secular media, against this evil, on sound biblical foundation. All Christian publishers must publish books and booklets on Christian view of Caste for Christian and non-Christian readers.
  • Appointment of religious staff like pastors, bishop, missionary, etc. and all ecclesiastical leaders like committee members of diocese, synod, federation, etc., must be made conditional on taking a spouse of “lower” caste, on marriage to his child or grand child, whoever is unmarried, after 10 years of his appointment.
  • Incentives must be instituted to encourage intercaste marriages. (a) the Church must waive marriage fee for inter-caste marriages. (b) the Church institute funds and spend for marriage of boys with “:lower” caste girls and the Church and Christian Institutions, make other provisions like job promotions for such.

© All the above recommendations on “Caste” almost equally apply to “class”.  Sincere evangelicals who may revile “Caste” are often found as great defenders of “class” in their preaching and practice.  However, “class” having an ambiguous boundary, evades concrete steps of remedy to recommend here.

(d) All the above recommendations are welcome by all castes, low and high. However, renouncing the caste consciousness cannot be made conditional step for entering the Church. For

               (i) There is no biblical warrant for this (p.83)

               (ii) By insisting on this, the Church denies him the very process of change.

               (iii) This is an attempt to undo in three minutes pastoral inquiry what has been built by society for three millennia. While renouncing the worship of evil spirit must be made a condition for entering Church, renouncing the fear of evil spirit cannot be a condition.  As Rene Padilla, rightly points out, “it takes time”.¹²

(e) A man who fully subscribes to faith and practices in equality of men, but shows affinity to his own people has not violated any Christian principle. Caste in his case is the sense and identity of belonging, similar to Ao Naga or Vasavi tribe.  Caste when stripped off Brahminic Varnashra System, reduces to non-Hindu clan identity, in its pre-Aryan form. The problem inside the Church lies with the pulpit not the pew. The extreme paucity of teaching from pulpit to an average Church goer is one of the major reason for the hangover of Varnashrama inside the Church

(f) A sense of physical belonging to his people is not only tolerable but highly essential for wholesome Christian growth as mission field experience indicates consistently. The mission compound social orphan, has fared very poor as Christian having no sense of accountability to people for want of sense of “belonging” to people.

(g) The Bible knows of no person who became God’s channel to a people who was devoid of deep sense of “belonging” to that people. This sense of “belonging” to clan or ethnic group will and has to continue till, social changes result in alternate structures and sense of community. The criterion is not, which type of community but the sense of “belonging to people”.

(h) Homogenous coming in, need not and must not legitimize homogenous staying in. The failure in this, is due to lack or absence of discipling in the average church, not the fault in admission. We are not block men entering the church for fear of “mixed motives”. No one under the sun has entered the church with ‘Unmixed motive”.

• There is no one rule for all the Churches, not one rule for all times, nor one rule for all people. As long as there is graded teaching and obedience to that teaching and graded growth, not only Varnashrama, but every other evil will be overcome.

Notes:

1. Risley and Gait—Commissioner Report –Censsu of India-1910. Govt. of India, pub.
2. Kananaikil, J.—Caste Discrimination-Vidya Jyoti—New Delhi—December 1982—p. 522-529
3. Saldanah J.—Hindu Sensibilities towards Conversion—Indian Missiological Review. Bobmay, Jan. 1980, p. 5-27.
4. Hiebert, P.G,. Cultural Anthropology, Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1976, p. 282-288.
5. E.A.Nida—Customs and Cultures—William Carey Library, Pasadena, 1954, p. 126-28.
6. Crooke W. Races of Northern India, Cosmo Pub., Delhi, 1973, p. 85.
7. K.R. Hanumanthan, Untouchability a historical study, Koodal Pub., Madurai, 1979, p. 133-149
8. Lausanne Occasional papers, No.2, The Willowband Report, Gospel and Culture, Jan. 1978, pp. 19-23.
9. E. Sunder Raj, Who will Open the door, Church Growth Bulletin, Madras, 1973.
10. Mc Gavaran D.A., Understanding the Church in India, GLS Pub., Bombay, 1979, pp. 47-67.
11. Vikrant S., De Nobili’s Missionary Method, Indian Missiological Review, April 1979, pp. 175-179
12. Rene Padillo, The Unity of the Church and the Homogenous Unit Principle, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Jan. 1982, p. 29.

Caste and the Bible, Roger E. Hedlund, India Church Growth Quarterly, April-June, 1985. Vol. 7. No. 2, p. 85-88

               The opening chapters of the Bible deal with God and the human race. ‘The first concern of the Bible is not with Hebrews but with humanity’ (De Rider 1975:14). In Genesis 1-11 we are confronted not with one people (Israel), but with the history of mankind. As Choan-Seng Song expresses it, ‘The Creator-Redeemer God is not to be captured by and crystallized into one particular racial and cultural texture’ (Song 1975: 22).

               Creation by God means that there is but one human race. In Genesis we discover that ‘all mankind traces its genealogy to one common ancestor’ (De Ridder 1975:16), and that Yahweh is no tribal deity but God and Father of all.  ‘The concept of creation as taught in the Scripture is the basis for the proclamation of God’s sovereignty over the whole world, including its peoples’ (De Ridder 1975:16).

               The whole human race thus shares a common origin and a common dignity.  Not only is man the crowing event in God’s creative activity, he is vested with special nobility.  ‘Thou has made him little less than God and dost crown him with glory and honor. Thou has given him dominion over the work of thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet’ (Psl. 8:5-6).  According to Genesis God created man in His own image and for fellowship.

               The whole creation relates to man. The Biblical doctrine of man is important for an adequate understanding of the Gospel in India. There is in the Bible no suggestion that God made some from His head, some from His chest and thighs and  others from His feet.  God, according to Genesis, made man in the image of God—all men.  There is no high and no low. All are equally the Creatures of God, and all humans reflect their Creator. The same dignity attaches to a poor man as to a rich man, to a Harijan as to a Brahmin.  There is no basis for the caste system in the Biblical concept of man. All human beings are equally high—made in the likeness of the creator. All are equally low as well, and in need of redemption.

               The Biblical estimate of man as a creature of dignity and value reflecting the image of the Creator comes as Good News to the victims of an oppressive religious and social system. In his provocative study, S. Manickam shows that the Christian Gospel was the main source of hope for India’s untouchables and that missionary work awakened a social conscience in India (198:79, 96).  Man is God’s highest creation and the object of God’s redemptive care.

               Genesis also records the disruption which follows man’s rebellion.  Man, now disobedient, becomes God’s fallen creature. As C. S. Lewis stated the doctrine of the Fall ‘man is now a horror to God and to himself and a creature ill-adapted to the universe not because God made him so, but because he has made himself so by the abuse of his free will’ (1959:57).  The unity of the race means that all mankind fell into sin.  Humanity became guilty before God, morally polluted, separated from God, socially alienated and disoriented.  The sin of Adam has universal consequences.  Man is not isolated ‘Man’s rebellion has serious implications.  ‘The Bible, as God’s Word to man, commences with this statement of the consequences of disobedience.  This speaks to the tragic human situation which makes the Christian mission necessary’ (Tippett 1973:xvii).

               Alienation from God has social ramifications. ‘Man’s estrangement from God has tragic effects on his relationships with his fellow man’ (Song 1975:210).

               Man in the Garden was given responsibility for his fellow man.  Man is his brother’s keeper.  No, more than that, as Geevarghese Mar Osthathios reminds us, we ought not even ask Cain’s old question about being his brother’s keeper. For our Lord has given a higher answer: ‘You are not your brother’s keeper, by your brother’s brother’ (1980:107).  Human failure, however, reveals man’s need for help from outside. (p.85)

               Racism is a perversion of creation.  The Bible does not tolerate racist bigotry, prejudice or discrimination. In his documentation of the problem Professor Hanumanthan refers to the practice of untouchability based on caste as one of the ugliest manifestations of man’s inhumanity to man (Hanumanthan 1979:2).  In South India caste domination and oppression perpetuates a form of slavery (Manickam 1982).  Discriminatory practices and preferential treatment based on caste hierarchy and carried over into the Church (Prabhakar 1981:19) are Biblically indefensible.  The Biblical account of the origin of the nations flatly contradicts the Hindu notion of caste superiority and inferiority which is the root cause of untouchability, segregation, discrimination and other social disabilities.  Evidence exists that the Church, though an imperfect community, has to some extent been able to overcome caste alienation (Thomas 1982:57).  There is no justification for a racist’s interpretation of Noah’s curse of Canaan,¹ ‘Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers’ (Genesis 9:25).  It is unfortunate that this passage was misappropriated by some who wished to support the false premise of racial inferiority or to justify apartheid.  Scripture must not be mis-directed to bolster ill-founded prejudices. Noah’s curse did not nullify God’s salvation. In Genesis 10, all peoples are included. The table of nations shows no hierarchy of superior and inferior. Men are equally the creatures of God, equally the objects of His loving concern, beneficiaries of ‘the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth’ (Genesis 9:16). From the sons of Noah ‘the nations spread on the earth after the flood’ (Gen. 10:32). The unity of the human race is maintained.

               God gave the Israelites a style of life both egalitarian and humane. Israel was to have no land owning aristocracy, no luxury for the few and poverty for the many (Lev. 25).  There were laws to protect criminals against excessive punishment (Deut. 19), laws to guard the rights of slaves (Lev. 25:39), of minority peoples, of widows and orphans (Deut. 10:18-19).  Class distinctions were abolished. Idleness was penalized, industriousness encouraged. Slavery was rigorously restricted. Every seven years slaves were to be freed (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12 ff).  All of this made for an egalitarian society. Aliens and freedmen were absorbed into the tribes which comprised the nation of Israel. Solomon’s imposition of forced labor (1 Kings 5:13-16; 9:15-23) was particularly heinous because it was accompanied by social reorganization which created structures of inequality and injustice. This violated God’s design of Israel’s as a way of life which safeguarded the rights of men. Society under God was not to consist of the haves and have-nots, the elite versus the masses. The caste system, representing institutionalized inequality, is reprehensible to the God of the Bible.

               God’s concern for social justice embraces all men, redeemed and unredeemed. The social aspect, however, is not unrelated to redemptive concern. God’s social directives to Israel were frequently framed in the context of Israel’s redemption.  ‘Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there.  That is why I command you to do this’ (Deut. 24:18). Redemption from Egypt brought liberation from the inhumanity of the Egyptian slave system.

               This act of humanization was not performed in secular isolation, but was a liberation to ‘serve God on this mountain’ (Ex. 3:12).  Israel’s emancipation was predicted as the act of the One who sent Moses to be the deliverer. Freedom from human injustice was the result, but the event entailed election and covenant.  Israel was to serve God.

               The way people live in their society involves a number of different entities known as social structure. In India the caste system is the most characteristic form of social structure and is based on the Hindu concept of man. In essence, the caste doctrine teaches that God created man unequal—the Brahmin from his head, the Kshatriya from his chest, the Vyshyas from his thighs, and the Sudras from his feet—and that everyone at birth is assigned to one of the sub-castes within this hierarchy on the basis of karma.  Caste rests upon a theology which destroys the unity of the human race and makes God the author of evil, both of which (p.86) are untenable from the viewpoint of the Bible.  The caste system is the chief instrument of social injustice and exploitation of the masses in India today.  Bonded labour, atrocities against the Harijans and harassment of minorities are perpetrated on the basis of caste (Fyerson 1980).  Caste enslaves and it dehumanizes the oppressor as well as the victims of the social structure.

               Caste has been a formidable barrier to the liberating power of the Gospel.  From the time of Carey, Protestant missionaries have generally opposed caste in India (Forrester 1980:27).  Roman Catholics were more lenient on this question (Fernandes 1981).  The missionaries did not always understand the deeper significance of caste that here was something more than a mere question of social organization.  Caste has in it a ‘personal, spiritual element’ (Larsen 1978:368).  Caste is a manifestation of the ‘elemental spirits of the world’ in rebellion against God. Where the Gospel has been permitted to penetrate, conversions to Christ have occurred, frequently following family/caste relationship lines, resulting in people movements to Christ. A principle of effective communication is discerned in these cases. To a large extent, however, ‘caste boundaries have proved to be considerable obstacles to the spread of conversion’ (Forrester 1980:79).

               Casteism is a form of racism.  To perpetuate caste inequalities in the Church is a denial of the Gospel. As Paul wrote to the Galations, ‘Formerly you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?’ (Gal. 4:19).  Church leaders who practice church politics on the basis of caste are guilty of heresy.  In Christ there is neither high nor low, nor is there room for any form of slavery or inequality, for all have become one in Christ (Gal. 3:23).  The Church is responsible to practice this unity, to be a visible expression of the ‘broken wall’ (Eph. 2:14). The Church is part of the Gospel. The Church, when it is truly a Church, is a living demonstration of the Wisdom of God ‘to the principalities and powers’ (Eph. 3:9,10).

               The mission of the Church in the Indian context cannot bypass the caste issue. As Bavinck notes, this raises some tremendously difficult questions as to what is judicious at various stages of evangelization. Theologically the Church is one. Therefore it would seem right to form a single Church. But for cultural and other reasons that may be neither desirable nor practical. ‘The unity in Christ does not exclude diversity in language, liturgy and in the style of preaching.  All churches, even though they speak different languages, are one in essence’ (Bavinck 1960:167). ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28).  Christ on the cross has destroyed the barrier by abolishing its rules and regulations, thus creating a new man in Himself (Eph. 2:14-16).  The Church, His Body, should reflect this unity (Eph. 2:19-22; 4:4).  What does this imply, then, if anything, about the process of evangelizing a caste society?  Bavinck’s view strikes a balance. ‘It is generally impossible to reach an entire social system immediately.  However, within its own walls, the church must view every problem in the light of God’s Word, and it must act accordingly’ (1960:168). The initial evangelizer may be an advocate of the Gospel rather than of revolutionary change.  But when the time is right the Church must speak and act against national and social sins (Bavinck 1960:168).

               As M M. Thomas has pointed out, the Gospel has been a liberating power to the Harijans, to the women of India, to tribals and other depressed communities; for it ‘built them into the fellowship of the Church and gave them a sense of being God’s people’ (1980:13).  The Christian challenge to the social structure thereby ‘was not minimal’ (Thomas 1980:13).  Rather than perpetuate the evils of society, the Church is called to manifest freedom as a witness of Christ in contemporary society.  The Church, says Premsagar, ‘is called to enter into all struggles of people for their rights and for a just society’ (1975:111).  M. M. Thomas likewise calls the Church to witness to the New Testament Humanity in Christ ‘as the power to redeem cultures, ideologies and religions from the demonic forces inherent in them and make them truly human’ (1975b:67).  Without endorsing the full sweep of Dr. Thomas’ statement, there is no escaping the Biblical implication that the Church as the Body of Christ is to demonstrate the reality of victory over the domain of evil and enslavement. (p.87).

               James is clearly on the side of he poor when he discusses the problem of distinctions in the church (2:1-7).  In a society where there is a large gap between rich and poor this is a real issue. When class differences are given religious sanction, as in the Hindu caste system and the doctrine of karma, the problem is acute. But James shatters all such distinctions. In the Church no partiality is to be shown: all are to be equals. Without reiterating the Pauline theology of oneness in Christ (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14-16), James puts forth the same teaching in practical terms. To perpetuate social inequality is sin (2:9). The Christian is to practice the law of love (2:28).

               It is time that in the Church in India we begin to practice what the Bible so clearly sets forth. Let us be done with the domination of the Church by a few. Let us open wide the gates of salvation (and the doors of the Church) to all men and women—to the oppressed as well as the oppressors, to the poorest of the poor as much as to the rich to all of God’s needy children. As followers of Jesus we have no right to withhold from anyone the Good News of the liberating and transforming power of Christ.

1. A more acceptable explanation seems to be that Noah’s statement should be prophetically interpreted in relation to God’s directive centuries later to Moses and Joshua to exterminate the Canaanite peoples because of their gross idolatry and immorality (Ex. 23:24; Deut. 7:2,5; Josh. 3:7,10).  Though the command was only partially carried out, eventually the remaining inhabitants were to a large extent subjugated or suppressed (Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13; Judges 1:4,28). (p.86)

Bibliography

Bavinck, J. H.—An Introduction to the Science of Mission.  Translated by David. 1960. Hugh Freeman from the original Dutch, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

De Ridder, Richard R.—Discipling the Nations, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Fernandes, Walter—Caste and Conversion Movements in India.  New Delhi: Indian Social  Institute, 1981.

Forrester, Duncan B.—Caste and Christianity, London Studies on South Asia No. 1. London: Curzon Press. 1980.

Geevarghese Mar Osthathios—Theology of a Classless Society.  Madras: Christian Literature Society. 1980.

Hanumanthan, K. R.—Untouchability—A Historical Study.  Madurai: Koodai Publishers.  1979.

Larsen, L. P.—A Theology or Mission.  Edited by James M. Gibbs.  Published by the Christian Literature Society, Madras, for United Theological College, Bangalore. 1978.

Lewis. C. S.—The Problem of Pain. New York: The Macmillan Co. 1955.

Manickam. S.—Slavery in the Tamil Country, A Historical Overview. Madras: Christian Literature Society.  1982.

Prabhakar, M. E.—‘Caste-Class and Status in Andhra Churches and Implications for Mission Today: Some Reflections.’  Religion and Society Vol. XXVIII, no. 3 (September): 9-35. 1981.

Premsagar, P. Victor—‘The Church: A Peoples’ Movement’ in Zachariah (ed.): 102-111. 1975.

Ryerson, Charles A,–‘Religious Culture and the 1971 Elections in Tamil Nadu.’  Religion and Society, Vol. XXVII No, 2, (June): 65-80.

Song, Hoan Seng—Christian Mission in Reconstruction-An Asian Attempt, Madras: Christian Literature Society. 1975.

Thomas, M. M.

1975–‘The Open Church’ in Zachariah 1975: p. 62-72.

1980—‘Spiritual Penetration: Revolts of the Poor and the Oppressed,’ Religion and Society, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (March): p. 10-20.

1982—

Social Reform among Indian Christians,’ Religion and Society Vo. XXIX, No, 4 December: p. 50-61.

Tippett. A. R.—Verdict Theology in Missionary Theory.  Pasadena; William Carey Library. 1973.

@@@

Colleagues:

I subscribe to the e-bulletin Hindu Press International [hpi_list@hindu.org], and they included this caution against RCC attempts at indigenization:

2. Catholic Church Expands Deceptive Program of “Indianization”
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
PUNE, INDIA, October 25, 2005: (HPI note: The following report details how the Catholic Church in India is making clever adjustments to make itself more palatable to Indians. This continues a process begun hundreds of years ago when some of the first Catholic missionaries to the country pretended to be like Hindu sadhus. The external adaptations, however, were not accompanied by any change in the Catholic philosophy that all non-Catholics are denied heaven.)

The Catholic church will take up the study of Sanskrit, adapt to monastic life in an ashram and adopt the Hindu ritual of aarti during mass if the movement towards Indianisation of the church gets the nod from 400 priests and five bishops congregating in Pune. Starting Tuesday, Pune’s Papal Seminary, which is celebrating the 50th anniversary of its transfer from Kandy (Sri Lanka) to the city, will play host to the priests for three days. Discussions will cover the state of the church in India and the movement for its Indianisation. The Catholic church has already adopted a number of Indian traditions and practices and has come a long way, four decades after the historic Second Vatican Council (1962-65) brought an epochal shift in the modern church through its declaration on religious liberty. Pune’s Papal Seminary, which has ordained over 1,250 priests during the past 50 years, has continued with its modernisation effort along with its associate institutions such as the Jnana-Deepa Vidyapeeth (JDV), formerly the Pontifical Anthenaeum, and the De Nobili College. Pune-based Catholic leaders such as Joseph Neuner, Kurien Kunnumpuram, Francis X D’Sa, John Vattanky and Subhash Anand have been stressing for lesser control from the Vatican, to make the church “truly Indian and genuinely Christian.”

Pandikattu Kuruvilla, teacher of philosophy at JDV and the Papal Seminary’s rector, Ornellas Coutinho, explained that a number of Indian religious customs and practices have already been embraced by the Catholic church to become truly Indian. “A number of Christian priests, for example, strictly follow the ancient Indian ashram system of monastic life, such as those at the Bethany Vedavijnana Peeth (Pune), Satchitananda Ashram (Trichy), Kurusumala Ashram (Kerala) a nd the Sameskshna Ashram (Kalady, Kerala),” said Kuruvilla. “Practising vegetarianism, organizing satsangs and reading Bhagvad Gita are some of the changes that have taken place,” he said.

It seems to me that the real question is if such efforts are just manipulative ploys or are sincere expressions of faith rooted in culture.

God bless.
Herb

@@@

Swami, I would like to know if you feel there is any place for continued c-3 witness in India. Do you think it has any validity, or do you think all c-3 witness should stop because it is too harmful, and all Christian witness should become c-5 (which I believe you would consider your proposals to be, as brought out in your book)? Do you think that there could be peaceful coexistence of believers in their own streams of C-3,C-4, C-5 witness, each one appreciating the other’s ability to reach at least some segment of Indian society?

Cathy.

Thanks for asking this question. Let me know what do you mean by C-3, C-4 and C-5. Though I have some vague remembrance about these terms, I need your help for me to give my specific answer. Thanks

dayanand

Here is a brief explanation of C1-C5 cut and pasted straight from Joshua Massey’s article (I’m attaching the full article to this posting as well, sorry Joshua and IJFM). These terms were written for the Muslim context, but many of us have found this spectrum very helpful in thinking about the Hindu context as well.

“C1 is a traditional Christian church which either reflects the culture of foreign Christians or that of the minority indigenous national church. Many English-speaking churches in former British colonies are good examples of the prior, while most Coptic churches of Egypt are good examples of the later. In either case, Travis writes, “A huge cultural chasm often exists between the C1 church and the surrounding Muslim community” (1998:407). C1 churches speak neither the daily language nor the religious terminology of the local Muslim population. C1 believers identify themselves as “Christians.”

C2 is basically the same as C1, except C2 churches use the daily language of the surrounding Muslim population. Like C1, C2 churches avoid Islamic terminology and instead use a distinctively “Christian” vocabulary for religious description. The cultural chasm between C2 believers and the surrounding Muslim community is often still huge. C2 believers identify themselves as “Christians.”

C3 churches are essentially the same as C2, except C3 makes use of local music styles, dress, art and other indigenous cultural elements. C3 makes a clear distinction between practices that are purely “cultural” and those which are “Islamic.” Islamic forms are rejected. Travis writes, “The aim is to reduce foreignness of the Gospel and the church by contextualizing to biblically permissible cultural forms” (1998:40. C3 believers also identify themselves as “Christians.”
 
C4 congregations are much like C3 but have also adopted biblically permissible Islamic forms and practices (e.g., praying prostrate, perhaps toward Jerusalem; washing before prayer and before touching the Bible; abstaining from pork, alcohol, or from keeping dogs as pets; using some Islamic terms; wearing some clothing popular among Muslims). To distance themselves from the negative baggage and misperceptions Muslims have about “Christianity,” C4 believers do not call themselves “Christians” but “followers of Isa (Jesus).” However, the Muslim community does not generally regard C4 believers as fellow Muslims. From a Muslim’s perspective, “If they were Muslims, they wouldn’t hesitate to call themselves Muslims. And we’d see them at the mosque on Fridays as well!”

C5 is much like C4 with the primary difference being self-identity. Whereas C4 believers identify themselves as “followers of Isa,” C5 believers identify themselves as “Muslim followers of Jesus”—much like Messianic Jews calling themselves “Jewish followers of Jesus.” Islamic theology incompatible with the Bible is rejected. Some C5 believers remain in the Muslim community for as long as they can to “win Muslims as Muslims” (1 Cor. 9:19–23). In time, however, their deviance from mainstream Islamic theology may lead to their banishment from the Muslim community. But where whole communities of Muslims begin to follow Jesus, the local mosque may transform into a Messianic Mosque for Jesus. Some C5 believers desire to distance themselves from the mosque and Islam, still preferring to maintain their identity as Muslim followers of Jesus. In contrast to C4, Muslims view C5 believers as Muslim, though perhaps “a strange kind of Muslim.” Most Muslims have never met Muslims who “follow Jesus,” so the curiosity that results from their identification often leads to open doors to share their faith in Christ.”

