As an insider to Western Christianity, Richard has the right and freedom to use the strong term “must die” to express his perspective. However, as an outsider approaching this topic from a lay Hindu bhakta viewpoint, I choose to avoid that word to remove any impression of being confrontational or dismissive. Instead, I prefer to speak of the need for transformation or transcendence. This distinction will be maintained throughout my reflections.
H.L. Richard, in his book Cultural Gaps: Benjamin Robinson’s Experience with the Hindu Tradition (William Carey Publishing, 2020, Pasadena), argues that “Western Christianity must die in the Asian context” (footnote 14, p. xxv). I quote Richard’s words exactly as he uses this strong term “must die.” At first glance, Richard’s argument seems straightforward, but upon closer reflection, several questions arise. Is there even such a thing as “Western Christianity” in the West? Actually, no. Christianity in Europe or America exists naturally in its own cultural soil—it is simply Christianity. The label “Western Christianity” becomes meaningful only when Christianity travels outside the West. In Asia, those same cultural expressions appear foreign. This is the context in which Richard proposes that this form of Christianity must die to allow authentic Gospel roots in local soil.
However, my question is how to understand and implement even this supposed ‘transformation’ of Western Christianity, particularly in Asia and more specifically in the Indian context. The reality is more complex. Instead of vaguely referring to “Western Christianity,” it is more accurate to specify particular expressions—European, Irish, Armenian, American Christianity, and so forth—each carrying cultural baggage that becomes foreign when transplanted into Asia. Of course, everyone knows this fact, and when someone refers to ‘Western Christianity’ it always stands in recognition of local variations, but only becomes relevant in comparison to non-Western countries.
But why should India even import these models, even in “Indianized” versions? Indians have a profound spiritual and cultural tradition capable of giving authentic expression to following Jesus Christ. Christianity as an organized system or religion need not be imposed. The goal is not to tweak Western structures but to let the Gospel grow organically in India’s own civilizational and spiritual ecosystem.
The very label “Christianity” is problematic in India. Jesus never founded “Christianity” as a religion; this identity emerged later. In India, it is not necessary to use the label at all. Following Jesus could be expressed in thoroughly Indian, even Hindu terms—rooted in indigenous values and traditions.
A Personal Conviction
On a personal level, I embody this conviction. I am a Hindu bhakta of the Lord. I call Jesus “Muktinath” and the Bible “Mukti Veda.” I do not identify as Christian—not only because of its foreign form but also because of its organizational structure imported into India, which does not fit with the Indian ethos where religion is never organized but society is. An organized religion cannot