Dear Cathy,

Thanks for sending the extract from Massey’s article.  Hinduism as a civilization, runs on the two lines of ‘religion’ and ‘social’ aspects, has a place definitely for C3 type of people to continue to witness for the Lord.  Considering the waste population no one can claim that only c-5 witnessing alone is enough.  I am not sure whether I have given any definite proposals for the witness of only c-5 in my book.  The very purpose of the book (Living Water….) is not only to point the failures but also suggestion to improve for effective witness for all kinds of Christians.  While giving those suggestions I request both the traditional Christians and new believers to know their own limitation (for the Christians) and advantages (for the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord) and not only to help each other but also to co-operate in a meaningful way to witness for the gospel.  So definitely there is place for ‘peaceful coexistence of believers in their won streams of c-3 to c-5 witness, each one appreciating the other’s ability to reach at least some segment of Indian society’.  At least in our movement we have friendship even with some from c-1 & c-2 who appreciate our efforts, though some times they struggle to understand our situation.

dayanand

@@@

p. ‘…whose first disciples 2000 years ago spread his teachings all over India from Taxila to Mylapore (Chennai).  This faith blended with Indian spirituality and gave birth to the historic bhakti movement in Dakshin Bharat, which later spread all over India.  In the Dakshin, Yeshu is worshipped as Easan.’—Ebe Sunder Raj, Satguru Aradhana, Worship of Masih and practice of his teachings in Indian culture, Chennai, South Asian Resources, 2005, (page number as in the original manuscript)p.3

Adding to the myth of Thomas, this claim that Christian faith gave birth to the bhakti movements in South India, reflects the Christian arrogancy, that too not coming out of serious research and scholarship, but out of inferiority complex, as their faith failed to produce any such bhakti movement among the Christians or able to win the followers of those bhakti movement to their religion.  Leave the scholars, even an average Hindu will laugh at such theories.  However, people those who cling to such view vainly trying to gain some point over Hindu tradition will continue to entertain such theories.  The best way to answer is to ignore them, as their theory is neither going to help Christians or new converts or challenge Hindus.–db

‘Respected scholars are still researching as to whether the Adhamic faith started from India and went to the Middle East or started from Middle East and came to India.  The Abiramic-Sumerian-Indus link in ancient civilizations goes back to 5000 years.  The linguistic link of these cultures is indicative of their relations from Adham (Adhan-Sivan)2 to Cayeen to Ur of Abiram to Abba.—Chapter 3, p.3              `

2. DrDevivanayagam—Dravida Samayam—Meyporul Pub-Chennai.

So, Adam as the Tamilian again gains momentum?!?!?!—db

Dear Brother Ebe,

I am finally writing now as I just got a rather distressed email from Dayanand Bharati about aspects of your manuscript. I received a copy of this a few weeks ago asking that I respond about it within a few days and it was not possible for me to do that so I confess I forgot about the request. Now Dayanandji informs me that your manuscript includes some of the (in my opinion) extremely speculative theories that are currently floating in some Christian circles in south India. So I went to your manuscript and found in the intro a reference to serious scholars dealing with the serious question of whether Adhamic faith started in India or in the Middle East. I am afraid I find this quite absurd. I also noticed the reference to the Rig Veda (when Prajapathi (the Lord of all humanity) himself becomes the sacrifice for the sins of the whole humanity as Rig Veda says “Prajapathi Yagn”[1].) I have studied and critiqued this position many times and am sorry to see you writing such things without carefully investigating the facts. Simply read R.V. 10:90 and see for yourself that there is no reference whatsoever to “sacrifice for the sins of the whole humanity.” How can you write this which is simply not true? 

I cannot find in what you sent me but Dayanandji says that in your edited work you refer to St. Thomas Christianity as covering India and causing the birth of bhakti religion in India. There is no serious historian on earth who would defend this idea. The Catholics sponsored a conference in Cochin a few years back to wrestle with the now-accepted historical fact that Namboodhiris only migrated to south India a few centuries after Christ. The R.C. editor of the volume expressed his sadness at the attitude of many Christians in refusing to face facts (some Christians still tried to defend the Thomas-converting-Brahmins theory by saying there were Brahmins in Kerala before the Namboodhiri migration, having infiltrated across from what is now Tamil Nadu).

Serious historians still wonder if it is legitimate to accept that Thomas was in south India; that St. Thomas Christianity was a mighty force in south India is not accepted by anyone with academic credibility. We should not spread the tall tales of wishful thinkers; this is not a service to the Christian community.

I am sorry to write like this but I am afraid I have dealt with these things before and have tried to avoid them as I do not want to be contentious. I appreciate our friendship and hope that will continue, but in light of these ideas influencing your manuscript I must ask that my name never be associated in any way with your work. These are errors that I consider so egregious that I cannot cooperate in any way with the dissemination of these theories.

Again I am very sorry for poor communication, and more sorry that I am writing in this way when I finally do write.

Yours in grace,

Rick Hivner  

Dear Brother Rick

Greetings in our Lord’s name.

Thank you for your very useful corrections/comments.  They are now incorporated in my manuscript.  The more frank comments/ corrections the better for improving the quality of the manuscript. 

As per your request, your  name will not be associated with this writing, though your input, from the beginning of this writing, is deeply appreciated.

Yours in the Lord

Ebe Sunder Raj

36

MARRIAGE OF NEW DISCIPLES 

All cultures consider marriage as the most important event in the life of a person as well as his immediate society – because he is fulfilling his most vital social obligation to perpetuate the community. Marriage is never a private affair – it is a community event bringing two families into relationship, often two villages into relationship and occasionally two kingdoms, as we read in world history and Bible history.

Therefore selection of marriage partner is never to be considered as a personal act. In most traditional societies, the decision of selecting a boy or girl is done collectively. To the extent the immediate relatives are responsible for the on going welfare of the would be couple – to that extent they exercise their care in selection of the boy/girl. While gross misuse of this right has happened  often in the past, still the primary purpose is the welfare of the society,  of which the person is a part. The perversion that “the making and breaking of my marriage is totally my private matter” is of very recent origin.

When a young man becomes a disciple of Masih [This word, though a Hindu convert will understand, yet it is still a Hindi version of Messiah.  If possible use some Indian term–db] he is in a crisis when it comes to his marriage. His family expects him to marry in his caste or relatives. They do not mind if the girl is a Margi (christian). But the “girl must know how to cook our food, how to manage our house, sing our songs to the baby, speak to us in our language, show respect to our elders, dress like our women do, etc”. All these are very legitimate expectations to perpetuate one’s culture. [Excellent Annan-db]

The question here is not primarily of faith but of culture. It is wise to allow the new disciple to marry from his own culture (even if it is not necessarily from his own caste / tribe).

The emphasis here is not to promote or perpetuate the negative aspects of tribal or caste or class-consciousness. The emphasis is on the positive aspects of culture in marriage. If one is not marrying a girl from own relatives / tribe / caste he can still marry a girl from his culture.

While disciples of Masih can and must show their universal brotherhood by a few marital relationships (among very mature leaders for noble reasons) across cultures, it is anthropologically proven that abrupt discontinuities in cultural roots because of marriage can and do lead to many disasters including one’s faith. The very high percentage of problem couples, among widely cross-cultural marriages is evidence of this fact.

Therefore when a young man comes to faith from a culture or community in

which he is unable to find a believing girl  at all and if his family members are insistent on his marriage only to a girl from among them, it is wise to allow him the liberty to marry a girl from his cultural or ethnic fold, even if she is not a disciple yet.[What an encouraging word.  Will the evangelicals listen!—db] In such a case the girl must be brought under  siksha (teaching) by an elder for a period before marriage. As much as possible the girl must be given diksha before the marriage. If that becomes impossible because of her family reasons she must be given diksha immediately after marriage. This is not ideal but this is in most cases the best possible solution – than forcing him to marry a Christian girl of widely different culture / tribe / class / caste.

–[This won’t happen so easily in a Hindu family.  When Mani (name changed) had to marry Malika (name changed) as per the demand of his family and a strict community, his would-be father-in-law, who knows his faith, insisted that he should not impose his personal faith on his daughter, even after the marriage.  But after three years of marriage, now Malika too worships the Lord and this created lots of problem in their families (both to his parents and in-laws.)  Malika is not yet baptized but is growing in her faith along with her husband, and they are bringing up their daughter as a Hindu bhakta of bhagavan Muktinath (Jesus).  So instead of giving training to the girl before marriage, the boy must be trained not to irritate her before or immediately after marriage by pushing his  ‘agenda’ of conversion (this is how it is viewed by most Hindus) on his wife; rather he should teach her patiently both by words and life.  Yad Ram’s wife received deeksha from me after seven years of their marriage.  Priya (wife of late Prasad, who received deeksha from me in front of his parents and rest of the family members), began to worship the Lord along with him after five years of their marriage.  Now, even after his departure, she clings to the Lord for strength.  By insisting to give teaching before the marriage and deeksha immediately after the marriage, Hindus (maybe even that girl too) will view this as a part of Church programme to convert Hindus.  Above all, what about her right as an individual to decide about following a particular (religious) spiritual life?  Why she is forced to accept this as a condition, as part of her marriage (along with dowry, on which the boy’s family is not going to compromise)?  If we do proper research we can also see that those girls or boys who were baptized and ‘converted’ for the sake of marriage will became a snare for the spiritual growth of the bhakta in the family.  Even after the marriage, the wife of that boy is still the daughter of her parents, and every Hindu is involved in the life of their married daughter till the end of their and even her life, as her brothers will carry that on after the parents are gone.  Just because of marriage she does not become an exclusive property of the husband alone, but her relationships with her natal family continues.  So if we push such a condition, we may win a proselyte but could also close the entire family of that girl to listen the gospel.  Whereas in the case of Priya, her entire family from her mother’s side came for meetings, and they listen to me when I share with them.  This is possible because Prasad never arranged any pre-marital teaching class or insisted on deeksha after his marriage.  Now she keeps a big photo of Jesus in her room, where her mother too stays with her to look after the new (pre-mature) born baby.  This is possible because of the way we trained Prasad to impart his faith gradually.–db]

The moment such forced cross-cultural marriage happens he is cut off by his family and from his community and culture. Secondly, his wife as the only person who is expected to be his support as well as the culture bearer of the family is from widely different roots. Therefore often such marriage gets into serious problems and the spouses lack the social support they need to withstand the strains. In numerous cases the man backslides into ethical, spiritual or emotional problems. There are some glorious exceptions to this but they are exceptions. The command in Timothy “not to be yoked with unbelievers[1][1] relates to those situations where believer boys and girls are available within a community or culture. [As per my studies on this verse, the context is not marriage, though one could read that into it if she wishes.  Not yoked with unbelievers covers every area, and by selecting it only for marriage we terrorize a new bhakta and in time create a guilty conscience and legitimize  fellowship with unbelievers in other vital areas of life.  Could a believer be yoked with unbelievers as business partner, where his partner uses all kinds of unethical practices to earn money, from which the believer too will receive his share to run his life?  See Living Water and Indian Bowl—db]

The above issue is much more pronounced when it comes to a girl who becomes a disciple of Masih. It is most ideal for her, to get married to a disciple within her culture, clan or caste. If believing boys are not available at all, within the above (which is true in many case because in every believing congregation there are more marriageable girls than boys) and if the girl is placed in a social circumstance where it is impossible for her to remain single and if her orthodox parents are keen to marry her to a boy of their own culture / clan / caste the boy should be brought before marriage under siksha either personally by a Mukya or impersonally through Bible correspondence  course or internet study. If he is a sincere soul he will agree to do this. Who will refuse to learn about the Sat Guru?

–[In a male dominated society, insisting that the boy should undergo such study is impossible. Those who do it just for the sake of marriage can create more problems for the girl after the marriage.  Savita in C….. in North India faces lots of problem.  Her husband, accepting her faith, married her because of her money.  Now she faces problems as her husband and in-laws put many conditions on her worship to the Lord.  Spirituality needs to blossom naturally like a flower, and should not be ripped by applying some chemicals as they do for mango in Tamilnadu —db]

 Through this study he may become a disciple and may receive Diksha before marriage. Or  he must atleast become a seeker who will continue his spiritual pursuit beyond his marriage and must agree not to hinder in any way his  future wife from practicing her faith. In such very difficult and rare situations, the girl can marry a non disciple but only on the above conditions.

[This is a logical contradiction.  If we say that the community and cultural values should be respected, then placing such conditions goes against the cultural values of that community and against the Bible as well.  Because here an outside Christian community sets conditions to a Hindu family; how can we expect that it will work?  Here in India the problem is that the church, even a mandali of new bhaktas, is viewed by Hindus (as well as by the Christians) as belonging to the Christian community. No Hindu family puts ‘faith’ as a condition for a marriage.  Instead of making it as a pre-condition for marriage, if the boy or girl is allowed to tell before the marriage about his/her faith, then most of the Hindus have no problem with such faith in the Lord.  Then after the marriage if the believing partner begins to share his/her faith, then it meet no shock or resistance.  But setting pre-conditions based on ‘faith’ won’t help in the long run for the success of a marriage.  Every marriage is a holy marriage as god arranged it from the beginning for all—db]

There are thousands of Bible wielding pastors/preachers who will not give their own sons to such needy girl (who makes great sacrifice to come to the holy faith) because of their own  greed for money, caste, colour, beauty, class, power or status  but still would shout pet Bible verses at her.

In the New Testament history the Margi faith spread naturally from the disciple husband / wife to the unbeliever spouse and so on. Insisting on marriage partners from only among believers (and otherwise destining them to single life) is one sure way to stop natural spreading of the faith among our peoples and cultures.

The strongest argument against this has been that the new disciple of Masih may lose his / her faith by marrying a non-disciple. This is a possibility if the disciple marries a non-believer for carnal or selfish reasons like money, colour, beauty, status, carnal love, job, social mobility, power etc. On the other hand, if this was a contextual and circumstantial necessity there is good possibility of the disciple growing in the faith as well as becoming a witness to his/her own people – which is ultimately what brings honor to our Lord.

Marriage in all cases must be done in Masihi rites [is there any biblical Masihi marriage rite?  For a Hindu family, setting conditions, either for a church wedding or secular wedding, is a shame on the parents.  The marriage of a daughter/son is celebrated with lots of joy (also, most of the time, a burden for the girl’s side) on which most of the Hindus don’t want to compromise.  Though many cannot go for a very grand marriage function, yet they want to do it as per the cultural and religious expectations of their respective community, family tradition and not as per the Christian community.  The so called ‘Mashihi’ marriage rites are not biblical but mostly imported from western (pagan) traditions in the church.  If the Hindu cultural and family traditions are not acceptable, why should the so-called Mashihi traditions be applied?  Rather, those ritual parts of the marriage that are problematic can be negotiated and avoided. The rest of the cultural parts of a Hindu marriage should be allowed.  When Banu (name changed) insisted for a church wedding with Rajan (name changed), though both of them are Brahmin bhaktas, yet her father told me, ‘one can eat food by sitting anywhere, but this doesn’t mean I should sit and eat in the toilet.  As per their faith they can marry in a church, but that would be the end of our relationship because we cannot go to such marriage function’.  It is worthy to note that the objection of Banu’s father was not to any Mashihi marriage rites, but to her daughter marrying as per the culture and traditions of another community. In case of Preeti at B…. her father told me, ‘if she marries in a Church where can I go and hide from my community?’  In India arranging and spending for the marriage is a social responsibility of the parents.  When it is denied to them, then they will face lots of humiliation in their community.  In all these discussions we often think about one individual (the believing boy or girl) at the cost of the entire family, which will be closed for the gospel in such conditions, even though most will accept even such a marriage, if it forced on them, for the sake of their child.–db]or in the rarest cases in secular rites and only on the condition that after marriage the boy (or girl) will be given full freedom to practice his/her faith. Both spouses in all cases must be of exemplary character devoid of all evil habits like drinking, smoking, immorality, dishonesty  etc.  [This is ideal, but not practical.  As I observed, even among the believers, marriage works based on love, respect, commitment, care, give and take, etc., not based on faith.—db]

We must reiterate, we are not discussing here the normal situations but rare exception where the new disciple has no chance of marriage with a believer boy/girl. These are our humble suggestions. We are open for correction by the Holy Spirit and by very senior leaders who are on the field. 

 –If all the above discussion is not for normal situation but only for rare exception, then there are two options left according to me:

 First, let the new ‘converts’ become completely Christian (sociologically) and find a Christian life partner and forget about their natural family.  Initially there will be some bitterness and boycott.  But most Hindu parents have a forgiving spirit and will keep their contact once they see their grandchildren.  Only in a few cases they will reject their children once for all.  But if these suggestions are followed, only considering the married life of the new bhakta and not to reach her/his extended family, still it will create problem. Because the new believer will never be accepted as part of the natural family and community, but only as the wife/husband of their child.  Then in such situation, the new bhakta canot completely be integrated in the entire family of her/his unbelieving (though is not a good term) partner and always be branded as an ‘outsider’.  So I would suggest the new believer to marry within the culture and community.  Of course there will be always some problem for a new bhakta in all through her/his life.  Just by marrying a Christian boy/girl is not going to salve all of them.  But if s/he is allowed to marry within the culture and community, as per the arrangement of her/his partents, then she has to fight in her home and not outside.  Everyone can endorse with me that one can fight for her birth right within her home and not outside with the same force and right.  In the case of a Hindu family (unlike that of Muslim) a new bhakta can insist her right to worship a god of her choice (ishtadevata) while following rest of cultural and social tradition of the family.  Of course this is not going to be easy.  But deserting the nature family, she will face other kinds of problem, where she won’t get much help either from her natural family or the new found Christian Community—not a church as a body of Christ, but only another sociological community, where she will be always branded as an outsider.  A HOSTILE HOME IS BETTER THAN A SUSPECTING, OF COURSE FRIENDLY NEIGHBOR.  Here this neighbor is always to every convert is her/his Christian community.  When any argument arises then she will be asked to keep her mouth shut by saying, ‘keep quite.  What do you know about us?  You are an outsider and you don’t understand many a things which is so important to us’.  This can happen in any community and society.  Even when an Indian Christian marries a Western Christian, similarly she too is branded as an outsider to the community and never allowed to be integrated to the natural family and community of the other partner.

When one has every right to fight for her legitimate rights within in a family, she has to wait for their mercy with a neighbor to get any favor.  Human experience always proves that nothing can replace a home in a person’s life.  Finding a legitimate space in a strict society like India is impposible when an outsider tries to find her identity within a particular group.  This also is true within the Church communities in India.  Though few converts managed to get their space in the church life, yet most of them are merely surviving.  If this being the truth even in a church, how much more it is difficult for a ‘convert’ to find her right place if she is forced to marry in a Christian family.  After all birds of the same fether flock together.

Or, if we insist that marriage within a cultural group is the best option for rare exceptions, then like Elisha let us also say to these Naamans ‘Go in Peace’, and allow them to marry any one according to the demand and expectation of their parents, trusting God that he will take care of them and guide them.  Otherwise in the name of safeguarding the faith of a new convert, if we insist on allowing them to marry someone within their culture with several terms and conditions (as suggested by the author above), then such marriages will become a mess. 

 In such marriages they will have several centers of authority, and in their attempt to please everyone, they will remain faithful neither to God nor to anyone.  Let me explain this.  Suppose if a girl, after becoming a new believer, marries within her culture according to her parents’ expectation, at the same time finding a boy who agrees to the terms and conditions of her mandali elders. After marriage she has to please several centers of authority in her married life.  In the mandali, they will create a guilty conscience—either through messages or prayers or even counsel.  She will feel depressed back at home as her husband, after the early romance of the new marriage dies, begins to exercise his authority.  Meanwhile both her parents and in-laws will have their own share to add her burden.  Particularly in the case of a girl, even if her husband is adjusting, there will be several demands and expectations from her in-laws, particularly mother-in-law to do certain rituals, participating in some ceremonies.  In those areas, even her husband who accepted the mandali’s conditions to marry her (reading the Bible, doing Bible correspondence course, not stopping his wife to keep her faith, etc.), cannot interfere in certain ‘female’ areas in his family, in which only his mother has rights.  Someone from the West won’t understand this.  But most Hindus, particularly coming from the sanatani families, know this very well.  By refusing to do those things, the girl won’t witness for the Lord (by taking a stand) but rather will create lots of problems both for herself, her husband and the entire family.  Even participating in certain functions which are more social and cultural oriented will be questioned by her church authorities.  And not participating in them, she will be threatened by her own social authorities.  Then, in the long (or even short) run, she will become a hypocrite to please all.  This is not only about joint families, either.  Even those who move to live separately often have to go to their birth families to participate in several functions, rituals etc.

When even a mature, born again believer from a third or fourth generation Christian family has to bend and compromise in several areas of life and become untrue to herself/himself, we cannot expect a new believer to become so mature to handle all these tensions with inner courage and true spirit.  Then in this context, remaining single would be less punishment than forcing her into a situation where she has to struggle alone most of the time, in which her mandali—particularly the pastor, neither has time nor interest to be involved in her sociological problems.  As one pastor even said to my friend, ‘it is our duty only to convert, but not arrange marriages for every new convert’; they are more interested in head counting than reaching the whole family for the Lord.

So, without setting many conditions, as Naaman was allowed to go in PEACE, we should trust God and allow the new believer to marry within their own culture.  As my experience shows, the boy or girl can negotiate not to perform certain rituals, about which most of the Hindus never bother, as ritual is not that much important in a marriage, but only following certain cultural norms, family tradition and values.  Rajan, in the above case, told his parents that he won’t do certain rituals and his parents obliged, because they too know that by allowing them to arrange a marriage according to their tradition and social expectation, their son too gave up some of his rights and interest based on his new found faith.  So pushing him too much to accept everything would irritate him.  Most of the educated Hindu parents are happy if  their estranged children accept some minimum cultural and social standards in marriage and are ready to compromise on the ritual part, as ritual is not all important in several Hindu functions, particularly that of marriage.  For example, Ashish a third generation born again Christian wants to marry a Hindu girl.  After initial hesitation and talk, finally both the parents agreed to strike a compromise where respective family traditions and cultural traits will be accommodated to save the face of both their families before their respective community.  This is possible as both of them are good and well educated families.—db.

August 11, 2006, Mathigiri

***

I see the concern of few among the evangelicals, like the author of this book, for the new believers.  Of course it is natural for such people to look into the interest of the new believers and give suggestion to help them to lead a normal married life at the same time to provide opportunity to grow in their faith in the Lord.  But, while keeping the interest of such new believers, can we forgot other’s fundamental human rights?  When we set so many conditions while arranging a life partner on the one who does not share the same kind of faith in the Lord, are we not violating his/her personal rights over his/her life? It is natural on our part to demand obedience to the Word of God and also count the cost to follow the Lord, but why we expect someone else to pay the cost for it who does not share the kind of conviction?  And, even if we take for granted that a new believer find a partner who agrees all these conditions to marry her/him, but who is going to negotiate with her/his parents who too have a major role in arranging the marriage?

Suppose if we arrange the marriage of a girl who is a new believer with a boy with all mentioned conditions set by the author, then who is going to negotiate for a church marriage with his parents, who, like him does not share in the faith of the girl? Now the girl parents also does not share her faith, can we expect them to talk to the boy’s parents to accept all the conditions of the author (reading the bible etc. plus church wedding).  Which of a Hindu parents of a girl would like to talk to the boy and his family to accept the conditions of their daughter’s church to marry their daughter?  In such scenario, only the pastor of the church or some elders have to negotiate with the boy and his family.  Then how such negotiation would be viewed by the boys’ family?  Suppose if some problem comes in their married life, could the parents of the boy or the boy himself approach the church elders or pastors to interfere? Considering the commitment that such elders have for the converts, where do they have time and resource, as they have their own personal families to look after?  Above all what about the right of the boy’s parent’s to arrange a marriage, even with such a new believer according to their expectation and satisfaction?  So, while taking care of the spiritual interest of the new believer, how many people’s rights are violated            !  We can tell the new believer to deny herself and take the cross and also to love the Lord than her parents.  But how can we expect the boy and his family to do the same for the sake of the girl?  Because the author has concern for the marriage as a social institution and not an individual affairs.  Then putting so many conditions on the one who does not share the same kind of religious/spiritual faith is gross violation of their fundamental rights.

Here I remember one incident that Dr. Hoeffer shared in one of our conferences.  A missionary’s daughter told her parents that she has decided to become a Muslim.  Shocked by her words, her parents pleaded with her not to do such things, as it will affect their reputation back at home, mission and church.  Then the girl said to them, ‘I am not going to become a Muslim.  But think what you try to do to the Hindu boys and girls’. Suppose if this become true and finally as there is no other option, at least to arrange her marriage within the culture and tradition, can we expect that  her parents should talk with another Christian boy and negotiate with him and his parents that not only he should allow her to continue to keep her faith as a Muslim, but he too should read Quran and if possible should become a Muslim, as per the demand of the girls Islam elders demand that she should marry only a Muslim or one who is willing to become Muslim!!!!!

All the discussion in this chapter is one side and centered around the welfare of the new believer.  Nothing wrong in it.  But, in order to provide a reasonably safe married life, if we have to engage with their own people in the same culture and tradition, who, do not share her faith, then this discussion should also include their values.  Setting several pre-marrital conditions on the others, not only ignores their views and values, but also pre-supposes the superiority complex of the evangelicals.  All these conditions arises from the view that we alone hold the truth and others are living in darkness.  Well, this may be right from the particular theological conviction. However, when we are engaging in a dialogue with others, then such an exclusivism won’t work.  And the worst fact is that such a superiority view (demanding the boy/girl should read the bible etc.) will be criticized as religious fundamentalism by our dialogue partners.

***

August 15, 2006, Bangalolre.

dayanand

46

IMAGE WORSHIP                                                                              

Image worship is the crude primitive term to indicate “symbolism”. Symbol can take the shape of any animate or inanimate object, stone image, metal image, wooden image, painting, writing, or relic  that is supposed to have some divine origin or power.

The most distinguishing mark of the Abiramic (Judo, Islamic and Masihi) faiths is the negation of images.  But in fact there is almost no religion or even secular faith (like Communism, Nazism, etc.) without some symbolism. The Churches are no exception. They have, the icons, candles and a hundred other symbols. Symbols are claimed to aid man to visualize the invisible, conceptualize the incomprehensible, understand the abstract and see the celestial through the terrestrial.

Then why the Bible so strongly speaks against images? Were not Moses’ brazen serpent, Aaron’s budding rod, the Arc of the Covenant and the hundreds of temple items in the Old Testament symbols of the real? Yes. But God destroyed (or allowed to be destroyed) all of these, when they stole the place of the real. Among all symbolisms the idol of the human image (anthropornorphism) has the highest chance of replacing the real because it looks very much like the real. This is why God opposes human image most fiercely than any other symbolism. Symbols are meant to aid to conceptualize the real not replace the real.

Secondly, images worship was associated in ancient times in most cases with acts or rituals, which were grossly immoral. The carvings, sculpture, writings or traditions associated with most gods that were represented by the idols bear historic witness to this pornograghy- from Canaan to Corinth to Kajuraho. This was true particularly during the Abrahamic covenant period.  

The Canaanite images and their worshippers were destroyed not because of Hebrew tribal savagery ordained by their Hebrew God but because of the Canaanite perversions of child sacrifice, temple sexual orgy, promiscuity at a level, which will destroy a society. Most of these perverted value systems were intricately associated with the idols those people worshipped. The sthala purana (local legend) records of the images worshipped, sanctioned or even advocated these practices. Thus the religio ethics of each ancient tribe was innately linked with the image they worshipped. Conversely each ancient tribe evolved an image that can divinely sanction the tribe’s immoral value system.

Eventually, the image of a people group symbolized its moral value system. Therefore the prophets of every people or tribe around the globe attacked their own image worship first, in order to attack the wrong value system of their own people. Dayananda Saraswathy in the north and Ramaswamy Periyar in the south are the best example of such prophets in India.  

Thirdly, why the Bible objects vehemently to image worship is that images (for that matter any symbols) do not demand accountability of relationship. The Sat Guru primarily emphasizes direct RELATION SHIP from his devotees with him. The Ten Commandments are just ten demands on relationships (between the disciples and God and his fellowmen).

Revival in any religious pursuit is retreat from symbolism to restoration of relationship between man and God (and man and man). Idol  (symbolism) invariably comes in as a substitute and blocks that relationship.

Basavappa, Guru Nanak, Raidas Kabir, Narayana Guru, Thukaram, Chittars, Jotirao Phule and other prophets made valiant attempts to eradicate idol worship. There are enough verses in the Vedas that advocate avoidance of idol worship.

Herbert Hoefer quotes Rig Veda “Identity with the Supreme is the highest form of worship, meditation is next, hymns and mantras next, the lowest is image worship”  

The God of the Bible was as ruthless with his own devotees as with the outsider whenever his devotees substituted image worship for relationship and tried to escape direct accountability for breach of relationships.

The Bible is a record of human attempts to substitute God with symbols of worship and escape moral accountability in human (and divine) relationships. The anger of God, for such human failure, expressed in the ancient tribal language of the Hebrews is what we read in the coarse passages of the Bible as the “wrath of God”. However, the message is the same and simple “Do not substitute symbols for relationships (with the divine as well as with fellow human)”.

However, the Christians have smartly simplified this message to their great advantage. They have conveniently divided humanity in two camps, as idolaters and believers, ignoring the fact that God is equally displeased with every one who replaces relationship with any  form of rituals whether idol or not.

Should a new disciple of Masih from an orthodox image worshipping family stop his image worship? Yes. However, let him do that in the pace (speed) in which he is filling that space with relationship with the Sat Guru. However his relationship with his family members, his duties and responsibilities to them must remain as warm as before.

Image worship again has a very wide range. At the top are black magic – secret pooja – secret mantras – secret chanting to invoke evil spirit – blood pact – human sacrifice – animal sacrifice- invoking curses on other people etc. Most Hindus and Muslims will fully agree that these are very evil and very dangerous. All people must give these up, not just disciples. Any thing that is secretive is DEMONIC.  God is light, transparent, and absolutely open in all his dealings with men.

The second level is worship of idols, which represent gods in religious history of that faith. Disciples of the Sat Guru should give this up.

The third level is the statues of persons of secular history who were deified in course of time by the admirers who turned worshippers. This includes patriarchs of the people, family ancestors, kings, gurus, prophets, scribes and others. When a person from this context becomes a disciple of Masih, he may take some time to get over this phase in his life. More consideration should be given to the wife of an orthodox Hindu husband. She is expected to handle the rites for the family idols, whether she worships them or not. For an average orthodox Hindu there is hardly any difference between respecting the statue of a great historic person and worshipping it as a divine replica.

[which is the fourth point?—db]

Fifthly saluting or garlanding of statue or picture of great historic persons or ancestors is not idolatry.   However we should not make Puja to them or chant any mantra or prayer to them as they are only images and do not posses any spirit in them.  Such material objects do not play any role of mediation between God and man.  Only The Sat Guru is the mediator between God and man.  Therefore all prayer or petitions by the disciple to God be done only through the mind and spirit and words of mouth.

Let me illustrate why God objects seriously to idolatry. A young army man got married to an affectionate girl who got deeply attached to him.  The young man was suddenly posted to a war front in a distant land and left the dear young wife on a long voyage.  The war raged for months and years and the separation was unbearable for both.  The young husband regularly wrote letters, which the wife read a hundred times and kept them safely in her prayer room.  Then, the young man sent his photograph taken in his uniform in the war front.  The devout wife framed it, kissed it a hundred times daily and kept in her prayer room.

Days passed into months and years.  The wife unable to bear the separation made a statue of her young husband, placed it in her puja room and hugged, kissed and caressed it a hundred times a day.

One day at last the husband returned home very suddenly and surprisingly.  He called from outside the closed door to his wife.  There was no response. She was engrossed inside, hugging, kissing and caressing statue. When he finally entered the house her reception  was rather cold, which made him furious

The husband would not mind his wife kissing his letters, even his photographs.  But no husband will bear his wife hugging, kissing and caressing his statue because it resembles him most and therefore replaced him most.  [This is a good illustration.  But idols in the temple (and also at home), when due rituals are performed to impart ‘prana’, then the actual spirit of the deity dwells in it.  So idol worship is more dangerous than keeping a photo of a dear and near one, as the spirit of the deceased person is not in the photo or picture, and no ritual is performed to it.—db]

Human image of the Divine Spirit does the same.  It duplicates the real so closely and destroys direct relationship between the devotee and Divine Spirit.  That is why God hates images more than any other symbolism.

Secondly [already there are five points; is this second point a new one beginning from the above illustration?—db]images (for that matter any symbol) for worship do not remain just as symbol. The wrong spirits enter every symbol, which is used for worship. The supreme Devine Spirit desires worship which means relationship with the human spirit. Smartly there are wrong spirits who seek worship (that is relationship with the human spirit). The difference is this. The Supreme Divine sprit seeks direct open transparent relationship or worship. The wrong spirits always try to build indirect secret relationship with the humans through an image or symbol whether animate or inanimate object or a script, a secret mantra etc.  These  spirits occupy these images when humans worship these objects. Thus they effectively prevent our building direct relationship with the Supreme Divine Spirit. This is true of all symbols whether used by Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or tribals. Thus symbols instead of being a stepping-stone to build relationship with the supreme divine spirit can actually become greatest obstacle. That’s is why the Sat Guru declared, “God is Spirit. Those who want to relate to him should worship him directly in their spirit and in reality” not through symbols (John 4:24)

While renouncing the images of worship (or any other symbols) be kind, graceful, humble and patient to explain your higher spiritual understanding to your family members. Request them humbly for consent to do so while maintaining warm family relationship. Pray for those family members who do not understand your light or oppose your position. Obediently do all the duties as a good family member except participating in symbol worship because now you have direct relationship with the Supreme Spirit. If your family members are afraid that same harm may happen to you, you may if very necessary for a period have a lamp and the bible or bible verses as your puja room, where you can go and mediate the holy verse. Use some functional substitute for a period to remove the fear of family members. [keeping a separate puja room in the same house is like keeping a separate kitchen.  This will be viewed with much irritation, and will be considered as dividing that family although living under one roof.  So better to take bath, read the Bible, spend time in prayer sitting on the floor even in your own room or common hall.  But don’t create a separate puja room within the same house.  Hindu parents are more sensitive to such issues which are social oriented than ritual oriented.  By separating the puja room you are dividing the family.  If s/he lives in a separate house, then s/he can do it.  Even in joint families where brothers live under one rood, they will have separate kitchens but one common puja room.  Believers can worship separately, but cannot have a separate puja room, unless they move from under the common roof.—db]

There are some reasons why the new disciples are troubled or hesitant or afraid to leave the symbols / images behind. They are our household gods, which our grandfather and grandmother worshiped. They symbolize our family, our village, etc. It is an emotional bond than spiritual bond. The images represent my culture.  Some may be hesitant or afraid thinking of any possible harm (no such harm ever happens. Instead the new disciple will find great release in his spirit).

When the spirit in any of our ancestors leaves we do not keep their bodies any more in our house even though we highly respect them and dearly love them. Instead we burry or cremate or immerse them in water with all due respect. When a person becomes a disciple of the Supreme Spirit the small spirit leaves the image, which he was worshipping earlier. Therefore the disciple should do to the image or symbols what he does to his ancestors when their spirits depart, with the same respect due to an ancestor The alternative is to take the image and leave it at the village temple where it rightly belongs. This applies equally to images of any faith including christian images.

Dear Annan,

Shanti!

Thanks for giving me the privilege of reading the manuscript of your book: Satguru Aradhana.  Due to several other pressing works I couldn’t read it.  However I complete the reading and the following are some of my responses.  However, one of the reason for me not to read the manuscript is your reference of Dr. Daivanayagam on the first chapter itself.  When I read, then I kept the manuscript aside by thinking, ‘what is the use of reading the rest of the book, if the author is accepting such views presented by people like Dr. Daivanayagam.’

The main reason for saying is that, if someone like me, after seeing such points on the first page of your book, might even keep the book away and will miss the important contribution that you are giving to the Kingdom of God.  Thanks for calling me yesterday and your words and taking scholarship seriously encouraged me to read rest of the manuscript and I completed it this morning and learnt many valuable things.  Thanks for your suggestion to encourage a new bhakta to be rooted in her family, community and culture.

Commetns:

Page 3. Guru:.  …Literally, `guru’ means `weighty’, `heavy’…– Julius Lipner, HINDUS Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Routledge, London 1994. p.190

…The word Guru (Preceptor) signifies a person who wards off bad qualities.— — ANCIENT INDIAN TRADITION & MYTHOLOGY; Translated by A board of Scholars, Edited by Prof. J.L.Shastri, Delhi; Mothilal Banarsidass Pub. Pvt. Ltd. (1970), 2002, The Siva Purana Four Volumes,. Vidyesvarasamhitaa, 18:83, p.125

Chapter 4

General Revelation to all humans:  Though we can use the word ‘revelation’, here, yet it is more a witness of god’s revelation in the mind and spitir of people.  Direct revelation from god should be separated from the witness to that revelation in creation, in scripture etc.–db

Page. 5 &18   If Adham (in Tamil Adhan) is the father of all of us…..—Do you still want to insist on this Tamil connection with biblical terms?  As the book will have wider reading outside Tamilnadu also, it is better to remove such ethnocentric terms.–db

Avadoots—are unconventional, non-traditional and wild ascetic, mostly performing left hand practicers known as vaampanthis.  They never live in society and most of the time alone in wild forest and in cremation ground.  Though Hindus have some respect, yet it is more based on fear than devotion.  It is better use some other term for Apostles:  acharya, Pradam Shishyas etc.–db

There are six stages of renunciation in the life of a sannyasin.  These start with Kutichak, Bahudak and Hamsa, gradually becoming more and more difficult to follow as one aspires towards the higher stages of Paramahamsa, Turiyatita and Avadhoota….— Sannyasa Darshan, Paramahamsa Niranjanananda, published by Sri Panchdashnamm Paramahamsa Alakh Bara, Deoghar, Bihar, India. p.42

…Avadhoota means one who is immortal (akshara), and who has totally discarded worldly ties….—ibid. p.46

 page. 6.  Prajapathi Yajagn. Your reference from J.Padinjarakara  is very controversial and Rick has exposed all the mistakes and contradiction in his book.  Better you also read Rick’s scholarly paper on Prajapathi before further using it to compare the term for the Lord.  If you want I can send it.–db

Page 9. Lesson 2:  ‘… your group leader must make a serious study of the culture…..’—who should not be an outsider but from the group.  An outsider, however sincere will have some prejudice and reservation towards the local culture and tradition.—db

Page 12.  ‘Most of the above social needs…… social needs as well’.

Every caste group is a part of larger society which shares some common worldview. Like in other social/caste group, even in the so called low caste group the family meets all such needs not any special Institution like church among them.—db

Page 14 Fig. 1:  Better use an all Indian symbol for OM than Tamil one as in your drawing.  Many in North won’t understand this Tamil OM.–db

Page 16:The root word for Bhakti is ‘baj’.

…Bhaj –the root of the word bhakti -carries multiple meanings, including to apportion, to, to share, to bestow, to enjoy, to possess, to experience, to practice, to cultivate, to choose, to serve, to honour, to adore, and to love (Ramanujan 1993, Hymns for the Drowning: Poems for Visnu by Nammalvar, Delhi: Penguin, 03-4 n. 2).  Though translated as “devotion,” bhakti implies a complex and multi-dimensional relationship between human and divine, including adoration but also partaking of every form of love possible between human beings, from parental love to that of lovers. This love is mediated through the body, experienced through the senses, with devotees employing metaphors of sight, sound, taste, smell. and touch….—— North Indian Hindi Devotional Literature, Nancy M. Martin, Rich Freeman, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, p.183

page 21: Pavitra Prasad.—We use milk and banana.  Banana cut in small pieces in milk is served, mostly by woman on the hands of the bhakta, who willtake it in her mouth with much reverence.  Using both hands, keeping the left hand below the right, she will receive bowing her head.  This is the way most of the time prasad is received in Hindu homes.

Page 22: Evah (Avvai). The image about Avvai is completely different from that of Evah.  Avvai is spinster as well.–db

Page 24:  Sindur and potttu.—there is a clear difference between the Sindur used by married woman and pottu used as cosmetic by all.  This also should be mentioned, when recommended any functional substitute.—db

Page 26.  Burial among Aryans:  Un-initiated (before thread ceremony) children, unmarried girls (vergins), sannyasis are buried.  There is no uniformity even in this practice.—db

Page. 27:

II Kings 5:18.  Who does not make mistakes….

But can we say that Naaman has committed some mistake?  Read the study on Naaman by Dr. Hoeffer.

Page 29.  Aarti song.

I composed one Aarati song in Tamil.  I have plenty of bhajans written by me in Tamil music and carnatic music which we use in our mandali.—db

Page 35:’Things have changed….outsiders.’

Beyond ‘protection and provision’, for all kinds of social interaction they not only depend the larger community, but also remain part of it, by imitating several things of the larger commuity.—db

Page 41.  ‘When the Abiramic….separation….’

Is this concept was peculiar only to Abiramic etc. tradition, or can we find similar concept of holiness in other tradition as well.—db

Page 43. …The Abiramic and religious sculpture…. The globe.’

Such universal claim is like the Dravidians claim of their influence all around the world without proper evidence and based on speculation. 

Page 45.

However, when the Israelites…. Learn on god’.

This comparison, though relevant, yet strange as Synagogue were created in diaspora, but not to replace Jerusalem Temple.—db

As god is treated like a King in the Temple and as a guest in home, grand temples were constructed accordingly to serve this purpose.  That is why what are the things done for king in the palace are performed to gods in the temple.

Page. 47. Naming Rites.

As most of the life cycle ceremonies (samskaras) performed at home, in stead of doing the Naming ceremony at the church, better let the Mukya go to the home and perform it there.  This will also give an opportunity for other members in the family who are not bhaktas to witness the occasion, as they won’t come to the church for such functions.—db

Page 54. ‘…In selection of a bride or groom, the Mukyas should play a mojor role….’

However valid this may be, yet this is unbiblical and interference in the family matter.  Parents can consult the Mukhya, but they cannot play any major role in choosing a girl or boy.–db

Page 55. ‘Horoscope will bring in demonic influence’

Horoscope is a blind faith but there is nothing demonic in it.—db

Page 56. ‘…As per the law of the land the Sabha should announce marriage banns thrice before the wedding’.

This means the new believer come under the Christian Personal Law?  What is the need?  Why should they be forced to change their personal law from Hindu to Christian because of their faith in Jesus.  Read ‘Jesus Christ and Hindu Community’ by Hans Staffner.

@@@

Dear Chris,

Thanks for sharing your questions.  My comments are in red color.

db

Dear Swamiji,

First on a note of help for the album lyrics, what is the source of the
words of Dhyana Mulam? Is it known, and if so could you send me book,
chapter and verse?

Sorry Chris.  I got the sloka from Matridham ashram song book but they never gave the reference there. 

But mainly I wanted you to know that I performed my first Indian classical
sitar recital day before yesterday for my guru and advance students and an
audience of about 50 people in San Francisco Bay area.  I performed for 20
minutes with tabla accompaniment as did around 10 other advanced students.

My guru also asked me to sing a bhajan at the beginning of my recital and I
chose one of the bhajans which he had taught me. Earlier in the week I had
sung it for him as a kind of test to see if I was able to perform it well,
and after I sung it he lost control and began to sob  (cry) quietly and had
to leave the lesson.  He went and called the bengali hosts and asked me to
sing it again.  Then when I performed it at the concert, he stood up and
with quite a lot of emotion told the audience, “This man needs your
blessings.” 

The bhajan is about a fallen women who is crying to the Lord to forgive her
sins. It is really very beautiful, and uses words like Prabhu, and also Rab,
but it also once mentions Shyaam in the line “shyaama jhoota nijo” which my
guru doesn’t know what it means when I asked him until I suggested maybe it
meant, “I disregarded or considered Krishna to be false” In fact he doesn’t
know what a lot of these old hindi words from braj bhasha means, but he
feels the meaning of the song is one about God’s forgiving love.  He said,
when  ever I hear this song, I feel like this is the final and last word in
all of music and all of life. I feel like leaving this world.

It really is quite amazing how it has touched his heart so much.  Please
pray for him.  His name  is Partha Chatterjee.

I am beginning to ask myself questions about how this all fits in to my
beliefs about the names of God.  I myself feel every much that I am worship
the God of gods when I sing a song like this, and when I sing Shyaam (I
don’t want to change it to Prabhu or Yeshu or whatever) but to leave it as
it is in the original, certainly for my guru.  But what rules or guidance
from the Holy Spirit should we have in reinterpreting all these names such
as Shyaam which means “dark or black” Is our Lord, the dark one too?

You should understand when the color of the skin is mentioned for Hindu gods, particularly for Krishna as Shyaam it express not the color of that person (and in most cases not even the character of that deity) but it is the intimate way of addressing him.  Even in Tamil bhakti poems, when the devotee (either man or woman) sing in Kanta bhava (considering oneself as the wife) or rati bhava (as the lady love of the Lord) they will address their deity as ‘azhagan’ (beautiful one) ‘ponmeniyan’ (one whose body shines like gold viz. very fair in color) ‘kallan’ (thief, as he has stolen my heart) etc.  In the same way in Brj and Avadi and other North India dialectics, Rama and Krishna is addressed as Shyaam, particularly in Meera’s and other devotional poems, written with Kanta or Rati bhava.  But we need not reinterpret thinking the color of the skin of our Lord Muktinath. 

This is where Indian bhakti traditions brings richness to our devotion.  Because of the reverence of god, the Jewish and Christian tradition kept the god in a distance and never addressed in any other term than Lord, Abba.  But we too can take the spirit from the Hindu tradition and use similar attitude in our worship.  I composed few Tamil poems in which I addressed our Lord as my brother, husband, friend.  I don’t remember it, but in one poem I think I even demanded him to come and serve me as a servant.  Bharatiyar, the famous Tamil poet in one of his poems says that Kannan (Krishna) will do all kinds of menial job like a servant for him (Kannan yen Sevagan (my servant—‘he will listen my words and obey, wash my cloths, sing lullaby to the baby etc. O you should know Tamil to enjoy such songs); Kannan yen Kadalan (my lover).  Like wise in several regional and Hindi poems the childhood lila of Krishna is narrated in such way that it will be very interesting to imagining such bhakti poems on our Lord too.

One of the thoughts that is developing in  my mind regarding the singing of
more and more classical songs that my guru is teaching me, which have Ram’s
name in them, and many other names of Krishna and gopis etc., is that I want
very much to sing these songs with as much devotion and love for the God
above gods as any other song, but that there will always be something more
special to me when I sing a specifically Yeshu bhajan or a bhajan that is
composed by a yeshu bhakta like “jaya deva narahare” that refers
specifically to Christ in the composition.  And I can share with my audience
what that difference is without specifically depreciating the bhajans to Ram
and krishna, but to say that I am a yeshu bhakta and so the following such
and such bhajans has deep meaning for me because ( I am referring to
specific contexts such as temples or recitals for my guru and students but
possibly growing beyond that in future….)

When you perform before the audience they see you as a ‘kalakaar’ (music artist) and they least bother about your personal faith and theology.  So you have to sing their songs as it is both with in the raga and bhakti background.  Suppose if you learnt to sing gazal or kawali, then you have to perform them within that background.  But when you want to use your programme as an opportunity to share about Muktinath, then you can give the reason and background for such bhajans (as you do in general) so that the audience too can participate fully in that music knowing the meaning and context of the song.  But remember your Hindu and other non-Christian audience see you as a music artist and not an evangelist or even a bhakta of Muktinath using your programme to promote your bhakti among them.  Yours is a kind of ministry which helps other Hindus to understand that our Lord Muktinath can be worshipped with in the cultural and bhakti tradition of their own without compromising their faith in him.  You are building the bridge and not planting any church among them.  So without any disturbance in your conscience you should sing both Hindu bhajans with their background and also your bhakti bhajans helping your audience to join you in the same bhakti spirit.

But I would appreciate your thoughts.  Of course there are bhajans my guru
is teaching me which do not mention the name of ram or one of the thousand
names of Krishna, but I find that it is foolish to try to only sing this at
the expense of the others, since the whole genre is immersed in the
assumption that these names are just a few of the thousand names of God
almighty.

You should remember that a Hindu is basically a devotee and not a theologian.  They can easily separate theology even from their bhakti and worship.  So their view about the thousands name of one God should not deter us to use their forms and even names in your bhajan as an artist.  You have a unique seva for the Lord and there is no point of comparing your seva with that of other evangelicals.  Other evangelicals may not understand you and you should be ready for that too.  You are an ARTIST for the public irrespective of your faith and bhakti.  And when you go before your audience you should keep this strongly in mind.  However, when you get the opportunity to show how god’s gift in Hindu culture and religious traditions (like bhakti) can also be used to express one’s faith in Muktinath.  This will help few Hindus who want to worship our Lord but hesitate to go to the church or not interested in the western form of Christian’s worship.  But if you go before your Hindu audience as an evangelical disguised as an artist, still they won’t mind as long as they enjoy your music, but you won’t do your performance with real inner freedom.  No doubt that through your performance you are worshipping the Lord.  But your audience expectation is different.  When you invite them, you never call them for an evangelical meeting to hear the gospel through bhajans.  But you invite them for a music feast in which you share your personal experience and bhakti journey to worship your Lord through Indian music and bhajans.  I hope I make my mind clear to you.  Your are not using your audience for evangelical propaganda but you are inviting them to worship god even through the name of Muktinath using your gift to worship him through your music.  That’s is the way they are going to come and will leave after your programme.  As a musician and artist you are building the bridge for Hindus to see the other forms of faith expression.  Particularly referring to specific contexts such as temples or recitals for your guru and students, you have to keep this in mind.  Hope I communicated my mind properly.

How can we understand the truth of One God with many names as opposed to
many Gods with many names and not compromise the name of Jesus? Is it even
possible? Biblically how important is the name Jesus or any of its
derivative translations around the world, yeshu, isa, etc.

The evangelical tradition has done sever damage to the theology.  They not only selectively interpreted the biblical passages, but created their own theology which goes even beyond the biblical understanding of god.  I think I have to share one chapter: Why only Jesus from my next book ‘Living Dialogues’.  As this is still in manuscript level, you can read but should not share with others, because I will make changes after Rick read and give his comments.  You too can give your comments.  That chapter might give some answer to your questions on Name of gods and particularly ‘no other name except Jesus’.

In case you are wondering, I am not planning to sing any other bhajan
besides this one my guru taught me for the moment, but I want to start
thinking about the implications and the theology of it.  But I do want to
include this bhajan which he taught me on the next to next CD.  So I have
year or more to think and pray about it.   Your thoughts are always
treasured,

Knowing your personal commitment at the same time your relationship with worldwide evangelicals I will advise you not to include your guruj’s favorite bhajan in any CD.  However I will highly recommend you to produce completely a separate CD in which you sing all kinds of Hindu bhajans with and without their god’s name.  This you can produce as an artist and neither the Hindus nor the Christians (which is doubtful) should blame you for this.  If you wish you can include some of Muktinath’s bhajan in it.  In this way it will be a Music CD with bhakti bhajans by a secular artist who has personal faith of his own choice.

Thanks so much,

Chris
 

@@@

Christ and Indian Tradition Classical Seminar 

Dear all, Many of you may have been aware of the seminar along the lines of Rethinking Forum seminars that took place in Madras on Saturday last week. This is the first time i’m participating in something like this. On the whole, it was a very interesting day. There were all sorts of people that attended the seminar – pastors and Christian leaders in the city, people who were aware of and sympathetic to the Christu Bhakta ‘movement’, folks like me us who are Hindu followers of Christ, some people that are trying to be more contextual in reaching out, and some people from CBSS which is a ministry that is trying to reach Bhramins and run by Sadhu Chellappa, and people that hold that Hinduism is an off-shoot of the early 1st century Thomas Christianity. We started with some bhajans led by Sadhu Chellappa and members of CBSS. Dr. Ebe Sundar Raj did the devotion on unity, and plurality is real and there needs to different approaches, and that we need to give room for the different ways of reaching people and support one another even if we don’t understand fully. Rick presented a talk on Rethinking Christianity in India in which he spoke about contextualization and insider movement, the colonial baggage Christianity in India carries, the need for planting a seed and letting faith in Christ taking root in this culture as opposed to transplanting trees of packaged faith and theology and the like. (Rick, please feel free to add to or amend this bit.) Dr. Herb Hoefer spoke about and facilitated discussions on Rethinking Contextualization in India. How defiant or how accomodating we need to be as different groups that are following Christ in different ways? Is contextualization necessary? Is Yeshu Bhakta movement relevant or required? From what i heard, i did gather that people agreed – at least in theory – that there need to be various methods to make Christ relevant to people. I shared about my journey in Christ thus far and about going back home. Dr. Siromony, a Lutheran pastor, shared about his experiences when working in the midst of the Nair people – the need for sensitivity about the way we take Christ to them, the questions we ask, and so on. Swamiji shared on ‘How Far to God. How Far to Come.’ Where to draw the line was a question that was in a lot of people’s minds. Swamiji will write more about what he spoke on in another email. On the whole, some of the issues/questions that came up were: (as i had mentioned before) Where to draw the line? What is Yeshu Bhakta Movement? What sort of bhajans are sung? What rituals are performed? While the method of reaching is required, people need to be conscientious of not disturbing people in churches. What growth strategy and (in essence) monitoring strategy are in place to check false teachings? That Swamiji should give interviews to students, and people should make themselves available and open for scholars to study and document. To this Rick responded that ‘insider movements’ need to be protected and not exposed like Paul had to protect the Gentile believers from the Jewish believers; and that the past few bad experiences with ‘scholars’ in effect have shut the doors. Surprisingly, while people asked about what the bhakta movement is, nobody really used the Q&A time for getting to know more about what is done and how it is done. However, for people that it really mattered, they spoke and asked their questions during the breaks and after the sessions. I request that those of you on this group that were present there to add to this or amend this. Regards Bhuvana Dear bhaktas of the Lord, As Bhuvana has given a summary of the RF meeting and also listed few question, I already wrote my paper and addressed those questions.  However there are other high lights of the meeting, which I need to present. As I was sitting in the last row, I cannot understand many things what Sadhu Chellappa shared (the mike also created problem).  But he said something like this that they call Brahmin Christians in order to bring to the Church and then abolish caste completely from the Church and Christianity.  He also sang few Tamil songs from old Church Lyrics as if many of us don’t know about it by explaining about them.  He also chanted one Sanskrit verses.  He also gave the statistics of how many Brahmins become Christians through his ministry.  He also talked about ‘Prajapati’ which is his favorite topic and Rick gave some response to him.  He also ‘demanded’ an explanation about ‘Jesu Bhaktas’ and their songs, ritual etc. In his introduction he also said that ‘Brahmins dominates’ every field and they are the custodian of religion.  Seven out of eleven IAS officers are Brahmins and they alone occupy top post in most of the Govt. offices.  And if they are reached, then through them other Hindus could be easily reached. Dr. Devakala, daughter of Dr. Daivanayagam in responding to Rick’s session and his point on St. Thomas, said that both Saivam and Vaishnavism are the two branches of Thomas Christianity and often insisted of many scholar’s approval of it.  But I think none was ready to accept it and after Rick’s session, she distributed her testimony of recovering from chronic cancer and left with her father.  When she was sharing, I couldn’t control my laugh and bowed down not to distract others and continue to laugh. After my sharing, during tae break some ladies from CBSS came to talk and even one among them said, ‘leave them (Christians) what is your response now for us?  We agree with many things you shared’.  Even one of them asked whether I am there at Chennai.  Then I told that they can contact Raman to lean more on what I said.  I cannot come there often as I have to take care of my mother at Gurukulam.  However they can come and visit me there but they should not come as Christians but as Hindus keeping their ‘pottu’ etc.  Then one woman raised about it, I said, ‘if you have removed pottu by saying that it is for the sake of the Lord, then why cannot you give up your “angry; jealousy, quarrel, backbiting” etc. for the sake of the Lord. It is easy to give up ten paisa “pottu” but what our Lord expects is not that.’  Then many of the agreed with me. After my session during question time also I had to confront Sadhu Chellappa and few others.  As they are not much important I leave them here.  However at the end of the meeting, Bhuvana’s ex-pastor and Ajoy along with Rev. Vasanth Albert of Church Growth Research Centre talked with me.  That pastor directly told that our method of ministry is disturbing the church as several Hindu converts are leaving their church and joining us.  But I challenged him to prove this and said, ‘I don’t believe in stealing any sheep.  If any Hindu wants to become Christian I have no problem.  But those who left took their own decision and we never forced them to do. I even said that I can still send my personal mails which I and Bungi exchanged on this issue.  Then I quoted the example of Raman and Bhuvana (Bungi) and said, ‘if they want to leave the Church or the Church threw them out, then what you expected us to do?’  For this he said, ‘When Chris Hale came here, he clearly told that if they meet any Hindu converts, he asks them to leave the Church and join Bhakta’s movement’.  In response I said, ‘that is Christ’s view but we never say like it’.  Then he said that I and Madhu are part of Rethinking Forum and we are supported by the USA World Centre of Missions, I become really upset and called Raman and asked him in front of that Pastor, ‘are you part of RF’ and Raman said, ‘no’.  Then I said that we don’t need money as we never encourage anyone to become Full Time Workers.  Above all bhaktas from our own movement generously contributed for the construction (I even mentioned how each one of them gave) of Gurukulam.  (I am living on the rent which I receive from Mathigiri house and my brother is sending money for my mother’s need. And we never approach any church or mission for our need and we shouldn’t even dare to ask them.)  After listening Bungi’s ex-Pastor said that some one should tell and talk these things with church leaders other wise there will be always misunderstanding.’  For this I said, ‘ula vaaya muudinaalum, oor vaya muuda mudiyadu’ (even if you manage to close the vessel in which rice is boiling we cannot close the mouth of others, viz. no one can stop rumor’) and the only response to them is simply IGNORE them. Then when I directly asked whether he is upset as Bungi left his church, he didn’t say anything, but commented that now church has changed a lot and ready to sit and talk with others about their struggle.  In stead of engaging with them, if we separate converts from the church it will cause trouble to them.  Then he mentioned that Bungi’s decision to leave his church could be related to her marriage issue.  Then Vasant Albert said some thing about it to him and he said, ‘I won’t quote from II. Cor. 6 as you will say that the context is not marriage there.  But let me quote what Paul said about widow’s marriage.  He clearly said that after the death of her husband she should marry only a believer’.  Then Raman asked me give my response and I said, ‘Once a girl is married to another person, now her parents cannot have any authority over them.  So when her husband dies, then she become his widow and she alone can even inherit his property.  Now as an independent person, she has to make her own choice in the Lord.  Above all what Paul said in the Roman socio-culture won’t be applicable to our situation here in India.  In India, widow even returns back to her parents’ home alone’. But when I went to Jaison’s house next day (Feb. 28th) a surprise was waiting for me.  Yes Sri Krishna Mohan of BCSS came to meet me and he reached there even before I could go there (Raman was taking me and I need not say I went late there) and had a nice talk with Rick, Hoefer and Rajesh.  Next half an hour he asked various questions and I can only give the summary here: That evening he will be baptized by Sadhu Chellappa and now he wants to know what to do. But I made it clear to him that I won’t say don’t go or not to take Baptism.  But if he is convinced that ours is the right method then he alone has to decide.  Then he asked how I will give baptism then I explained how I give ‘Guru Deeksha’ by quoting various example of how I gave deeksha to various people.  But I made it clear to him that I never use any uniformity in that and it depends upon the person, place and time.  After listening he said, ‘if this is the way to become bhakta of the Lord then my wife won’t have any objection and even two of my sister will ready to become the bhaktas of the Lord.  He even said to Raman that what if his life would become if he were not attended yesterday’s meeting and also today’s puja.  God in His providence saved him from many things. (Later Raman said this to us on the way back to his home). Then I conducted a puja giving all explanation to the various symbols and the why we use them.  I even said that as a bhakta, he has every right to receive ‘maha prasad’ even without receiving deeksha.  So happily he received the maha-prasad.  Before he left he said that he has not yet decided about evening baptism and he will pray about it, but at the same time he doesn’t want to say lie to BCSS.  And he expressed his desire to come again to the evening puja to be conducted at Bungi’s place. But evening he couldn’t reach in time due to heavy traffic jam but sent one SMS to Raman that he is not going to receive baptism and wants to join bhaktas’ movement.  Similarly Rajesh from Mumbai also very much impressed by our presentation on 27th and our discussion 28th.  He is working for Air India and came to the meeting on the invitation of Ajoy.  Fortunately he was asked by his officers to go to Chennai for four days duty and the dates exactly coincided with the dates of the meeting.  Rajesh wants to join esatsang and once he joins, he can share further about him. After the meeting Two Malayalis from Mumbai (one is working in Bhopal) came and talked with me.  One of them is a director in Bollywood and both requested repeatedly to allow them to Video some of the pujas which I do and also some other sharing so that they can show it to the Hindus to reach them.  But I said that I am bit shy (?!?!?!) person and do not want even anyone to publish my picture of photos in anywhere.  In the past Jamie (who was there also) persuaded me to give a regular T.V. show but most of us are not in favor of it (and Madhu was very critical about it).  So I cannot do it.  Then they said that they won’t use it for any kind of Christian ministry or for other purpose but only show to the Hindus to tell them that there is another way to follow the Lord.  When again I began to give excuses, one of them said (from Bhopal) ‘My wife is an Iyangar from Bangalore and two of her brothers also now follow the Lord. But her parents refuse to listen or accept the Gospel but if they see what you do might influence them.  So you have also some responsibility to reach Hindus.’  In response I said, ‘God will take care of other Hindus and now considering my age and other responsibilities at Gurukulam, I cannot do much’.  For this he said, ‘why don’t think that God alone is arranging this’, I didn’t say much.  Then he said, ‘even if you don’t want to show yourself in any video, let us shoot one of your shishyas doing it all and you can be at the back giving your comments and share’.  Then Jamie was standing there and I asked them to contact him as he has some of my puja videos.  They said that they are already in touch with him. Then I told Jamie that I have done two pujas one at UTC few years before and another one at the 2007 RF meeting held at Bangalore.  He can contact Beeman and Mike and get those videos and they can use them.  And he said that he will do that. That’s all I remember.  But Raman can get one CD from Jaison as he recorded all the sessions on 27th.   Db Gurukulam, March 4, 2010

Hi,

Just keeping everyone clued in on what’s happening post Feb 27th:

Jason, Bhuvana, Madhu and I will be meeting next week to review the feedback and learnings from the meeting on Sat, 27th.

I had a chat with Dr. Ebe S and he has scheduled a meeting with me next week. He was very appreciative (and so were others) of the wide representation of various schools of thought at the seminar. To a great extent, the topic itself attracted a great deal of  interest.

My pastor Jeyakaran has volunteered to be part of my personal discussions with Sadhu Chellapa and some of the pastors in the city. Some who are keen on a email discussion to be opened up to explore/discuss contextualisation efforts and related issues.

Please share thoughts, insights on the way forward. One thought I definitely have is that followers of Christ must have similar forums to come forward and dialogue on critical issues – not something that is very common, as far as I know.

Do let us know your thoughts if / how we could move this forward.

Ajoy

Ajoy,

Thanks for all your efforts to carry out and support the seminar on Saturday.  It certainly seemed that there was a lot of interest in the discussion, but I’m not sure what was accomplished.  Who is asking for this discussion?  Is there an open mind to change and think/act differently?  Or is it just a forum for different sides to air their views in front of others? 

My experience is that discussions don’t change people’s minds; only experiences do.  When people personally experience the struggles of caste converts, they begin to question their old paradigm.  One way that we’ve found is for Jesu Bhaktas to share their life story.  That puts a face and a reality onto the matter.

I’ll be interested in the feedback and evaluation that you carry out.

God bless.

Herb

Thanks Herb.

I’ve had to respond to many discussions across the last week. Some of them came out of questions raised by people ignorant of the Bhakta movement. Others were suspicious. Some were knowledgeable but skeptical of the modus operandi and sustainability. There seems to be a lot of doubt and suspicion afoot. I can understand Swamiji and Madhu not wanting to engage too much. The rest of us, I suspect might need to stay connected, to atleast clear the air and build bridges for the future. Also for the RF to retain a relationship with the church in the city to enable the “rethink” old paradigms.

Just my thoughts. I also hope to personally meet up with Dr. Sunderraj, Sadhu Chellappa, Dr. Devakala, Lawrence Vincent etc – the religious ‘contexualisers’  in the city – and hear them out.

Will revert after hearing from Dr. Ebe as well.

Thanks

Ajoy

Dear Bhaktas

Got snapshots of what transpired at the RF meeting and like to share some thoughts:

The common thread through this RF and other RFs is most often the discussions/debates involve the ‘Hindu-Christ’ bhakti movement practiced by Swamiji’s group. It is usually forgotten that the meeting is about RF and not about Swamiji and his group. Of course given the fact that Swamiji’s group share at these meetings some questions should be directed to them but questions seem to be only about praxis of Swamiji’s group. This can be seen from the questions people had before the conference and after the conference.

Swamiji’s group is only ONE of several possible expressions of Christ bhakti by Hindus and in my opinion RF neither endorses nor opposes any expressions but strives for ‘birthing discipleship to Christ among Hindu communities’. We (Swamiji’s group) come to RF to share our experience as ‘Hindu-Christ’ bhakti. Ideally we should be one among several groups sharing their diverse expressions of ‘Hindu-Christ’ bhakti and hopefully in the future this will become a reality.

I’d like to encourage the attendees to meaningfully engage presentations of Rick, Herb and other RF members and any post-conference discussions should revolve around their papers. I agree with Herb that discussions about ‘Hindu-Christ’ bhakti will get us nowhere and particularly if it is going to be about Swamiji’s group it will fizzle out because Swamiji’s group will not engage in such discussions and directing them to Rick and Herb will also not help because they are not ‘Hindu-Christ’ bhaktas. Once again I reiterate an important fact that should be communicated, is our (Swamiji’s group) approach is not the ONLY way to practice ‘Hindu-Christ’ bhakti.  

Since I know everyone of you personally, I take the liberty to think loudly. I do not know Madhu Balasubramaniam and so I have excluded him from this conversation. Eagerly awaiting your views.

Madhusudhan Rao

Dear Mahdu,

When I first read Ajoy’s mail of meeting with Jason, Bhuvana and Madhu, I was wondering where you have time to go to Chennai to meet them?  Now your mail cleared that doubt.  It is Madhu Balasubramaniam.

Even in the meeting several told that this ‘Jesu Bhaktas’ (not our term but Dr. Hoefer used it) is one of several approaches to reach Hindus.  That is what I too say.  We never impose any uniform principle and approach to all the people—whoever they might be.  But as you rightly said, we are not going to engage with any Christians to explain about us.  Though Sadhu Chellappa demanded an ‘explanation’ about ‘who these Jesu Bhaktas etc.’ personally we don’t feel that we are under any obligation to ‘explain’ about us to any Christians.

In the recent past I told several Christians who have real concern for us, ‘LEAVE US ALONE’.  Even I told Dr. Hoefer on our way back from Jason’s house that I become tired of sharing with Christians in the past 25 years.  I have shared enough and out of my personal experience I know that none of our sharing is going to bring any change in them.  At present my (our) one standing principle is: Let James live peacefully at Jerusalem.  We won’t come and disturb him there. But if Judaizars come and trouble us, then like Paul, we will standup and fight with them.  Here James stands for all the Christians in the Church and Mission.

Regarding the question of ‘sustainability’ of our movement, let us leave to God.  Even if we imagine that soon this Hindu bhaktas of Muktinath will fail and came to an end, I don’t worry about it.  Do you remember one thing I told all of you in our group one time: ‘Even if I alone left to remain as a Hindu and bhakta of the Lord, still I won’t change my principle’.  As I told in Living Water and Indian Bowl, we are in the pioneering process of clearing the field.  Another generation will come to dig and plough.  Next generation after them will come to remove the stones and thorns.  Another generation after them will prepare the filed and one next after them will sow the seed and so on.  But we have to live faithfully to the vision that God has given to us pass it to next generation.  And it is left to them to carry and I need not carry their burden now.

Even if we all will disappear after a generation or two, no problem.  At least we should remain faithful to the God given principle and God in His own time will use this principle and raise some others to carry this vision for Hindus.  So now we should focused to do the seva to all the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord and never to divert and invest our time and energy to convince Christians about us.

The one reason for me to go to RF is Rick. To honor his friendship and his commitment to such principle, I agree to share in such conference.  But the tragedy is that I am surrounded by a lot of non-Indians: Hoefer, Rick, Jason, Jamie etc., which creates some kind of suspension in other Christians mind thinking that I am (we) are receiving money from them for us to do what we are doing.  This Bungi’s pastor directly asked me: ‘I heard that the USA World Centre of Mission is supporting your movement’.  First I thought of challenging him to prove this. But I said ‘no’ and explained how you all in our group alone gave money for Gurukulam.  When he further said that we have to explain this clearly to others.  For this I said, ‘let others talk whatever they want about us (or me).  The best way to respond them is to ignore them. No one can stop all kinds of rumor (ulavaaya mudinalum, ur vaya muda mudiyadu).

When one person, I think he is a Hindu convert said that what all we attempt is one of the several methods.  But I didn’t give any kind of answer to him that time, because the way they want to include our approach as one of the several methods of evangelical agenda, it is better not to give any response to them. Because many evangelicals still think that what we do and live is one of the several methods to ‘reach’ Hindus to bring them to the Church and Christianity.  But when we are not part of their mission, church and Christian communities, what make them to think that we are part of them to reach Hindus to convert them as Christians.  For many evangelicals what we do is an ‘experiment’.  When Rev. Titus (Daya Prakash) told me when I was in Sat-tal ashram that what I am attempting is only an experiment, then I told him, ‘No.  I (we are) are not attempting any experiment but what we do is our real life as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord.  As we live 24 x 7 as Hindu bhaktas and we need not ‘experiment’ anything to achieve some agenda and after that give it up and go back. Other Christians can do such ‘experiments’ in the name of ‘contextualization’, but we cannot do it and we don’t want to do it.  After some ‘experiment’ when they fail, they can go back to their ‘Christian situation’, but we cannot do that.

db

@@@

Christian charity

Dear Sneka

I write this not to criticize you personally but help you to understand certain historical facts in context. Beginning from Gandhi, even before him several Indian political leaders and their children went abroad to do further studies. This continues today irrespective of party affiliation. Even several leading journalist, Corporate heads and children of business people go abroad for higher studies.  The reason is that Indian government binning from Congress Govt. failed to improve the University education in India.  Nehru paid more attention of socialism than overall growth of India.  So targeting simply one political party only exposes our agenda. I know in general the so called minorities in India do not like BJP and its government.  You have every right to do.  But your hate is only one side and you never think about the suffering of other people like Kashmir Pandits who were driven away from their own home by the same minorities. 

Well coming to the point, in order to show your hate against BJP or Sangh parivar when you prize the Christian service and charity you should be very careful.  In general the so called Christian service and charity has only three aims: either to convert or to the convert or for commercialization.  Of course several sincere and committed missionaries started several medical and educational institutions only to help and serve the poor but soon they all become commercial enterprise forgetting their goal of the founders.  About this Dr Paul Sudhakar says:

               Hospitals, schools, and orphanages as institutions of service in Christ’s name were begun during the colonial era and these were also centres of Christian propaganda. It was only later that these institutions were seen as Christian expressions of love and compassion for all humans.— Wilhelmina Sudhakar, Chosen to Serve: The Life and Writings of Paul Sudhakar, 2007, p. 169

And endorsing this Yancey says:

…I have watched good Christian medical agencies in India gradually lose their original mission as they become institutionalized, with buildings and staff to support. The “quality” of their treatment rises, but so does the expense. To make the work more self-supporting, they branch out into techniques that attract patients who can pay.  Meanwhile, the poor and unloved, who can no longer afford the mission hospital, must turn to the government clinic for help.— Dr. Paul Brand and Philip Yancey, In the Likeness of God, The Dr. Paul Brand Tribute Edition of Fearfully and Wonderfully Made and In His Image, Zondervan, 2004, in, Paul Brand, Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, Skin, Loving, pp. 31-230, p. 163

From time in memory Hindus (Indians) also were doing lots of charity.  There are plenty of epigraphic and other evidences for this. Even now they are doing it a lot without promoting it their religious agenda like Christians.  Finally, when you  give hundred rupees for any charity only ten rupees reach the target people and rest are spent for infra structure.  Let me give only example from my own life. When I was in Madhubani in North Bihar a severe earth quack hit the area and immediately the Word Vision step in to do some work there. They sought our help for this and I organized several local volunteers to take survey and distribute help to the affected people.  But the main two World Vision people who supervised our work refuse to stay with us in the affected village as it is not comfortable for them and instead preferred to stay at Patna which was more than 150 kms away from the affected area. They stayed in star hotel with AC and came to see the work in taxi by paying, whereas all the volunteers who were Hindu college students stayed in the village with me and served the people  I don’t want to multiple this examples. Of course this happens in every kind of charity work.  That is why it is well said that,’ throwing a bone to the dog is not charity but sharing in the same bone when you are as hungry as dog.

Hope this will help you to understand the message in context.

@@@

Question : Is it not a deception not to call your self as a ‘Christian’, once you believe in Jesus Christ?

Answer : Any thing and everything can be called deception if it is not understood or wrongly interpreted.

Q: What is there to understand or to interpret.  It is plain before your eyes.  Once you decided to follow Jesus Christ, you become a Christian.

A: But who to decide this?  One who decides to follow or others?

Q: Both.  Because our identity is what is recognized by the Society as well our own choice.  The Society recognizes that any follower of Christ is a Christian.  When we volunteerly chose to follow Him, then we too become Christians.

A: But where is the choice for the individual to decided whether he/she would prefer to call himself/herself a Christian or not.  It is either imposed by others or he/she is compelled to call himself/herself as such.  That is why I say it depends upon how we understand and interpret a fact.

Q: Nothing is imposed on him/her.  As he/she decided to follow Christ, naturally he/she get the recognizition whether he/she like it or not; accept it or not.  It is just for the sake of argument or to impose your own new ideas that you twice and turn the fact and confuse everyone, including your self.

A: Those who are not ready to accept the Truth as it is or who do not want to think and understand the fact can call my point of view as Confusion or mere argument.  But those who want a genuine dialogue to know the truth, will first remove their prejudice and to know the truth as it is.  Apart from it when one feels that his/her security and identity is threatened and is at stake, they simply blame others and refuse to listen even a genuine grivences and simply pass judgement.  Then it is difficult to talk with them and there is no point in involving a dialogue with such people.  But we are not worried about them.  As our Hinduism gives us the freedom to remain as a Hindu and become a bhakta of Christ, we least bother about what others think about us.  Of course our task become more difficult as both Christians and our own people are refuse to listen and understand us.

B:  That is why I call it as a deception.  You yourself say that you are not accepted both by the Christian or Hindu.  This is a proof that your policy or principle is neither genuine nor acceptable to anyone.  Forget us Christians, if your point is correct, at least your own people should recognize that a follower of Christ is not a Christian.

A: Any historical mistake done by several people over long period (for several centuries) cannot be corrected overnight.  What I say and believe won’t be recognized or understood or accepted within my generation.  It will take several centuries to get such recogniziton.  But somewhere, some one has to begin without minding the immediate consequences.  That is why not minding being misunderstood or even rejected by both Hindus and Christians we press forward on this principle which we feel is right.

Q: So you say that all that is history and all the several billions of Christians are wrong and you alone are right.

A: It is not the question of who is right or who is wrong.  As I already pointed out, in a dialogue you cannot pass any judgement even before listening the opponents’ view.  Even for the sake of argument, just because several billion people are saying one thing uniformally a wrong will never become right.  Several historical facts are proved wrong and latter people have to accept the fact and change their view.  So to give answer in your own tone and tune:  Yes all the several billion Christians are wrong to call themselves as Christians.

Q: OK Sir, the Upholder of Truth, please correct the historical wrong and enlighten all these billion people.  Why it is wrong to call ourselves as Christians?

A:  It is not my responsibility to correct a historical wrong.  What I try to attempt is to make a new history.  I am not denying the Christians right to call themselves as Christians if they feel that is convenient to them.  But when we Hindu Christi bhaktas do not want to call ourselves as Christians, then you have no right to call it as a deception.  It is our birth right, as it is your birth right to call yourselves as you like.  Please tell me who is a Christian first?

Q: Any follower of the Lord Jesus Christ is a Christian.

A:  What does it mean to be a follower.

Q:  Accepting the values, teachings and demand by Jesus in his/her personal life is a follower.

A: In that case can we say that a small child who cannot understand the values and teachings of Jesus Christ will be still called a Christian.

Q: Of course.  As the child is the child of a Christian parents, naturally he/she too will be a Christian as he/she will be provided both an opportunity and atmosphere by the parents and the church to learn and follow the Values of the Lord in his/her life.

A: Fine.  I agree to this point.  Then what about those who never born to a Christian parents but want to follow the Lord?  How come they too become Christian.

Q: That is what I am saying from the beginning.  Once the Society gives recognizition they too automatically become Christians.

A: Which society?

Q: Both the Christian and your own Hindu Society.

A: What if I or we few bhaktas of Christ want to remain as Hindus do not want to call ourselves as Christians?

Q: That is what I call it as a deception.

A: If this is deception, then Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself first, then His immediate bhaktas and even Paul followed the same deception.  So there is no wrong to stick to that deception.

Q: Why you drag the Lord or the Early Christians to cover up your personal deception.

A: Because a follower has to follow what was taught to him/her by the Lord and His disciples.

Q: What they taught?  To remain as Hindus or Pagans but follow the Lord.

A: Yes.  That is what the Lord and His disciples taught to the early bhaktas of Christ.  Our Lord said, ‘make disciples for me and not Christians and Paul said: Let each one remain in the status in which God has called him(/her).  This is the point of controversy which was discussed and decided in favour of Paul in first Jerusalem Counsel recorded in Acts 15, which allowed the non-Jews (gentiles) to remain as Non-Jews and follow Jesus Christ whereas allowed the Jews to remain as Jews to follow Him.

Q: Your are quoting those verses which is convenient for you.  But in Acts 13 it is clearly said that for the first time the disciples were called as CHRISTIANS at Antioch.

A: I am not quoting according to my conveninece.  Only you alone are hiding the fact by ignoring the context.  There the Word CHRISTIAN is used not as a recognizition for the followers of Christ, but as a mockery word by others to the followers of the Lord.  Allow me to quote what I have said elsewhere on this topic:

The term ‘Christian’ has at least as complicated a history.  ‘Those who follow Christ are the Christians’ is the general definition given by evangelical Christians.  For this they will quote Acts 11:26.  They want to suggest that there exist no ‘nominal’, ‘traditional’, ‘denominational’, etc., varieties of ‘Christians’,these all being counterfeits.  But everybody knows that this is also an artificial definition.  And even in their evangelism work they will, with much pain and disturbance, explain the difference between ‘nominal Christian’ and ‘TRUE Christian’ and will waste 90% of their time and energy in giving such definitions and descriptions for nominal and born again ‘Christians’ which forced me to write the following lines:

CHRIST-in or CHRISTIANS

Born again Christian/ Brainwashed Christian/ Compound Christian/ Convention Christian/ Christmas Christian/ Care-free Christian/ Converted Christian/ Convicted        Christian/ Dogmatic Christian/ Denominational Christian / By birth Christian/ Marriage         Christian/ Nominal Christian/ New Christian/ Revived Christian/ Rice Christian/ Traditional Christian/ True Christian/ R. C. Christian/ Orthodox Christian/ Protestant       Christian/ Pentecostal Christian/ O Lord! in this World of Christians/ Could you find one True Christian/ Who can claim to be a Real Christ-in!?

But in reality, especially to an average Hindu but even also to most ‘Christians’, a Christian is one who professes the religion called ‘Christianity’ founded by Jesus Christ.  They have two groups (even jatis; note the same word used by Dr. Yesudasan in his book which is quoted above) called Roman Catholic and Protestant, fighting with each other to dismiss the other as not really Christian.  And many never know that only ‘born again believers’ are ‘TRUE Christians’,etc.  A bigger problem, especially for evangelicals, is that the definition of ‘Christian’ as ‘the followers of Christ’ is only a definition based on tradition and is not Biblical, however valuable that definition may be.  A number of points can be made to demonstrate this fact.

Firstly, the word ‘Christian’ is not used by the apostles or by the believers of the early church as we use it today.  Take it for granted that the believers at Antioch were called for the first time as Christians, yet the term was neither accepted nor used by the apostles except in Acts 11:26 and 26:28 and in I Peter 4:16.  In all these places the meaning is not in the sense that we use today, as we shall show later.  Leaving the other apostles,the Apostle John who lived long and was the last one in the apostolic circles to die, who had seen the growth, persecution and rise of a few heresies in the early church, never used the word ‘Christian’ in any of his extant writings.

Secondly, the word ‘Christian’ used at Antioch was not a word of commendation.  It never meant that those believers at Antioch lived a glorious, spiritual, Christ-like life, on seeing which others with much reverence and respect called them as ‘Christians’.  They used the word to identify the believers, perhaps even to mock them (as Brahmins are called Paapan and Muslims as Tulukkan in Tamil (miya in Hindi) in place of the respectful terms ‘Sami’ (Tamil) or ‘Panditji’ (Hindi) for Brahmins and ‘Bhai’ (Tamil) and ‘Mowlviji’ (Hindi) for Muslims.

But let us grant that people at Antioch after seeing the witnessing, spiritual life of the believers were very much impressed and called them as ‘Christians’ in the sense of ‘strict followers of their Lord Jesus Christ’.  In a similar way, if the Hindus and other non-Christians, after seeing a Spirit filled, Christ-like life in us call us ‘Christians’ then we can happily identify ourselves as Christians.  But we all know the popular meaning of the word ‘Christian’ as interpreted by the Hindus (and even by the Christians) so then why should we also accept that demeaning word for our position as those with faith in Christ?

Now let us see what some of the commentaries say about the word ‘Christian’ in each of the three occurrences in the New Testament.  First, Acts 11:26:

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 Pet. 4:16, its only other New Testament uses).  The Christians preferred to use other names for themselves, such as ‘disciples’, ‘saints’ and ‘brothers‘.6 (emphasis added.)

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’.7 

Now on Acts 26:28:

But Agrippa realised what he would be letting himself in for if he gave an affirmative answer to Paul’s question.  If he confessed belief in the prophets, the obvious follow-up would be, ‘Surely then you accept that Jesus is the Messiah?’  On the other hand, to deny that he believed in the prophets would be unthinkable for a loyal Jew.  So he answers: ‘In a short time you think to make me a Christian!’  The reply is light-hearted, but not ironic.  It is Agrippa’s attempt to got out of the logical trap in which he is in danger of being caught.8

So he says, ‘In short, you are trying to persuade me to play the Christian’–for that is the true sense of his words.9

Finally, I Peter. 4:16:

‘Christian’ occurs on only two other occasions in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26 and 26:28.  In both cases it is generally assumed to have been used by others as a term of contempt, but there are two other possible derivations which may have significance.  The Latin suffix ‘ianus‘ may have been added to the Greek word Christ to indicate ‘supporters of’, in the same way that Herod’s followers were called ‘Herodians‘ (Mk. 3:6, etc.)  On the other hand, a Roman custom followed in adoption was that the person adopted into a Roman family took their name with this suffix and used it as his own.  A person adopted into the family of Domitius would call himself Domitianus, and as Antioch was a very Roman city, the Christians there may well have applied the name to themselves as having been adopted into Christ’s family.10

Of course no amount of argument is going to bring an immediate solution to our problem.  Because even our own people (I mean Hindus) after hearing of our convictions about Jesus Christ, even when we say that, ‘We are only Yesu bhaktas and not Christians’, are not ready to buy our theory.  They themselves clearly understand that confessing Christ means one ‘becomes’ a Christian; i.e. changes his religious community whether he is a believer or not or holds church membership or not.

Ours is a struggle for existence.  As we have pointed out, every system started somewhere only in a small level and it took several hundred years to get recognition.  Similarly our claim as ‘Yesu bhaktas and still Hindus’ may take several hundred years to get proper recognition both in India and elsewhere.  Unlike others we have to struggle on both ends – with Christians on one side and Hindus on the other.  Now this struggle becomes yet more complicated because of the fight between the ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘pseudo-secularists’ to achieve their political ends.

But conviction is not a small affair and one has to count the cost that must be paid for it.  And those who want to see the coming of the Kingdom of God (not Christianity as it is understood and interpreted by everyone) among the so-called high caste people in India must accept these challenges with which we have wrestled in the pages of this book.  So learning from their own experiences all the Christ bhaktas in India should persevere with much patience, and accepting all the criticisms from every corner must be prepared to pay the cost for following Jesus as Hindus.

Question: By too many words your were trying to prove how anxious you are to guard your personal security and identity than to accept the will of God for you and other followers of Christ. As you feel that your ‘security and identity is threatened and is at stake,’ (the very words which you against us) by many words you try to defend your position.  You know well that once you call yourself a ‘Christian’ you will loose your personal identity as a Brahmin etc.  As you are very proud of your caste and race prejudice you take those verses from the Bible to preserve your caste pride.  As you are not ready to crucify your carnality, in the name of contextualization etc. you promote new cults within the body of Christ.

A: Christians are the last people in the world to talk about crucifying carnality on the Cross and removing race and caste prejudice from their personal and church life.  Not only the past history but the present reality is that neither the caste nor the race prejudice disappeared from your church and Christian communities.

Q: You try to generalize some problems that are found among some people in some places.  But in principle Bible says that there is ‘neither Jew nor Greek, neither Master nor slave; neither male and nor female but all become one in Christ.’

A: I can quote hundreds of verses from various Hindu Scriptures which promote such Universal Identity of people.  But they remain in theory but in practice like you people we too have our practical problem in these matters.  But the only difference between us (Hindus) and others is that we never make big statements and claims which cannot be achieved.  Those ideals are promoted as good principles to be achieved recognizing the fact that in practice they cannot be strictly implemented.  But you people sitting on Moses thrown always preach to others which you are not ready to practice in your personal life.  And if we began to blame each other on such matters there will be no end to it.  It is neither for security and nor for identity alone we strive to preserve our Hindu identity but it is our birth right.  We don’t need you Christians to point out all those problems which we ourselves are aware and we also know the means by which we have to work out to solve them.  Thank God the Spirit of Christ is helping us in every way to workout our problems in our own way based on the biblical principles than based on your church policies which never agrees with bible in several points.

Q: However you blame us and criticize us, still we love you and consider you as a fellow brother in Christ and a Christian in spirit.

A: We too have the same love and concern for you too.  But unlike you we don’t want to fight over the issues which are secondary and not important for us and God.  Before further proceeding, to give answer to your quote of ‘neither Jew nor Greek,’ etc., again you have conveninetly ignored the context.  If Paul has said as you mean that once we become bhaktas of Christ all the social, racial and even gender differences disappears, in other places he would have never said, ‘slaves remain obedient to your masters, giving specific instruction about the relationship between husband and wife viz., man and woman, not but not least if there were no more Jews or Gentiles, he might not have fought for the rights of the non-Jews to remain as they are while following Christ.  What Paul have done to protect the birth right of the non-Jews, we too do for ourselves.

            Regarding the word ‘Christian in spirit,’ that is what we don’t want to become.  If the word ‘Christian’ is only mean the spirit of Christ that is fine.  But the spirit of Christ (I don’t mean the Holy Spirit) viz., accepting His dharma (rithteousness) is entirely different from ‘Christian’ spirit as it differ from country to country and generation to generation and even between denomination to denomination in your church.

Question: I think you are digressing from the main line of discussion.  We don’t want to hear all your so called philosophical answers or explanation.  Let us go back to the same point with which we started.  If people recognizes and identify you as a Christian, once you follow Christ that is much more important and not your interpretations.

Answer: Thanks for giving my answer in your own words.  That is what we also tell.  What people recognize and identify is the criteria to decide to brand ourselves, at least in India the word ‘Christian’ has several meaning.  Most of the meanings are not agreeing with the biblical principle of having the mind and spirit of Christ to call oneself as a Christian.  On the other hand to say in a over simplified way: ‘Christians are those who are the followers of Christian Religion.  It has two major sects—Catholic and Protestant. Next is that a Christian is a member of any church and born to a Christian parents.  But what I further want to say may hurt you.  But I don’t mean to hurt you or any one.  But as you fixed the understanding and recogniziton of the people as the criteria to brand our identity, you have compeled me to say this:

A Christian is one who eats beef, drinks wine, any boy can marry any girl and finally belongs to the low caste.  In a survey report when a so called high caste man who is following Christ, but refuse to join any church was asked to give the reason for his decision.  And his response was: ‘Christianity is not a Harijan religion, but church is a Harijan church and as they won’t accept us, I don’t want to go there.’

Question:  This shows his caste pride.  As he is not ready to give up his so called high caste identity and mingle with other Christians where all caste identity will disappear, he made such a statement.  But we Christians neither feel or call our Churches as Harijan church.

Answer: This is the millanium joke which Christians always tell.  They say that in conversion caste disappears, but will fight for job reservation based on the caste right. One Nadar Christian told me that ‘why the Church is so much give importance to the dalit issues.  There are non-dalit Christians also are in the church like many of us.  But some main line churches and its leaders are only talking dalit issues as if only dalit Christians alone are there in the church. Forget about this issue, which will never be resolved.  We are talking about common people’s understanding as the criteria here.  So better you dalit and non-dalit Christians first resolve your differences before pointing our caste pride and problem.

Qutesion:  Ok.  Forget our Christian point of view.  What about Hindus.  You yourself told that they too are not ready to accept your claim that you are Hindu and bhakta of Christ.  How you are going to convince them.

Anser:  As Bharatiyar wrote, ‘we have thousands of issues to fight among us, but what a third person has any right to interfere in our matter.  Though brothers fight among themselves, yet they are the children of the same mother.’  Like wise we know that most of our own people have definitely several misunderstanding and genuine doubts about us.  But we will resolve it gradually among us and we don’t need your help.

Question: That much easily you cannot get rid of a common issue which is also affecting us.  Above all we have a common identity as the follower of Christ and so we too have a right to ask your explanation.  As you are trying to create a division in the body of Christ by confusing several Hindu and Muslim converts we have to defend their rights.  Above all taking your arguments as authentic some Hindu Fundamentalists may even talk against us and question our right to convert.  So such a common issue can never be your private issue.               

@@@

The response which I wrote both for Sri. Ebesundarraj and Dr. Hedulund is foolish and full of mistakes.  I would have never written such response if I understood their letter and also the bible properly.  So if anyone read and quote some of my points out of context will misguide others about me.  Yet I typed and recorded it as I wrote to show how immature I was those days.—Db. Gurukulam, March 27, 2010

Church Growth Research Centre.

To                                                                       22/09/1985

The Editor,

I.C.G.Q.

Dear Sister in Christ,

Greetings to you in Jesus’ most Holy Name.

Received I.C.G.Q. Vol. 7, No. 2 of April-June 1985 issue I am receiving the magazine regularly and find it very useful for me in my ministry.  Thanks for your service to the Church Growth in India.

In this issue I read and enjoyed both the articles by Mr. Ebenezer Sunderraj and Dr. Hedlund.  But I want to put forth my humble opinion regarding such articles.  First my question is: what is the main purpose of writing such an article attacking Brahminical caste system?  Do they (both Mr. Sundarraj and Dr. Hedlund) mean to say that the caste system still prevails inside the church (recommendation [e]) ‘hangover of varnashrma inside the church) due to the domination of Brahminic caste system in the society?  Then it is a false excuse.  If they want to eradicate the caste system inside the church they have to straight away point it out on bible basis and have to condemn the Christians and not the outsiders. If the outsiders (say Brahmin or their caste system) is still going to have influence inside the church, then whom to be blamed for it?  So far I am concerned it is unnecessary to argue in such a way, if their main intension is to eradicate caste system inside the church.  Or if they want to say to the outside society that all the reasons for the socio-economic-racial-caste problems are created by the Brahminic caste system, the society is not ready to respond to it.  Because, immediately it will point out the church, which is promising to establish the Kingdom of God here on earth and failed so drastically due to the caste-race clash inside the church along with doctrinal fights. And I wont’ accept the point that ‘the evil is less inside the church than outside’. It is not the question whether it is less or big—it is there in the Church and that is the issue.

Due to the secularization (for which we thank God for the Christian influence and mission activity) the outside society now began to respond to the idea of classless society.  As Bishop Newbigin said, ‘Missionaries in Asia and Africa have been agents of secularization even if they did not realize it’.1

               I can give so many case studies.  Take for example of my own sister, being a Brahmin, she married a non-Brahmin.  My own orthodox parents and elder brother whom considered her as dead one now whole heartedly accepted them.  I can point out so many other case studies.  Whereas inside the church, even in strong Christian districts like Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari, if a boy or girl wants to marry one from the other caste among Christians, they are facing opposition even from the strong evangelical Christians.  There exists association in the name of caste among Christians, viz., ‘CHRISTIAN NADAR ASSOCIATION’.  And even today thousands of Christians both believers and non-believers attach their caste behind their name.

               I am writing this not because I was a Brahmin.  No, because even from my boyhood, I opposed caste system. During 1955, when we moved from Trichy to Vridhachalam in S.A. Dt. (present Cuddalore dist), we lived for nearly fifteen years next to the Harijans (scavengers) and not with Brahmins in Agraharam. When my mother gave birth my last sister (who fortunately passed away after few days of survival) only a Harijan woman came and helped her—even though my parents were and (still) are strong orthodox Brahmins.  And I was the only person who supported my sister’s marriage with a non-Brahmin in my whole family and that time I was not a Christian. I can go on tell so many incidents from my life as well as from my many Brahmins friends.  What I want to say is this: instead of pointing out the outsiders or try to condemn or judge them, let us Christians first realize our mistake and try to repent. Because the outsiders are fast accepting and adjusting themselves according to the circumstances rather than the Christians.

So I won’t accept with the recommendation after conclusion (b) I & iv.

• Church’s preaching/pulpit calendar must allot one Sunday a year as ‘Brotherhood Sunday’ for preaching against Brahminic Caste System in the Church.

(iv)      Christian journalists must write regularly in secular media, against this evil, on sound biblical foundation. All Christian publishers must publish books and booklets on Christian view of Caste for Christian and non-Christian readers.

Rest of them you can try to adopt provided if the Christians are (even the so called saved evangelicals) ready to respond for such call to abolish caste system inside the Church as well as in their personal life?  Here also I doubt about the enforcement of recommendation (b) V.

Appointment of religious staff like pastors, bishop, missionary, etc. and all ecclesiastical leaders like committee members of diocese, synod, federation, etc., must be made conditional on taking a spouse of “lower” caste, on marriage to his child or grand child, whoever is unmarried, after 10 years of his appointment.

If you put forth such conditions, then what about the individual’s freedom to choose his or her own life partner, which most of the youths are doing now days?

The whole world accepts that it is the Brahmins who were reason for caste system in India. While I was sharing the gospel to a Tharu by name Tikman at Gargati village in Harnatant of Bihar, that man said, ‘it is you Brahmins wrote such books like Vedas and Epics and made us slaves and fools.  Now you, the same Brahmin come and tell me to give away my faith on them and to accept Jesus Christ’.  So we need not waste our time and energy from our pulpit or in secular media as per recommendations in (b) I & iv.  The outside world is aware of it and they are heading for a rapid change. Only we Christians, even though know that caste system is unbiblical and are not ready to come out of it.

               Here I would like to give one more recommendation in stead of (b) v.  In stead of recommending, I would rather challenge the church—does she ready to deny membership for those who are very adamant to stick to their caste system?

               Here I challenge, because—few years before the (Hindu) Religious ministry of Tamilnadu made one rule that if anyone wanted to give any donation (say some picture or other materials) they should not inscribe their caste name or those name on whose behalf they donate it to the temple. That time many Hindu deities photos were removed from the Hindu temples (I saw it myself at Tiruvanaikoil and Trichy).  And after I became a Christian, I went to one church in Madurai district (I don’t want to mention the name of the Church and town) during May 1982 and to my surprise I saw fans, tube lights and other things carrying the name of the donor along with THEIR CASTE NAME!—like ‘donated by P.K. Nadar’ etc.  As per Matt. 6:2-4, if they want to have their reward here itself—let them have it, but why the Church allows to inscribe to attach their caste name behind their names?

               So here I recommend as well as challenge: does the church ready to remove—if not those names, at least the caste behind those names?  If you are not ready or dare to do it, please for heaven’s sake don’t criticize or judge the non-Christians.  We don’t have any right to do so.

               Tamilnadu govt. removed caste name in the streets.  No more Thambu Chetty Street, only Thambu Street, praise the Lord.

               Of course we can give some concessions to the new believers as suggested by Mr. Sundar Raj in (d) (even though personally I won’t accept it).  They can be given few years to come out of their racial caste prejudices.  But I will rather urge the Church to focus its attention at least like the Hindus as I mentioned above.

               The tragedy in it is that even in certain Christian magazines (I read one article in a magazine by name IRUMALARGAL—Tamil, during 1883) is strongly support caste system by writing articles even with Biblical basis.

               If we Indian Christians are going to shout at the caste system (inside and) outside Church, what we to say about the racial problem prevails within the Church in the western world?  Here I would like to quote Miss Eugenia Price’s words:

‘I know a Christian businessman who led a Negro Porter to the Lord on a train. But he called me to help him find some Christian homes where the Porter would be welcome. This man’s wife wouldn’t invite here to her house!  (And the good woman was a great thither and a great tract passer, too!!!’.

In his book ‘Christ and Communism’, Dr. Stanly Jones says:

The test of any civilization is its view of man. What does it think of a man apart from race and class and money?  Religion too must pass this test, without subterfuges or attempts to explain away.  He who excuses accuses (p.91)

…..Religion should not make us indifferent to distinctions, but should do away with the distinctions themselves (p.103).

               There are two possible ways to look at human nature. One is to believe that there are permanent differences between man and man, and race and race, and that these differences are in the innate heredity, so that the destiny of a man or of a race is written in the blood system.  On the basis there are certain permanently inferior people, and there are certain permanently superior people.  From this point of view the only way to get a better race is to breed one. Obviously, that will take a long time. (p.157)

               The other way is to look on the differences between man and man as being founded not so much in the innate heredity as in the social heredity. By the social heredity we mean the sum total of influences that play upon the person from without—the climatic, the economic, the social, the political, the moral, and the spiritual. This social heredity is unequal.  Society is organized in favor of some, and against others.  We must equalize the social heredity. That will leave unequal endowments, but the inequalities which come from the unequal social heredities will be done away.  When this is done, we shall discover an amazing sameness in human nature.  We shall discover that many of the things we thought were inherent have come to us through the social heredity. We shall discover that there are no permanently inferior people and there are no permanently superior peoples.  There are undeveloped races, but no permanently superior or inferior.  We of the Anglo-Saxon descent should of all peoples insist, upon this, for of us SERVINUS, a Roman, once said, ‘the stupidest and the ugliest slaves in the market are those from Britain’. (p. 158).

               I asked a Pullman Porter on the train one day what he was reading and he replied, ‘A book on Bahaism’.

               ‘Why are you interested in Bahaism’? I asked.

               ‘Because it teaches me brother-hood’ was the answer.

               ‘But doesn’t Christianity teach you brotherhood?’

               ‘Yes’ he said, very slowly, ‘but not this kind, for this kind transcends race and color’.

               Inwardly I felt staggered as by a blow.  The ‘brotherhood of Christ turned into racialism!  This is what we have reduced it’. (p. 206).

               Many of us are willing as white people to work ‘for’ the people of another race, but not ‘with’ them.  We are willing to be paternal but not fraternal.  For Christian work on that basis satisfies a superiority complex.

               A thoughtful Negro said to me, ‘with very race exception, the white man can no longer teach religion to the Negro race.  They will either get it from their own people, or straight from the N.T. or they will reject it entirely, as many are doing, in favor of Communism.  The white man by his attitudes has eliminated himself as a religious teacher of our race’.

So instead of blaming the outsiders, let us repent first and prove to the world not in words, but by deeds.  For counter argument you may point out the inter caste marriages both inside and outside the church.  I too accept it. But are we ready to face the reality?  A young man or woman is ready to marry someone belongs to some what higher caste than him or her, if not, at least equal to them. Do they ready to marry someone belonged to the lower caste than them?  There may be of course few exception here and there, but I talk about the general. This prevails even inside the church.

               Whereas among the Brahmins now a days inter caste marriage is quite common and they can marry only a non-Brahmin in inter caste marriage whom we all branded lower than us. Even though the Brahmins were the reason for the caste system, now a days they are no more dominating the so called suppressed class people.  In most part of the South India the Harijans are persecuted not by Brahmins, but only by non-Brahmins, who are very adamant in preserving the caste system. We have to also see the fact that ‘The Brahmins’ Association’ was recently started while rest of the caste associations, including our dear Christian Nadar Association are existing from a long time.

               Even among Muslims also prevails the caste system. A Muslim will never give his daughter to a converted Muslim (from a lower caste) whereas he may marry the converted Muslim girls—because she will more be a servant or a concubine than a wife, because he will marry some other girl or already married with one from his original caste as their religious faith permit polygamy.  Are we ready to point it out and write about it in secular media as we intended to do against Brahminic caste system?

               So don’t blame a particular caste or religion for the evil that exist inside the church. The first and foremost hindrance for the conversion is not the caste system but mainly the denominational fight among ourselves.  Because of this Dr. Ambedckar refused to accept Christianity.  We can no more blame Adam for our willful sin.  I know that I am sinner not because Adam did it, but I am still thrive in it.

               If we are going to write through secular media about the evil Brahminic caste system in the Society—they will least bother about it.  It is no new matter for them to hear. Because, say nearly more than fifty years before atheist movements started such propaganda and are still carrying it more successfully than either by the Missionaries or by the Church. The atheist movements were a blessing in disguise for the rapid Church growth in South India.

‘The acceptance of the supremacy of Brahmin is stated as the first of ten marks of a Hindu’—as for as my knowledge goes at present (and even before too) there exist no such condition to become a Hindu. Even if it is there, it will be in writings but not in practice.  Because in Madurai Adeenam (a Hindu Matt) they are converting many R.c. Christians as well nominal Christians as Hindus. A simple ritual is only carried out. The Thambiran (the Guru) will just give him some (holy) ash and will give him a new Hindu name. Then he has to worship the idol there. That is all, he becomes a Hindu. And I do not know whether Dr. Annibesent and some other Europeans, when they became Hindus were forced to accept such supremacy of Brahmins?

               So, if we use secular media and Pulpit to propagate against the evil of Brahminic caste system and varnashramadharma both inside and outside the church, it will give only adversary result. First of all the anti-Christian movements will make use of it a chance to point out not only the caste system in Indian church (rather in South Indian Church) but also about the racial evil that prevails in the western churches, from where, according to them, we imported Christianity to India.  And secondly, by doing so you will simply hurt the feelings of the Brahmins, who now a days are responding to the gospel of Christ more than ever before.  Neither the church nor the society is going to be profited by such propaganda as the Church is very adamant in patronizing the caste system and the society already heard such matters from the atheist movements, but it will create unnecessary problem to the gospel work and we may loose some souls and we will hurt their feelings.

               Let us show to the society the love of Christ, rather than convincing them b y showing the evil of some so called varnashrama, which disappearing fast. If we are going to add fuel and fan the dead fire, I think it is not only unbiblical but un-humanistic as well.

               Sin alone is the stumbling block not a single society to accept Jesus Christ.

Caste and the bible: Dr. Headlund.

First I thank God for such a missionary to our nation. I quite enjoyed his article and it reveals his authority over the issue. God gave me the privilege to attend the Adim Jyothi Seminar held at Ranchi, in 1984.  And I was much blessed by the Seminar and even cleared some of my doubts, personally talking with Dr. Hedlund.  I am not a theologian; still I am at the initial stage in my understanding the bible as well as the Church. So, I would like to clear some of my doubts, which arose after reading Dr. Hedulnd’s article on Caste and the bible. If you find any of arguments unbiblical and illogical please kindly bear with me.

               Few days after my conversion, when I saw the caste problem inside the church, I was not much shocked but wondered. I asked about this to one young missionary of FMPB about this.  He simply said that caste and racial problems will exist as long as human being will exist and the bible also supports caste system. And with all his knowledge in the bible he also pointed out the caste and racial struggle both in O.T. and N.T. church. As I never bothered about such matters even before my conversion, I never took it seriously.  Until yesterday I least bothered about the caste problem inside (South) Indian churches—as I understood that we poor Christians are also human beings. And whenever some of the Christians like atheists, shouted against some other caste or religious people for all our inside problem I really pitied for them. But when I read such an article, that too from our Eby annan (Mr. Sundaraj) and Dr. Hedlund, I was little bit disturbed in my heart.

               Yesterday, after the church service I talked with one family who is the member of the local church (not belong to any denomination but merely a Bible Fellowship Centre, opposite to FMPB property in Gonda).  I deliberately asked his wife several questions regarding the caste problem that too inside the church as well as in their personal life.  She being coming from a Tiwari (Brahmin) family said, we least bother about the caste inside the church and practically there is no such problem exist in our church.  You know Mr. ….Lal he is from a low caste, but as now being a Christian he is our brother in Christ’. Then I deliberately asked her will she give her daughter to a low caste convert and her immediate answer was ‘why not?  If he is a good fellow, have proper income with good character, we least bother about (and not at all) his caste’ and she continued, ‘if we are going to look down some of our brothers and sisters in Christ, because of their old caste background, then we are basically not Christians’.  These words came out not from an evangelical Christian, but from an ordinary church member. Thanks to varnashrama, as it refused to corrupt this North Indian church.

               After writing this response, I sent it to one of my friends, a foreign missionary for his comments, who is serving the Lord in Kanpur since last 35 years. And in his letter he wrote: ‘Fortunately we do not have this problem very much in the city churches of Kanpur’.@  Again thanks to the varnashrama as it is limited its influence only outside the church in North India!

               As I am not convinced by their reply, I asked the same question to my co-worker Edwin, who was born and brought up in Ceylon and came to India just few years before. He said, ‘I know definitely that there exists no such problem among the Christians in Ceylon. Even among the non-Christians there never came caste problem. All used to live together. Of course there is and was ethnic problem which is nothing to do with caste. Even though the caste system is there, we were not fighting over it, but with mutual understanding and respect live together.  And when we came to India, I was much surprised to see people living in the society according to caste (i.e. Harijan colony, Brahmin agraharam and even Christian colonies in Tirunelveli dist) system and even carrying and continuing their struggle inside the church also.  (Here we cannot deny that Ceylonis have their origin only from India i.e. from varnashrama background).

And further to confirm my opinion, when I asked about this to my co-missionary Mr. Jeevadas Peter from Kanyakumari dist, he said, ‘I don’t know much about the caste problem, but I know there still exists caste churches. But we used to go and mingle with them and they used to come to our church. We used to have common communion service along with meals, that too prepared by low caste Christians’.  And when I challenged him about the denial of membership to those who are adamant to add their caste name he said, ‘the Diocese won’t do it. And the caste system is going to be there. But who much bother about it. Let us do our ministry according to the burden and vision which God has given to us. i.e. to save the perishing souls, in stead of wasting our energy, time and money over the unwanted issue of caste system’.

               I am not a church scholar or like Dr. Hedlund an authority over it. But, humbly can I ask you one thing?  If you ask the same questions to the Christians, even those who are not ready to remove caste system, no one will blame the Brahminic caste evil of varnashrama, which is supposed to be the reason for the caste problem inside the church.  And I don’t know, even they are aware of such evils, which we claim is the reason for the problem inside the church. If you go on press them, to my humble opinion, they will show the bible alone for their reason to keep the caste system and not the varnashrama.

               And this is also my humble but not definite opinion that caste problem inside the church is only in South India and not much elsewhere in Indian churches.  If at all there is any problem in any of the other churches (in North India) then we can safely say that some South Indian Christians has penetrated the congregation and contaminated it with his dear pet sin of caste.

               Sorry, I don’t mean to hurt any one. I have high respect and much regard for the Christians in South India. And no doubt in it that it is particularly Tamiladu is considered as the womb of modern missionary movement in India—for which we have to thank God.

               If we are going to say that as the Church does not know the reason for the evil of caste system viz., varnashrama, inside the church, then it is our first and foremost duty to make the church aware of it, in order to eradicate it. Then we have to pity ourselves as I (we) pity the atheist movements. I strongly believe (and all of us too) that negative approach is never going to yield a genuine result. This is based on the bible. Any evil inside the church should be removed only on the basis of the bible. The reason for this evil inside the church is not the varnashrama, but our disobedient heart to the Holy words of God.

               Then I have certain doubts in the bible regarding caste. As already mentioned, I am not a theologian and my bible knowledge is very limited in every sense.  Hence please help me in this regard.

1. Does Jesus Christ a Jew?

If you say yes, then what about Virgin birth?  If you say not, then what is your answer to the verse in Roman 1:13: ‘…who was descended from David according to the flesh’. (RSV).

I understood Jesus Christ not as the promised Messiah of Jews, but the Prajapati of my own Vedas. To me personally He is the Sat Guru, as without Guru we cannot attain salvation, to me He is the Real i.e. Sat Guru, who inherit all the characters of a Sat Guru. And no one on this earth fit for such qualification except Jesus Christ. So, for me He says ‘I am the Guru, the Truth and the Life’.

        I think He never came to fulfill the Laws of Jews (which according to me is a commentary, which was written by a Jewish prophet called Moses by the guidance of the Spirit of God, for the Ten Commandments which were given to the whole human race).  Even though Christ came to fulfill the Law of Jews (Matt. 5:17-18), He abolished…in His flesh the law of commandments and ordinances….’ (Eph. 2:15, RSV) and fulfilled the promise of God given to Abraham (Gen. 12: 3 & 7; 17: 7 & Gal. 3:16) and curse to Eve according to Gen. 3;15, whom virtually were not Jews. I am not hating the Jews. But I need not depend upon their Laws for my salvation and need not understand about their promised Messiah—but I thank God for my Prajapati, as He came to fulfill the Vedic quest, which was fulfilled in Lord Jesus Christ.3

        No more I need to obey the ten Commandments, as my Guru and Lord (John 13:13-14) gave me two new commandments. No more I need to give merely tithe but as my Guru commanded I will give myself totally to follow Him (and of course I give my tithe and more to his ministry).  For me Christianity is not an advanced or reformed form of Judaism. For me Christianity is not a religion and I am a Christian not because I observe all the religious aspects of Christianity, but I am a Christian because my Lord and Guru is Jesus Christ, who is not a Jew.

        Hence as Jesus is not merely a Jewish Messiah, I too need not brand me no more as a Brahmin Christian (there is one Hebrew Christian Association) i.e. I need not add my caste behind my name.  (as for as my knowledge goes I know some Christians from Brahmin background, who never attach their caste name behind them like Rev. Mohan (Bethel, Danish pet), Mr. Samuel Ganesh, Mr. Hamachandran (FMPB), Mr. Ramachandran, Mr. (late) Paul  Kadambavanam and few more. I don’t know about the rest and they may have their title behind their names).  So I think St. Paul, being a Jew, when wrote to the Jews, he claimed Jesus as a Jew in order to win the Jews or to strengthen those Jews whom were already won for Christ. The same Paul when wrote to the gentiles, immediately will say, ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek’.

        What I am going to say further may unbiblical and even may be a foolish argument. But I want to share my doubts and opinion in order to get some clear answers from you.

St. Paul and other Apostles, whom played an important role in the formation of early church, carefully played a dual role on one side preserving their own caste-race-religion and on the other side supporting the gentile Christians opposing Judaism.  So the caste system (or evil) not only existed in the bible, i.e., in the early church but also carefully was patronized by her.

               Even  in the Old Testament, except first few chapters in Genesis (may be 1-11, as Dr. Hedlund says) rest of the Bible clearly talks about the struggle of Israel to maintain its racial supremacy over the other caste and race people, forgetting their call to fulfill God’s master plan for the salvation of men kind (Amos 3:2, RSV).

               As Bishop Newbegin says in his book: Honest Religion for secular man’, ‘…one can almost say that the central stand of O.T, story is the struggle, of the prophet to speak the word of the living God in relation to the secular events of his time and against the religion’ (i.e. his race—caste) of his time’.4

               In his book, ‘Christ and Communism’, Dr. Stanly Jones further acknowledged this fact by commenting about Lk. 4:17-20 & 28-29. (see Ish. 61:1-9_)—‘The Hebrews felt that the new day would bring to them a dictatorship of God’s chosen people, for they were the messianic people. In one breath the prophet says that with the coming of the new day there is to be “release to the captive” (61:1) and in the next breath he says that “strangers” and “aliens” should be captive to the Israelites (61:5) and do their work. In other words, the freedom promised was to be freedom to man as Israelite and not to man as man.  Jesus left that out (Lk. 4:19-20). i.e. Ish. 61:5, for His Kingdom was to be found on the worth of man as man, and not man as a member of a particular race or class…. (Lk. 4:19-20).  To them the words of Grace were the words of race… . Religious fervor was there, but racial egotism was at its heart….that the new Kingdom was going to be for man as man and not man as a member of a special race or class—They listened the truth until it cut across their race and class prejudice, and they closed up….Jesus said to the special messianic race which wanted to be the sole instruments of the coming of the Kingdom, that God was not confined to them and prophets were sent to those outside their race.

               Here my doubt is—does not the bible give room for those who support the caste system with in the church?  As I have already mentioned those who support caste system is doing it on the basis of biblical evidence (like Irumalagarhal, a Lutheran church Tamil magazine).  May be they are misquoting or giving wrong interpretation of the bible events. And it is my humble opinion that these people like (O.T.) Jews and Apostles interpreted ‘conversion as if it was simply a turning towards God for purpose or one’s own private religious life, (with a desire to keep their own caste and racial inner prejudices) instead of seeing conversion as it is in the bible, a turning towards God for the doing of His will in the secular world…. It has interpreted election as if it meant being chosen for special privilege  in relation to God, instead of being chosen for special responsibility, before God for other men’.5

               Now permit me to put forth few incidents from the history of early church recorded in N.T., by the Holy Spirit. I think I need not go to O.T. to prove that bible support caste system, because (a) first I don’t know much about O.T. as I am a N.T. Christian. Even though I read and try to understand O.T. events, still for my daily devotion, meditation and even for my ministry I use only N.T. and never the O.T. (b) Even though for me O.T. is the Word of God, it is still a Jewish religious book which got the highest revelation from God (not the only religion) and failed to fulfill His plan for the salvation of man kind. (c) And as our promised Redeemer came (the Prajapati of our Vedas), the entire human race and particularly Indian people need not the O.T. for their salvation, where as we can use it to understand O.T. time and of course for spiritual message and meditation.  Hence I prefer N.T. for my comments.

               While the Kingdom of god extended among the gentiles, in spite of the Apostles desire—expectation and even to their surprise, purely by the grace of God and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they carefully preserved their caste-race with in ‘their’ church. And at the same time they played their dual role very tactfully by which they have done some drastic mistakes.

Acts. 16:3 (RSV)

Just one chapter before we read the first church council’s decision against which Paul had done as it to Timothy. The same Paul refused to circumcise Titus and never yielded to the Judaizers (Gal. 2:3 5, RSV) Paul need not do it even for Jew’s sake to a Greek Christian. Timothy, will never was and can never become a Jew, because his mother was a Jew. The tragedy in it is that after that they both ‘went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decision which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem’ (Acts. 16:4, RSV).

               Poor Peter, when he refused to dine with the gentile Christians because of the Judaizers, Paul opposed him face to face that too openly before others (Gal. 2:11-14).  Of course as Peter’s act was a stumbling block to others, Paul opposed him. But where has Paul the right to circumcise Timothy that too for the sake of Jews, who was not a Jew and God forbid already was a Christian too.  Of course we can say Paul became a Greek to Greek and a Roman to Roman. But it doesn’t mean that he should circumcise a gentile Christian in order to convince the Jews. If Paul want to convince or rather want to win the winnable—through their means while they are winnable—can permit the Hebrew Christians to carry out their religious practice to their own sons (that too is purely unbiblical) as he himself done according to Act. 21:23-26.

               I don’t know whether I can call it hypocrisy or a mistake or their inner natural desire to keep their own race-system within their church.

               Robert-de-Nobili has done the same, by allowing the Brahmin Christians (his converts) to wear their holy thread and ash and encouraged them to preserve not their culture aspect, but religious and caste aspects. And we know what the result was.

               After I returned from U.B.S. after my three months theological study there (which I discontinued) I lived with my parents. First few days they didn’t started any problem. Gradually my mother began to first command, then request and finally begged me to wear my holy thread (poonal) and ash on my forehead. The reason was that people in the agraharam (we returned back to Trichy during 1971 from Vridhachalam and lived along with the Brahmins in agraharam) began to ask questions about the change they observed in my outward appearance.  (No ahs, no thread, no idol worship, no temple going etc.)  As this bothered my parents much my mother said, as we have to face and live in society, at least for our sake you behave like a Brahmin in your outside appearance and you do what all you want with your Jesus Christ’.  But I never yield to their request and in order to save them from their embracing situation in the society again I come out of my home, leaving them in God’s hand (that time father was 80 years old and mother 60 years).

               If I strictly followed what Paul practiced and not merely preached, still I would have been a Brahmin Christian. But I thank my Lord and my Guru whom alone I have to look.

Acts. 18:18. ‘….at Cenchre-ae he cut hair, for he had a vow’. (RSV).

               I need not much explain over what Paul has done. Here he was neither compelled by the Jews nor by the church but according to his own whim and fancy he fulfilled his old Jewish ritual, even after becoming a Christian.  Here he himself contradicts his own statement ‘…old has passed away, behold, the new has come’.  I don’t know, here, who influenced him to preserve his old dear Jewish religious vow—may be his own desire to keep his race (as the caste now) in his personal life.

               Suppose a Hindu convert come and ask us, that can he fulfill his old vow to a spirit or goddess, which he made while he was a Hindu, that too after reading and understanding what Paul has done here?  I think neither our theology and doctrine, nor even our rational mind will justify Paul’s deed as fulfilling his vow for Yehaveh who Himself is our Lord Jesus Christ.  My answer to that Hindu convert will be that Paul has done a great (rather foolish) mistake, which Holy Spirit carefully preserved as a model for us not to follow him, like David’s sins recorded in O.T.

Acts. 21: 23-26.

               When after become Christian, for the first time I heard one interesting real incident, which even now takes place in Tirunelveili district among Christians. I was not surprised when I heard this, but was much shocked.

               Whenever foundation is laid for a new house, in order to appease the spirits the Hindus used to give animal sacrifice. There our Christians, who remain very loyal to their ancestor’s worship of spirit and religious rituals, are still carrying it out now days too (of course not all).  As they are now Christians, they won’t do it directly, but will give money to the labors who are working in the house construction.  They will happily will buy one chicken and give sacrifice on behalf of the Christian house owner to the spirit.  The labors are very happy as they got one chicken free of cost and the house owner is double time happy as he satisfied the spirit and at the same (tried to) remain loyal to Christian RELIGION.  But of all, devil is very happy as that owner is still under his dominion.

               When I hear this I was very much shocked because being I was a Brahmin I heard how our forefathers used to conduct yagas in which they used to give animal sacrifice. But after, due to the challenge from Buddhism and Jainism, in order to divert and win the public as well as royal patronage, they too become ahimsavathis (followers of non-violence), stopping animal sacrifice and even became vegetarians. I always wondered the ideas and brain of Brahmins, whom like Jews, know ho to survive in the society, adjusting themselves according to the need, at the same time preserving their own position and status. Without loosing their religious prestige and prejudices. That is why, I think both Buddhism and Jainism, which were started against Brahminic domination in the religious and society life were swallowed by them and now became a part of Hinduism.

               So, when we Christians (who are allowing such practices done by the Christians, of course indirectly) criticize varnashram influence inside the church, I wondered. And I hope we won’t at least accuse the Brahminic influence in the animal sacrifice of some of the Christians.

               But when I read Acts 21:23-26, I am not wondered, because our Christians are doing what the bible teaches them or they have biblical support for their activity, unfortunately not in O.T. but in N.T.

               Our Jewish Christians were very clever. They instructed the gentile Christians not to follow any of their old religious practices as well as Jewish religious rituals like circumcision, but they very carefully preserved not only their racial proud, but also religious practice within the church. But (some of) our brothers in South are some what better than Mr. Paul. They only give the expense for the sacrifice, but Paul himself practiced it (21:26).  Whatever may be your interpretation or explanation, this is my understanding that the first century Hebrew Christians tried to keep the Christianity as an advanced or reformed form of Judaism and by this carefully preserved their racial prejudices. We cannot justify their mistakes by saying that they only kept some of their religious rituals and not their caste or racial prejudices. But for the Jews, as I think, religion is their very life around which their every life, including political revolved.  Hence we cannot separate their religion from their racial prejudices.

               I may be wrong in my argument and understanding, and even may be unbiblical due to my limited knowledge of bible as well as the church history. Then kindly bear with me.

               The Jewish Christians and particularly St. Paul & co, strongly condemned (Gal. 1:8) even opposed Judaizers, whom according to them were the stumbling block for the spreading of the gospel among the gentiles. But they failed to see or remove the log in their eye, but condemned about the speck of their brother’s eye (Mat. 7:4-5).

               And this is not only my desire, but also prayer that we too should not fall in to the same trap. Let us follow what the Apostles preached and not what they practiced in their church.  I don’t mean to hurt anyone, but if any of my unhealthy argument hurt anyone of brother’s feeling, it won’t do much harm to him than it does to me.

With much prayers.

Yours in His service,

S. Kumar.

@.Mr. R. Harter, Manage, Bible Book Store, 3/83, Vishnupuri; Box 3, P.O. Nawabganj, Kanpur—208002, India.  7^th October 1985.

Dear Brother S. Kumar,

               Thank you very much for your learned and thorough discussion of the problem of the caste and the Church born out of your experience and background.  Fortunately we do not have this problem very much in the city churches of Kanpur.

               There are ‘two sides of the coin’ working here. The one is that God is no respector of persons and so we ought to be like Hin in that respect. At the same time we choose as our best friends those who have a common background with us and just because peacocks like to keep company with peacocks does not mean that God thinks they are better than sparrows. We may think that peacocks are better than sparrows but that is not the way that god looks at it.

               The early church had the same problem between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The U.S.A. has the same problem between white Christians and black Christians. Although I love our black brethren, I might find it difficult to adapt to a black wife because our cultures would be different. At the same time I would not forbid a white person from marrying a black person.

               I think that the suggestion of the ICGQ to give occasion publicity to brotherhood and integration is a good one but I am inclined to let people make their own decisions about marriages. Ia m also not inclined to give advice to the Christians of south India when I am not infused with their culture.

               Everything else is fine here.

Yours in Christ,

Signed.

We do not propagte religion. We promote righteousness through the Lord Jesus Christ.

‘UNTO THE BUILDING UP OF THE BODY OF CHRIST’. [I still keep the original letter with me.  Db, Gurukulam March 25, 2010]

@@@

Dear Swami Ji,

Thank you so much for your email update, it was good to hear a proper update. I wrote to you right after your accident, but have the feeling that yo never did receive that email, am I correct? We wanted to share your sorrow in the loss of a dear friend and wish you a speedy recovery. We are glad that you are now recovering and will continue to pray for the emotional healing. We sent a card to the family of Prasad, I hope that they received it. We were very distraught when we heard about your accident, and realised also how much we care for you, we are so thankful that you were saved.

We ae doing well, Jenny is growing fast and is an active little girl, she enjoys life to its full! We are also well, this summer we had a lot of rains, so it never became to hot here, which is a relief, also all the forest and hills are green a nd lush so it is beautufull.

I read your articles on the church and agree that we often have a total misconception of the church. It is indeed the body, the people themselves that are the church. However I feel it would be unrealistic to not expect groups of believers with somee of the same expressions of worship not to meet together in bigger groups in a building. It is not always possible to meet in a home. I feel that it is not the church as a building that is the problem in Christianity, it is the attitude of the Christians toward the church. We often look upon the church as the Jews do upon the temple, a place to perform religious duty. If this is our motivation and understanding we have gone straight back into a new form of law. We should look upon the church as a living organism, a place of life always withthe ability to change, to grow and to develop, never getting locked into a  set of regulations which constrict the fellowship and make it exclusive. We, the body of Christ are the church, his spirit is among us whether we gather in a home or a 1000 together in a church, God is not limited to a church building!

Just some thoughts
Greetings form Sindre & family

Dear Ingrid and Sindre and jenny,

Shanti!

Thanks for your prayers.  I received your first mail and Prasad family also received your card.  They are much encouraged to see that many are praying for them. 

Regarding your response to Church, it is not my view, though I agree with most of the points by Wolfgang.  I will send rest of the point bit by bit and you read all of them and then you will understand his view.

I agree with you that church building is not a problem but it is the attitude of the Christians.  However, in certain situation house churches meet the needs of the new bhaktas than a big organized church in a building.

Db

What happen to Dag and his family.  No mail from him?  Are they in the country?

for telling me so much about the meeting at Kodai and how the people were interested in things of the Lord. You have been led into a deep journey with Prasad’s surviving family. God cares about people and leads us to such interrelationships that reach our emotions and soul. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that you need this family as they need you. I pray that your shoulder and knee will be healed in His timing and means.

The ideas about how church became formal meetings in physical buildings is interesting, but I can’t accept all the conclusions. Regular group meetings in buildings or tents designed for worship and fellowship are a natural social phenomenon that traces back to God’s people in Old testament times. Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath to teach. He brought his disciples with him. Jesus went to Jerusalem to the temple on appointed days. I don’t think the locations or buildings were intrinsically “holy” but the people gathered there intending to be together as they shared an encounter with God. It looks to me that cultures have devised different buildings and meeting formats to carry out group worship and teaching and fellowship.  Whether there are unauthentic experiences or controlling leaders in these places, does not invalidate all such gatherings. House churches are just as prone to error and excessive control by self righteous leaders as other forms.  Some of the arguments sound like leftovers from some Home school arguments of the past 30 years. And yet there are a lot of good home schools around, too. Most growing disciples I know are involved in small group activities apart from their weekly large gatherings. The freedom of the Holy Spirit is not tied by the size of the group or the facility.

Maybe my response is not on the mark, but those are some of my thoughts.

from Pennsylvania,

                        Bob

Swamiji,

Here is the link to see all the 15 points and I am pasting all the 15 points below. I personally think that this theses is very revolutionary. Has someone already started nailing them on all church doors?! 😉

Someone from the west thinking on those lines is very very encouraging. I really hope that the christians take these points seriously and work towards a much needed reformation. Only time will tell.

http://www.harvestnet.org/tc/15theses.htm


Thanks Anugrah for sharing all the 15 points by Wolfgang.  Already I have them from the book.  I only send selective points from the book.

Regarding nailing them on the church door, I think no body is going to do.  We bhaktas of the Lord need not take every point anti-churchianity (organized churches).  What we can learn from others mistake is not to repeat them, as they already paid the cost for us.  Above all we have to recognize that Christians in the church need their identity, which they cannot give up that much without facing a crises, particularly in our country.

Db

Chakaravarthy already complained that I am writing too long to comprehend clearly.  So I slowly developing to write precisely, which I hope one day I will achieve.

@@@

Churchless Christianity

This very term look contradictory to me—particularly if it means to us ‘Hindu Christ bhaktas’.  Because We are not Christians by birth, conversion or membership in the church.  At the same time we are not without ‘the church’ as we belong to the body of Christ as well as we related and committed to other (Hindu and other) Christ bhaktas. In fact no Christian who belongs to Christianity can live without ‘any’ (denominational) church (at least in India).  Individual Christians may not attend church services but they depend upon the church not only for their identity but also for survival–I mean for birth, marriage and death they need their church.  So those individual Christians who do not attend regular church services give subscription to have membership in their church.  And some main line church members who think that their church is ‘dead’ and therefore go to charismatic churches, yet hold membership in their respective churches (for the above purpose of hatch, match and dispatch).  So in every sense the term ‘churchless Christianity’ is contradictory and it no way applies to us.

Dayanand, Mathigiri, February 10, 2003.

@@@

Au×s[ B£¬VÚdÏ,                       Kão, BLvh 8, 2002.

YQdLm.

EeL[Õ ‘ùX[¸Lm LXkR Õ\YWm’ TôWôhPjRdLÕ. ùXô[¸LjÕ\®L°u ØLj§ûWûV ¡¯dÏm AúR úSWj§p, AYoLÞdÏ Tôp Ft± Y[odÏm ùXô[¸L NmNô¬LÞdÏ N¬Vô] Y¯ûV Lôh¥]ôp TVàs[RôL CÚdÏm.  Sôàm JÚ NuVô³, B]ôp Gu²Pm Uk§Wm, Rk§Wm, Uôk§ÃLm, _ôRLm, ú_ô³Vm Sô¥YÚTYoL°Pm Sôu ùR°YôLd áßm JÚ Lô¬Vm: BuÁL ùS±Lû[jR®W Ut\Lô¬VeLÞdLôL Õ\®Lû[ SôPô¾oLs GuTúR. CR]ôp ‘Nd§ CpXôR’ NôªVôo G] Guû]lTt± LÚjÕ á±]ôÛm AÕTt± GiQôUp Gu ùLôsûL«p EߧVôL Esú[u.

CÕ CqYôß CÚdL, ‘ùXô[¸L NôªVôoLs’ UhÓm ApXôUp, TX NmNôW ÏÚUôoLÞm, ùRô¯p çVôL, TQm TiQúYiÓm Gu\ JúW ϱdúLôú[ôÓ, UdL°u A±VôûUûV ReLÞdÏ NôRLUôL TVuTÓj§dùLôs¡u\ôoLs.  Ï±lTôL CeÏ RtLôXj§p ªLÜm ©WTXUûPkÕs[ ‘úVôLôN]lT«t£ ûUVeLs’ Tt± ¿eLs UdLû[ GfN¬dL úYiÓm G] úYiÓ¡uú\u.  FÚdÏ Fo ‘Wô_úVôLlT«t£’ Gu\ ùTV¬p ¨XVeLs BWm©dLlhÓs[]. SôsúRôßm ùRôûXLôh£«p úYß CjRûLV ¨Lrf£Lû[d Lôh¥ UdLû[ §ûN§Úlסu\ôoLs.

Sôu á\YÚm LÚjÕ EeLÞdÏm Ht×ûPVRôL CpXôUp CÚdLXôm.  AúRNUVm Gu LÚjúR CߧVô], N¬Vô] Juß G]Üm Sôu Yô§P ®ÚmT ®pûX. Gu LÚjÕ N¬VpX G] Ñh¥dLôhPlThPôp Sôu §Új§dùLôs[Üm RVôWôL CÚd¡uú\u.  TX NUVm Gu²Pm úLhLlTÓm úLs® ‘§Vô]m ùNnYÕ GlT¥’ GuTúR. ùRôûXLôh£ Utßm úVôLôN]l T«t£ ¨ûXVeL°p á\lTÓm Øû\Lû[l ©ut±, A§p TVu ùT\ôUp ÏZlTUûPkRYoLs Aú]Lo.

ϱlTôL TRg£«u úVôLNôv§WjûR BRôWUôLdùLôiÓ T«t£ A°lTRôLd á± UdLû[ §ûN §Úl×TYoLs Aú]Lo. ReLÞdÏm ùR¬k§ÚdÏm G] ¨û]d¡uú\u ‘úVôLôN]m’ Gu\ ùTV¬p A°dLlTÓm TX®RUô] BN]lT«t£Ls Tt± TRgN­«u úVôLNôj§Wj§p GÕÜm á\lTP®pûX. CjRûLV BN]lT«t£Ls RY\ô]ûY G] Sôu á\®pûX. AûYùVpXôm ‘aPúVôLT¬¾©Lô’ Gu\ ©tLôX JÚ è­p LôQlTÓTûY. A§Ûm ϱlTôL TRgN­«u úVôLNôv§Wj§­ÚkÕ £X NUv¡ÚR vúXôLeLû[d á±, AYtßdÏ HúRàm ®VôdVô]m A°jÕ, ©\Ï ARu A¥lTûP«p £X, TX BN]Øû\Lû[dá±, AqYôß JÚ Ï±l©hP LôXm ùNnRôp Cu] Cu] ®Vô§Ls ÏQûUPÙm G]dáßYÕ, TRgN­dÏUhÓUpX ‘§Vô]lT«t£dÏm’ ùNnÙm ÕúWôLUôÏm.

Sôu BN]lT«t£LÞdÏ G§Wô]Y]pX. N¬Vô] Øû\«p úTô§jRôp TX®R BN]lT«t£Ls Sm EPûXÙm, KW[Ü U]ûRÙm N¬VôL T«\f£®dLØ¥Vm GuT§Ûm CÚLÚjÕdÏ CPªpûX. B]ôp TRgN­«u úVôLNôv§Wm JÚ RjÕYm (`h Ro`u G]lTÓm BßYûLVô] Ro`uL°p Juß.  ). GqYôß (AxPôeL úVôLô G]lTÓm) GhÓYûLVô] T«t£LsêXm, Sm BuUôûY (×Ú`ô) ùXô[¡Lj§­ÚkÕ (lÚLo§) ©¬j§ ‘ûLYpVm’ G] TRgN­ á\m JÚYûL Ød§ ¨ûXûV AûPVØ¥Ùm GuTúR TRgN­«u úVôLNôv§W Øû\VôÏm. A§p ØR­p á\lThÓs[, VUô, ¨VUô, lWjVôLôWô G]lTÓm ×X]PdLm, Es[ô], ùY°Vô] £X Lô¬VeLû[ Õ\lTÕ GuTûYÙm ªL ªL Ød¡VUô]ûY. B]ôp AYtû\lTt± Jußm N¬VôL Y­Ùߧdá\ôUp, TRgN­«]ôp á\lTPôR BN]Øû\Lû[UhÓm Øu¨ßj§, AYtû\ ®[d¡dá±, ARtÏ BRôWUôL TRgN­«u úVôLNôv§Wj§­ÚkÕ £X Y¬Lû[ NUv¡Új§p á± UdLû[ §ûN§Úl×YÕ N¬VpX.

Sôu ÁiÓm T¦ÜPu áß¡ú\u Sôu BN]lT«t£LÞdÏ G§Wô]Yu ApX. B]ôp TRgN­«u úVôLNôv§Wj§p á\lThÓs[ ‘§Vô]m’ ‘RôW]m’ ‘NUô§’ GuTûY úYß. AjRûLV §Vô] Øû\ûV N¬Vô] TdÏYUûPkR, GjRûLV ©W§TXû]Ùm, ϱlTôL ùTôÚ[ôRôWçVô] BRôVeLû[Ùm G§oTôodLôR  ÏÚ®PuêXm, ºP]ôL AYWôp HtßdùLôs[lThÓ, AkR ºP²u Rϧ, ÏQSXm, B¡VYtû\ TdÏYlTÓjRlThP ©u LtßdùLôÓdlTÓYRôÏm. B]ôp úVôL§Vô]l T«t£ Gu\ ùTV¬p ®VôTôW çVôL SPdÏm CjRûLV ¨Lr£Ls ©WfNû]LÞdÏ RtLô­LUô] ‘Y¥LôpLû[‘ HtTÓj§jRkRôÛm, AûY ¨Wk§WUô] BuÁL §Vô]jûR RWôÕ. ùXô¸L Õ\®L°PªÚkÕ UdLû[ LôlTôß¡u\ EeLs ØVt£ÙPu BuÁL §Vô]jûR LPj§, ARuêXm TQm TiÔm CkR ùXô[¸L ÏÚUôoL°PªÚkÕm BuÁLjûR LôlTôtßeLs.

Su±.

Swami Dayanand Bharati,

Dear Sir,

The following are some extract from my book ‘Understanding Hinduism’ to be published soon.  This I am sending not to give information to you, as you already knew all about this.  Just to give authentic, scholarly information, I am sending this along with this letter.

                                                NOTES

@@@

The following confrontation with a Hindu convert held at Deepak’s parent’s house on July 7, 1998.

After the opening of Deepak’s Work shop, I retired to my room and was reading the book.  Several people came and went so I remained in my room.  Around 12.30 p.m. Deepak’s father called me to come and see some people who were sitting and talking for a while.  First I thought that they are his relatives or friends.  But after I sat on the sofa, Deepak’s father introduced me by saying, “This is Swamiji and he is travelling all over India and preaching (prachar) about Jesus Christ.  For this I said, “No, I am not preaching about Jesus Christ.  I am a bhakta of the Lord and try to live as His follower.  As spirituality cannot be preached I don’t believe in it”.

            Then one gentlemen from Delhi, who I came to know during our talk a Hindu Convert asked me, “Could you tell me what will happen life after death”.  “That we will know only after death.  But I am more concerned how we are living properly here first’, I responded.

            “Hindus believe in karma.  What will happen to a person who has done bad karma.  Will he reap its consequences or not”, he continued.  “Yes they do believe in karma.  But regarding it there are different schools of thought,” was my answer.

            “No, no.  What I am asking is, suppose if a person has committed murder, then what will happen to him,” was again his question.   “First law will takes its own course.  So he need not wait for another birth to reap its consequences.  Above all I won’t say that  all those people who were killed have done something wrong in their previous birth and that is why in way of reaping that consequences they were killed by him.  Or it is written on his head that he should become a murderer in this life because of his past karma.  As Dr. Radhakrishnan has well said, it is like playing cards.  You have no right to choose the cards, but once they fall on your hand, it is left with you how you play the game.  The same is with karma theory.  Like wise regarding re-birth also though it is a common belief of almost all Hindus, yet there are different schools of thought.  The same is the case of salvation also”, I answered.

            I don’t exactly remember when our talk took a turn of first an argument and then heated exchange of words.  Because there were three men and a lady apart from Deepak’s father, mother, sister (Jyothi) and her husband.  The other three men and that lady, who is the sister of the convert with whom I mostly confronted are from Delhi.  But somewhere the topic turned about the Karma not mentioned in the bible as one of them said.  The main problem in this confrontation, some time all of us were talking.  Some times when I was answering that man and Deepak’s father will argue with another etc.  So there was more confusion than any clarity of talk.

            However when the question of karma mentioned in the bible came, I said, “No, it is there both explicitly and implicitly. Though it is not discussed as a separate doctrine like in Hinduism, yet we can find some important teaching on karma in the bible also.  For example in the book of Revelation it is clearly stated that God will give to everyone according to what he has done (22:12 and here the context is not just the reward to the believers but to all as they lived, see vs. 10-11).  Similarly the bible clearly talks in terms of “working out our own salvation” (Phil. 2:12 and also see 2 John v. 8).  Of course according to the bible salvation is not by work but a free gift from God.  Yet a believer is expected to workout that free gift by his life through proper work.  In the same way in Hinduism also—though theologically all cannot explain, yet—the general view is that while rebirth is the result of one’s own karma, yet salvation is, according to the school of advaita having the right kind knowledge about Self and bhakti schools of Vedanta the grace of God.

            Now as they saw that I am not agreeing with them, or answering according to their expectation, I don’t remember exactly when that convert changed the subject and said in the name of witnessing, “I was leading a worst life—gambling, smoking and leading a bad life.  Even I thought of committing suicide and this my own sister knew all my plight.  I went to various temples and even read Upanishads and Gita.  But nothing could save me or solve my problem.  But this my brother one day took me to Ooty to a prayer meeting and they put their hand and prayed for me and from that day on wards I gave up my all bad habits and leading a changed life”.

            I saw that his testimony did no way impressed Deepak’s parents and sister.  In stead the way he mentioned about his claim about Gita and Upanishads really irritated me.  Without understanding anything properly, in the name of witnessing these, kinds of people simply abuse the other’s scripture that too before lay people like Deepak’s parents who do not know anything about their scriptures.  So I said to him, “Though I respect you experience in Christ, yet giving up smoking and gambling is not salvation.  There are thousands and thousands of people who are leading better moral life than us.  Above all even a devotee of Saibaba or a bhakta of Ayappa or Balaji can also claim these kinds of miracles and changed life.  By sharing these kinds of things you people simply made Jesus another kind of magician.”  For this the another person who was sitting next to me objected that they are not making Jesus simply a magician and what he experienced was true.

            “Of course his experience may be true for him.  But this is not the gospel”, I quickly responded.  There are lots of different  between divine and supernatural events.  On this that convert said that it was not the miracle alone lead him to Christ but neither Gita or Upanishads gave any answer to his problems.  For this I said, ” It is not the problem with Gita and Upanishads.  Did you ever read them properly try to understand what they want to teach.”  “Yes”, he said and continued, “I read Upanishads also.”  Then slowly but with a deep voice I said, “Would you please tell the name of one Upanishad which you have read”.  But instead of giving answer to this my question, he began to talk in general.  But stopping him again I asked, “Excuse me.  I want your answer for my question.  Would you please tell me the name of ONE Upanishads which you ever read.”  Then the other person in their team came to his rescue and said, “he read Upanishad what his brother gave.”  “Then how is it possible for him simply to read not even knowing the name of the book or its subject to blame that he couldn’t understand it.  This is  the one thing I hate.  Knowledge taken seriously needs  intellectual commitment.  In the name of witnessing that too before the followers of the other faiths, simply you cannot abuse their scripture.  For example, I never read Koran.  So when I have to talk to Deepak’s brother-in-law (who is a Muslim), I won’t pretend as if I know Koran.  Be honest with the Scriptures of the other faith.”

            When the convert realized his blender began to defend himself by saying that only his brother who gave him Upanishads and Gita has deep knowledge about them and he alone can  sit and talk with me.  But he challenged me that whether I can answer three question which he wants to ask from Mahabharata.  For this I said that I have only read an abbreviated Mahabharata and at present alone started to read the whole Mahabharata and so I am not competent to answer his question on Mahabharata.  “No, no.  What I want to ask you is very simply and even a small child can answer it.”  Then Deepak’s father said, “Swamiji has already said that he is not a scholar on Mahabharata and that is why he is not ready to talk like you.”  On this again there came some argument between him and that convert.  But Deepak’s father said in strong words,” See we do not know anything about Gita or Veda.  But when you talk to us you talk as if you know everything.  But when Swamiji asks question you are unable to answer.  But we never do such thing with your bible”.

            However when again he requested to give the answer for the three question which he wants to ask me then they want to close and go.  Already they were intended to spend only five minutes, but our confrontation took more and more of their time.  So I agreed.  Then he said,” Krishna being a God how can remove the cloths of the women bathing in the river and want to see them naked.  Second how, he as a God can steal butter from the houses of gopies( MÉÉäÊ{ɪÉÉÆ.)  Finally, how he as a God can ask Arjuna to kill his own cousins”.

            This really irritated me.  So I burst on him and said, “This shows your shallow knowledge on Hinduism.  Without yourself reading anything simply you are raising question merely on what you heard from others.  To begin with, the first two incidents are not at all in Mahabharata and they are stories from Srimad bhagavata”.  “What ever may it, still you give answer to my question”.  He said with a voice of mocking.  “It makes a lots of difference whether it is from Mahabharata or from Srimad bhagavata.  Without knowing the difference first you have no right to mock at these kinds of stories.  If a Hindu ever read the Songs of Solomon, he too can also raise such a question.  First you try to understand the contest and then try to speak.  Krishna never asked Arjuna to kill his cousins first.  When the justice is denied to Pandavas, only at the final step he agreed for the war.  Even the bible talks about the soldiers holding the sword to execute justice”.

            Suddenly Deepak’s father asked him, “Suppose if I suddenly started to beat this your brother then what you would do.”  For this that convert said, “I will keep quite and pray for you.”  “OK,” Deepak’s father kept quite as he does not know how to answer to this.  But I said, “Suppose if tomorrow Pakistan comes and occupies Kashmire and Punjab would you simply pray for them.  What if even a believer in the army has to do then.  Has he to defend the nation or allow the enemy to attack us.  The bible never says that you should keep quite when a gunda come and kill innocent  people.  This is what Krishna also said in the Gita.  For example even Jesus said to his disciple, ‘if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one’ (Lk 22:36).  If you do not know the context you won’t understand his words.”*   “Where is written in the bible Jesus asking his disciples to buy a sword,” that convert challenged me, “If there is such a truth teach me”, this he said not with a spirit of meekness or learning but to challenge my knowledge in the Bible.  Then I immediately went to my room and got the bible.”  Mean while all of them stood up knowing where the discussion is going on.  Each one was talking not listening others.  Deepak’s father got angry with that group.  That group is also was very upset with me unable to digest the fact the being a believer myself, I am not ready to support their points of view both on witnessing and about the scriptures of the other faith.  Though the person who sat next to me was to some extent sensible, yet none was ready for full discussion as they have to leave urgently.  Mean while Deepak came with his friend and seeing the discussion never stayed for a minute and went away. 

            But before leaving, one in that group took the bible from me and want to read few words from the bible to Deepak’s father.  But he bluntly said that he is not at all reading this and not want to listen him.  So he turned to me and read John 12:47-48.  Knowing his mind I said to him, the same thing is applied to you.  And turning to Deepak’s father I said in front of them, “that is why I do not want to talk with these kinds of Christians even I keep a distance from them.”  When he read from Jn. 12:47-48 for me, I was tempted to take the bible and read to him from Romans 2:1-2.  But as there is no point of continuing the confrontation, I allow them to go.  And after they left we continued our talk and Deepak’s father said that to day he keep is happy as I gave proper reply to people like them.  “But I gave these answers not to please you.  You should also to understand this also.  “Yes, yes, I know that”, he responded.  I stand for principles. Not knowing about the faith and the scriptures of the other faiths, if people like these come and talk to lay people like you, then I have to expose their originality.  If he simply come and say with humility about his experience in Jesus I would have appreciated him.  I my self is a bhakta of Christ.  I also read and still reading Hindu Scriptures.   But even with some knowledge about the faith of others I won’t condemn them or criticise them. “

            Mean while Deepak’s mother said, “all the time these people are only talking what will happen life after death and never talk about how to live before that.”  Agreeing on this Jyothi also said, if you cannot lead a proper life here what is the use of talking about life after death.  But Deepak’s father said one thing that neither Deepak or the other pastors and Christians who come to his house never spoke like this.

            So today’s encounter again demonstrated the mere emotionalism on the part of evangelicals particularly with the charismatic people without any serious commitment on their part to know the scripture properly.

*22:36 a purse…a bag. Cf. previous instructions (9:3; 10:4).  Until now they had been dependent on generous hospitality, but future opposition would require them to be prepared to pay their own way.  Buy one.  An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come.  They would need defense and protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar (Ac 25:11) as the one who “bears the sword” (Ro 13:4).-NIV. Study Notes, p. 1583

@@@

Well, we almost got you through a US visit without such a mess. I did fear something like this might happen, but Adam and Rodney were so certain that their church people would listen that it was not possible for me to tell them I know better. How did those two take all of this? If their goal is to take their Hindu friends to that church then I have wasted your time and must apologize. Your two experiences with students show how tough a task it is going to be to do anything truly useful in that sphere; not because of Hindu problems but due to church problems. Anyway Alf is arranging for you to sit in a nice church in Norway where no one will understand you and you will understand them even less! As Vandana Mataji says, we find unity in silence!

RH

Now I know the trick.  In order to get a ‘voice’ for his seva in America, Rajesh plans with Satya to send me to AZ desert.  Probably he might have told the publisher to increase the price so that all will persecute me in India and finally I have to take refuge to the ‘only promised land’ of this world.  But I will rather face the persecution at home than to take refuge in a suspecting but friendly neighbor.

If we have to pay a high price to ‘understand Hinduism’, to day I paid a heavy price to ‘understand the church and mission’ here.  Don’t become upset with me after reading the following account.  I never asked for this, but the boys who called me to meet Indians also requested me to meet some of their church leaders and they paid the price for it.

This morning as per the request of the ‘Young Church’ leaders I went to talk and answer to few questions.  As usual I shared my pilgrimage and began to answer their questions.  But at the end it ended with confrontation.

Without giving me a proper hearing the Pastor and one leader began to challenge my answer on ‘confronting’ people with the Truth.  For this they quoted from the bible out of context–Paul’s confrontation with the sorcerers who came to sacrifice animals thinking Paul and Barnabas as Jupitar (in Acts 14) and also Paul’s confrontation at Athens.  For this I said ‘without knowing the worldview of the people, if you began to confront, you
will end up in deaf ears only.

The Pastor even went to the extent of saying, when I pointed out about the worldview of the Western world, which we in East think is mostly based on bible, began to say, ‘don’t come and lecture about our culture.  I born  and live here.  What are the mistakes and confrontations the past churches and mission had done is different.  We are different and we want to learn from you how to approach the Hindus and not to dwell upon the past mistakes.

‘But history cannot be easily removed.  Above all we have to learn from the past mistakes and unlearn from it rather try to ignore it.’ I responded.  And the Pastor began to again argued that ‘we have to pick up on the way and start’.  ‘But the stones are still on the way which stumbles’, again I said.

They think that as they have all the Truth above God with them, then we have to challenge as Paul has done.  But I try to point out quoting few example that when we try to correct someone whom we think has done some mistake or sin, then s/he needs to be corrected gently and not to be confronted so that her/his heart and mind become more rigid to listen the correction.  Whereas when those who began to support the mistake of that person, then we have to confront them.  I quoted the example of Jesus confronting the Pharisees who want to stone the woman, but rebuked her in gentle.  Paul’s way of rebuking Peter but try to correct the Galatians.

But the problem with them is that the moment they feel they are different  from other churches or dinaminations and ‘not like them,’ they become arrogant.  They claim that they are very humble. But later I told to one of their youngest leader who came to drop me back, ‘you cannot claim or even say that you are humble.  Others should recognize it in you.  the moment you feel that you are humble, then you become arrogant in your spirit. 
Surprisingly he accepted and told in person that he too has several problem with them and does not have the courage like me to confront.

They claim that they are not like other churches.  But they have a name and even a constitution and website that too for promotional purpose.  When one of the boys with whom I am staying on the other day requested me read about their church in the website, I refused to do..  These are another project of mission–which they deny that they are not.

I feel sorry for them.  I told them in the meeting that this is the reason why I never go to any church or mission to share my views.  They don’t have patience and don’t want to listen which disturbs them.  They always want to hear what they would like to hear.  They want to have quick and ready made solutions to the challenges of reaching Hindus.  But they don’t have time to listen important points.  What I learnt through mistakes and error, they want to me summarize quickly within few minutes for them to learn.  The youth leader later told me that this is the problem of the western mind.  As every thing is planned, they don’t have extra time or interest to learn beyond their set agenda.  But I told them that there is no short cut to learn certain things in life.  The western mind of ‘programme, ‘plan’ ‘agenda’ ‘outline, ‘summary’ show what kind of busy body they are.  They want immediate result for anything and everything they do.  They have no
patience.

But at least one persons–the young leader confessed to me that through my sharing and the final confrontation he learned many good things.  At one point even I told them, ‘I never asked you to give a chance to share my views.  Only you people called and then you have to listen first’.  But on some point even before I conclude he began to challenge me.  I even thought of saying to him, ‘by not listening me and often interfering by raising your voice, you are insulting me’.  But as I don’t want to hurt, I kept quiet.

I feel that the pastor of the church is not really humble enough to listen and learn from others.  He wants more to prove his point, ‘how he and his church is different from other church and missions’.  Like a Pharisee he wants to prove his humbleness by comparing himself with others.   Though I finally I told that they have wasted their precious time by calling me to talk, I also feel that I too have wasted my time.  As usual I told that as dog’s tail cannot be straightened (I used the very word), I cannot change the church and mission and that is why I never go to church or mission to share.   I even told, ‘I never asked to come to share.  As you requested me to come and share, you have to listen properly before to challenge or confront’.

Well these Christians remain the same everywhere–India or America.  Of course there are always exception and I cannot generalize them all.  Their money, power and so called authority still keep them blind to listen and see things which God wants to share and show.  Their destiny is written on their own arrogancy.  Blessed is the Poor in spirit.  If a humble and different American pastor (in his own words) could be this much arrogant what we can think about other church and mission leaders of America.  God save America.

Dear Swamiji,
It has now been quite some time since we met in Mt. Pleasant and I wanted to
write to you to express my sincere apology for my part in some of our
interaction.  As you probably sensed, I was quite frustrated with how the
meeting was going and in my attempt to steer our discussion to what I felt
would be a more positive and applicable topic, I interrupted you to get you
to stop.  I should have patiently let you finish.  Please forgive me for
this.  You were a guest in my house.  I am in agreement with many of the
things you wrote in your book, Living Water, and I thank you for coming. –
Barry

Dear Barry,

Shanti!

May the Lord’s peace which passes all kinds of understanding guard your heart and mind in Him.  I have nothing against you in person.  I too should have restricted a bit in stead of simply reacting to you without understanding your concern.  May be as I told and insisted Rodney not to arrange any meeting in the church or mission (board etc.), he insisted that I should meet you.  So that hesitation was also back in my subconscious  mind, which made me to quickly react to you than soberly responding to your situation.  Well God works everything only for good those who love Him.  This happened in both our life.  So no personal grievance against you.  Thanks for your kind letter.  God bless you.

dayanand

@@@

Rick,

Finally I managed to open and read the Rethinking Forum.  Thanks for fixing it in my computer.  The following is my answer to your question.  I am not sure whether I have ‘communicate’ myself clearly to your question in the ‘context’ in which you have asked.  Feel free to edit and then put it in the answer box.  Thanks.

dayanand

Contextualization

---

Swamiji, thank you for agreeing to answer any questions that RF people might wish to ask. Since I have advertised you responding related to contextualization, let me start the Q&A by asking you to comment on contextualization itself. I think readers will be interested in your perspective on how this is an outsider rather than insider category. Thank you. Rajesh

Leaving aside the dictionary meaning and the root word, for me ‘contextualization’, related to our context is our effort to ‘communicate’ the gospel to our audience.  But in our efforts to ‘communicate’, our personal skill and knowledge should not hijack the very purpose of that communication: help others to understand the gospel first and not us.  Because several times we are tempted to share what we ‘know’ and not what people need ‘to know’.

And for this we should make every effort to help others to understand the message in the level they live.  Let me say in another way.  I understood the gospel message as a Hindu.  Because I was searching for answer the (knowledge) to one of my questions about life and also a guru to teach me that knowledge.  Thankfully God gave that knowledge through Sadguru Muktinath/Mukteswar (Jesus).  Now in my efforts to communicate the same message I am helping my other fellow Hindus to understand the Lord as they are: Hindus.  This is contextualization for me.  Let a Hindu, Muslim, Sikh etc. understand Him as they are.

God can come down to our level as a ‘human’ so that we can understand Him as human beings.  There began the contextualization.  I also learnt that in some Mission society, some of them sold themselves as slaves in order to share the gospel to the slaves.  Naturally to such questions, some has asked me, ‘so in order to share the gospel to a drunkard we should also become drunkard or become a prostitute to share the gospel among them’.  To such cynical questions I cannot answer.  However let us imagine a dialogue between God and Jesus before His incarnation: 

‘So you have to become (hu)man in order to save them’—God

‘Is it necessary on my part to become a sinner or to identify myself with sinners to save them’?—Jesus.

And we know what then happened (interestingly our Lord accepted tax collector and dined with them, as well as received the seva from a prostitutes hand as well).  Thankfully we need not go to tat extent of becoming a sinner to share the gospel.  Above all, yet as a saved sinner, we need not to choose a mean (or pathetic) profession to share the gospel with them.

At the same time I have to recognize the need to contextualize the gospel, if I have to communicate to someone else who doesn’t share my cultural, social and religious background.  Any non-Indian, if s/he wants to share the gospel to Indians, then s/he has to ‘contextualize’ the gospel on which I hope all agree.  But what is the need for de-contextualize a Hindu/Muslim first in order to train or help her/him to communicate the gospel message to her/his own people.  The sad fact in all evangelical endeavor (both in theology and training in particular) is that every effort is made to ‘de-contextualize’ a new believer and then teach everything about ‘contextualization’ of the gospel. At least contextualization should begin from not ‘de-contextualize’ a new beliver.

So contextualization for me is: help a Hindu, Muslim etc. to comprehend the gospel as a Hindu and Muslim.  Never try to ‘decontextualize’ them from their cultural and social environment as this will deprive them the ‘context’ in which God has called them to live and worship Him (I Cor. 7:17).

Dayanand

Mathigiri, May 11, 2003.

@@@

Critiquing not Criticising

Sometimes I was accused by few Christians that in spite of receiving so many help from them in my growth in my bhakti in the Lord still I am attacking Christians, Christianity and Church.  But this accusation is not true.  I always remain thankful to those INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS who with some sympathy tried to understand my struggle and need in my pilgrimage in my bhakti in the Lord.  If my critique about Church and Mission is take with right spirit, they can continue to help in many ways in the struggle of their ‘converts’ and also those bhaktas and other followers from other faiths who do not want to join their organized religion but still would like to remain as the members of the body of the Lord.

One time one Christian who completely adopt a life as a Hindu both in his dress, lifestyle and approach in his faith in the Lord as a Hindu told me, ‘if you really love Christians you should not keep away from them.  You should come and help them to understand your struggle—even as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord’.  Similarly another sincere and serious evangelical leader, several time told to all the Hindu bhaktas that we should not avoid the church fellowship if we want to grow in our faith in the Lord.  Similarly when Dr. Hoefer named those followers of the Lord among the Hindus who keep away from the Church as ‘Churchless Christianity’ I said ‘better call us Christianity less Church and not Church less Christianity.’

In fact playing the devil’s advocate I always support the church by ATTACKING the Hindu converts from the so called high caste communities when they criticise their church or mission in their failure to understand their struggle and help them in it.  My simple message to them is this: They need not, would not and could not understand your struggle and help in it.  Why should they understand you?  When they share the good news they expect you to understand the Word of the Lord, their Church (doctrine particularly) and follow them sincerely and seriously now as the convert.  They don’t have time to understand you and find any need to do that.  With my limited knowledge about them in my sojourn among some evangelical Christians is that they almost have zero understanding about Hinduism, particularly the church lay members.  And those so called Full Time Workers through the Missions, though learn some basic things about Hinduism in their training period, it is almost nothing compared to the need with which they should be prepared to reach out Hindus or people of any other faiths.  Already I pointed out somewhere else that in the Theological Seminars and Missionary Training Institutes the time they allot to teach about Hinduism is less considering their syllabus and training period which stretches out from minimum one year to maximum three years—plus further two years if they continue to do some Masters degree. 

One time one of my friends who completely three years theological training in a famous Evangelical Theological College asked me one basic question about Hinduism.  Then I said that already he has done some study in his seminary about Hinduism and then why he asks the question again to me.  To this he honestly confessed that among the three years course he studied about Hinduism only in one semester—which is three months.  And in that three months there will be five classes on Hinduism in a week which runs 45 minutes.  So totally he studied about Hinduism sixty classes plus some assignment given to read some books on Hinduism and write one paper on Hinduism (60 x 45 minutes plus those extra hours).  And his aim was not to understand about Hinduism but to pass the semester examination and get the certificate.  So he does not remember what he studied on Hinduism hence he cannot find the answer to that question from his theological training.  After completing his training and entered in the ministry, he neither has time or interest to study further on any subject which he studied in the Theological college.

The same is the case with those who are trained in Mission Institutes.  The aim of the students is to get the certificate and enter the ministry to preach the good news.  Once they complete their training most of them never find any need to continue to study not only about Hinduism but on any subject which they studied.  Only those specialists among them who persuade further studies to become theologian or theological teachers/writers do some further studies.  But most of the students, like the average student in any other profession once completed the studies to get the certificate, then happily throw away reading. Their aim is to get a job and become a professional and lead a life.

This being the reality among the servants of the Lord, what to talk about the lay congregation members?  Thankfully only among these lay congregation comes those individual Christians to help several struggling converts in the church by many ways and not the church leaders who has no time for such activities as they have so many works in their organization called Church (some of them will be correspondent to the schools and colleges, some have to attend court cases, various church committees and various other church related activities.  When they don’t have time even to prepare properly for the Sunday sermon, where is the time to understand the struggle of the individual converts and those Hindu followers outside the church)?

In this scenario why sit and lament within the church that they don’t understand you and try to help you.  They don’t have time, find any need or equipped properly for this kind of ministry in the church.  Of course some Missions pay attention to the struggle of the new converts. But their uniform solution is this:—make them FULL TIME WORKERS, help them to marry a Christian boy or girl and forget their birth family and home.  Then they think that all the struggle and problem of the converts will disappear leaving the problem to the parents of the converts to face in their community and society because of the conversion of their children to Christianity.  The easy victim card played to defend such activities is persecution.  In order to win the sympathy of the Christians and Church several converts also will use it as the trump card called persecution forgetting the fact that their parents and siblings have to pay a heavy price for their conversion back in their family and community whereas they will serve the Lord in a different parts of the country winning the souls for the Kingdom of God!!!  In fact their parents are more persecuted because of their conversion to Christianity.

As I say often, don’t expect the church or Christians to understand your problem and struggle. Be a Roman in Rome.  If you want to become a Christian through conversion and join any (denominational) church, try to understand them to survive there as a First Generation Christian.  If that is not possible, don’t disturb them and come out and try to live your life as a lay follower of the Lord.  Try to create your own lay fellowship outside the church.  And if some individuals Christians with sympathy want to help you by opening their house and heart for that accept it.  But it that will create any problem for them in their church, accusing that they are running a Para-church in their home (and taking away the collection which ought to come to the church), then don’t disturb them.  As your Hindu family and home accommodate even your bhakti in the Lord and exercise your faith not disturbing the social fabrication, then try to live as a Hindu bhakta of the Lord.  If you could find any such other bhaktas among the Hindus, then create your own mandali—however small it might be and continue to grow together as the bhaktas of the Lord.  Your struggle in your home will be less compare to your struggles as a Christian converts as you can demand your rights as a member of your family than begging for some concession inside a church.  A hostile home is better than a friendly but suspecting neighbour.  But never remain what they call in Hindi as a ‘dobi ka kutta’ (washer man’s dog) as the Hindi proverb goes: dobi ka kutta no gar ka na hat ka.  It is really difficult to translate the meaning in English (the washer man’s dog neither belongs to the river side nor to his house).  It says don’t sit on the fence not knowing which side to jump.  But there are few converts do this.  They remain ‘Christian’ in the church for Christians and Hindu in the home for the Hindus.  They want to enjoy the best of the both the worlds and do not want to identify with the struggle of anyone.

Most of the evangelism in India has only one aim—to save your soul and send it to heaven (after your death) leaving you to struggle your present life in between them—on this earth which become a hell for many.  All these years I failed to understand what the Lord said about such proselytazation in Matthew 23: 15, particularly the words ‘TWICE AS MUCH A CHILD OF HELL’.  After becoming a Christian converts, as a child of your natural family your life becomes a HELL there or makes their life hell.  As a new convert your life becomes a HELL in the church or makes their life hell there. Now tally them all.  It will become twice as much a child of hell(s) may be double twice if we add the suffering of other family members or church members.

I am not sharing any theory or launch any attack on Church or Christianity.  This is what happened in so many converts life who comes individually from the so called high caste families and communities. I know several girls remain unmarried till the end of their life as their church couldn’t arrange their marriage as per their church expectation and demand—believer marrying a believer.  Here I need not dwell on this subject of ‘believer marrying a believer’ as lot is said about it various places.  According to my limited understanding Muktiveda never promotes such marriages.  Not ready to compromise their conviction as Christians and accommodate the demands of their parents to arrange their marriages, several girls ended their life a Single.  Even if they accommodate the demands of their home in their marriage, they put so many dos and don’ts given by the church in arranging their marriage-not Hindu ritual, no idol worship, no sindur or kumkum (or pottu) no thalli etc.  Keeping only the interest and welfare of their children several Hindu parents go even their third or fourth mile accepting those demands—even agreeing for a CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE inside the church—as if Muktiveda talks about such CHRISTAIN MARRIAGE.  But both the converts and the Church think that if they don’t compromise on those fringe elements in rituals and decoration, then they successfully WITNESSED FOR THE LORD THROUGH THAT KIND OF MARRIAGE!!!  Once the marriage is complete and when they began to live as husband and wife all other COMPROMISES which they ought to make in so many other areas in life never come before them that time. 

Let me give two case studies which are shared by one of my best Christian friends.  One young Hindu convert completed his medical studies and become a doctor; he refused to marry a Hindu girl arranged by his parents. His Christian mentor warned him not to compromise his faith in the Lord.  When his parents were even came forward to accept a Christian girl as their daughter-in-law, provided if she is from their own caste, still the boys mentor was ready to budge.  Caste is evil and he should get rid of it from his life (but not from their church.  Brain washed by his mentor, finally that boy ended up marrying a Christian girl of his mentor’s choice and became f a FULL TIME WORKER to serve the Lord in North.

In second case, when one convert sought the help of my friend for his marriage, my friend asked the pastor of the church to which that boy is a member why not give his own daughter as they both belong to the same caste in marriage to that boy?  But the response of the Pastor family, particularly by the mother of the girl is this: why should my daughter marry and go suffer in his Hindu family.  We are not sure whether he will get his share in the property.  Above all marriage is not ended only with marriage function.  As a family they need so many help and support which should come only from his home, which is not possible now as he become a convert.  Then my friend told them, ‘then you convert’?  For this that pastor’s response was: our job is only to convert and not arrange the marriage of every convert.

As these two case studies speak a lot I need not add further comments on each point. Every convert brings only some problem to the existing church and the church has no easy solution for them.  Every convert is counted as mere number like voters to the politicians during election. What happens to the voters after election happens to the converts after conversion.   They need some numbers to parade their success story of prozelitization not real bhaktas living as witness for the Lord in real life.  

To my Christian friend who asked me that first question of not loving the Christians, my answer is this.  I keep away from their ORGANIZED CHURCH because I love them very dearly.  When they already struggle a lot with so many issues and problem in the church why should I add more to it.  I won’t trouble or disturb my other family members and siblings with my problems when they struggle with so many issues in life because I love them.  I do the same to the Church.  All my writings are only a critique and not criticism however they look harsh sometimes, even to me!!! 

25-02-2020

@@@

Dear brother Kikawa,

Aloha,

Thanks for your book: Perpetuated in Righteousness.  I read it  and very much benefited by it.  Though you have written in your particular context of Hawai, yet the basic principles are universal in its scope.  When I read the words ‘Full-blooded Hawaiian’, though I wondered why such term is used with some racial stress, once I completed the book, I understood the importance of it in your present context of struggle to keep your particular identity.

Though you have quoted Dr. Padinjarekara as an authority on Indian Veda, yet there are several problems in accepting his theory of finding Christ in Veda.  If you are interested I can send the review of this book by my friend and also the article on Prajapati by the same person.

I completely accept that ‘It is time that Christians reclaimed the many beautiful names of the One Creator God in native languages’. (p.26)  When I read that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, he ‘acknowledged Melchizedek and his God, El…’(p.25).  Here I would like to mention one incident which led to the question, whether we can join with others who are not sharing with our faith in corporate prayer.  In one place, when I serve the Lord, I organize worship (puja) among the Hindus, where we share the gospel and also pray in Our Lord’s Name.  When I encouraged one believer to arrange the same kind of puja in his house with his neighbours, both he and his wife hesitated  by saying, ‘how can we worship and pray to our Lord with others, who will definitely will keep their own god in mind’.  Though I pointed out that in a pluralistic society, each one will and have right to keep their respective God in mind in corporate prayer, yet most of the Hindu, in common worship only think of ‘Bhagavan’ the impersonal God without any particular attribute, name and form.  This Bhagavan is the only God which has no plural form also.  So what is wrong in joining worshiping with others, even though they may keep their god in mind.  Even if others pray to their personal god (called ‘ishtadevata’), yet as God sees their sincerity, He will bless them—as He sends rain and sun shine to all.  So my question is: can we join with others to worship the Lord in corporate prayer?

Two interesting point for me is: (1) ‘It is not prudent to go into a real Polynesian home and admire anything, chances are you will be going home with it.  Aloha is giving and expecting nothing in return.’—p.210 (2) “HANAI”—This means that they give one of their children to a friend, relative or neighbor. (p.213)

When I read your last chapter ‘To All’, about the resentment of Hawaiian Christians against the atrocities done against them by other Christians and the decision by some of them going back to their ancestral faith in order to reclaim their unique identity the following thought came to my mind:

Cultural nationalism can progress on three principles: Respect; repentance and restoration. 

Respect for others—even against those who deprived one’s own culture identity and other things which are dear to one.

Repentance of one’s own sin and mistakes of going too far by giving up God given best things and aping others for the sake of some physical comfort.

Restoration by mending and ordering one’s own house first than passing the blame on others for all the failures in loosing the identity.

On the other hand mere Religious nationalism will lead to: arrogance, atrocity and annihilation, which are complete reversal of the values of cultural nationalism of respect, repentance and restoration.

Dayanand

Mathigiri, May 25, 2004.

One correction on p. 27.  ‘God did not did not desert these people…’—I think it should be God did not desert these people.

The book look incomplete with out an Index.

Aloha brother Dayanand,

    Please forgive me for taking so long to answer you, I have been traveling and will be off again to Japan and Thailand in a few days. Thank you for the thought provoking letter. Yes, I would like to see the review of Dr. Padinjarekara’s book and the article on Prajapati. I believe in faith that God left his witness in India. If it is not Prajapati, then as Bhagavan, who sounds very much like the unknown god or another if not that name. What is needed is prayer and faith. If it is the name of the true God, then we can also be sure that Satan has tried to dirty that name. Is it a false god from Satan, or the name of the true God which Satan has dirtied? That is the question. When I wrote the first edition of Perpetuated In Righteousness, I had very little evidence that `Io was the true God. However, God spoke to me clearly to, “Tell my people that I am `Io.” This I did do, I received attacks from Christians for it because I did not have much evidence. However, my speaking out gave courage to those who were keeping the secret knowledge of `Io to come out also. Now, there is overwhelming evidence and his name is accepted as true and historical. I must mention that in Hawaii, Hawaiians don’t respect much the written words of Westerners on Hawaiian history because many have written lies that were passed off as true history. Therefore, Hawaiians are more inclined to believe the chants and stories of the elders that were passed down in Hawaiian families. Some of the most respected Hawaiian elders came to my defense. This is also why you will find in the book, many quotes from elders.

    Why is finding the name of God in India so important? Because the main problem among non-western peoples to accept God is that he is not ours. His Indian name being accepted would make him an Indian God and Jesus the Son of our God.

    I am very shocked when I read in the “Rethinking Forum” how the Indian Church treats its people. We have so much freedom here now to be who we are. When we began our ministry 12 years ago, there were three Christian groups that did the Hawaiian native dance, the hula, in worship to God. None were allowed to do this dance in the sanctuary of the churches. Today, almost every growing church has its own hula ministry and every combined church gathering includes it. These are just a few example of the changes that have taken place in Hawaii that has made Christianity Hawaiian. Most Hawaiians are now either believers or open to Christ. 12 years ago, many blamed the Christians for all of our problems and some were violently against Christians. Now, almost every Hawaiian gathering opens with prayer to Jesus. In 12 years, the concept of Christianity among the Hawaiian people has changed from the God and religion that caused all of our problems, to being our Hawaiian religion and the source of hope. I pray that this will also happen in India. You have a daunting task in front of you as your people are so numerous compared to ours.

    When we began our ministry, God showed us that the Hawaiian people were bound by three cords and that if we could break these cords off of them, they would come to Him. Cord 1: The God of the Bible is not our God, Cord 2: The God of the Bible hates us because He hates our culture but loves the Western culture, Cord 3. Western “Christian” countries and their people, hurt the Hawaiians and the Hawaiians blame it on the Christian God. Sure enough, when the cords were broken, Hawaiians came to Christ.

    These same three cords bind most native people and I have taught missionaries in different parts of the world to break them and it works there, too. I have attached the Vision and Mission Statements of our ministry below:

VISION STATEMENT:

To facilitate the reconciliation of indigenous peoples to their Creator and His Son, Jesus Christ, in the spirit and truth of the way He made them.

MISSION STATEMENT:

To facilitate the reconciliation of indigenous peoples to their Creator:

To let them know that He is not a foreign God, that He loves them and has been a part of their history and culture from the beginning. He is their God!

To facilitate the reconciliation of indigenous peoples with Jesus Christ:

To let them know that Jesus Christ is the Son of their Creator and that He loves them; to let them know that any atrocities that have been perpetrated by the church, “Christian” nations, or Christians were wrong and did not come from Jesus.

To facilitate the reconciliation indigenous peoples with whom they are in Christ:

To let them know that He lovingly created them exactly as He wanted them; that He has been with them and loved them throughout their history, that He left many treasures and worthy traditions within their culture, and that He desires they freely worship Him with, and celebrate, the beautiful and unique cultural expressions that flow from them.

To facilitate the reconciliation of indigenous peoples with the Body of Christ, His church:

To repent of any atrocities that have been perpetrated by the church, “Christian” nations, or Christians; to teach Christians of the need to repent of these atrocities and to recognize, respect, appreciate, and celebrate the unique and indispensable gifts each people group brings to the Body of Christ so that indigenous peoples and the church can truly be in unity and become the many unique parts of the one Body of Christ.

About worshipping with others who may be worshipping their own gods, I will tell you a story of one that I mentor. I must say here that what he did is not for everyone and one must be a very strong Christian to do it. He went to Israel to a large “New Age” gathering. Every kind of God was being worshipped there and many witches were there. On top of that, the announcer on the microphone told the people to take off their clothes and jump in a pond that was there. Soon there was also sex being had there. My friend was there because “New Age” people like native religions and my friend is very Hawaiian in the way he worships God. In the midst of all this sin, he was given the microphone to speak. My friend started doing a chant of worship to God in Hawaiian language in the midst of the sin. Soon people began coming to the announcer saying, “What is that man saying, I don’t know what he is saying, why is it making me cry?” They felt the power and presence of God. Soon he had a crowd of people gathering at his tent to listen to his wisdom. Some 200 people at this gathering, including witches accepted Christ. 200 souls would still be headed for hell if he did not choose to be the light and salt in the midst of the darkness. Many Christians had spoken strongly against going to such a sinful gathering. Think if Jesus had said the same thing about us!

May the One True Creator God of the Indian people richly bless your work!

Aloha Pumehana,

Daniel

---

[1] Purusa Sukta, Rig Veda ; Isiah 53:5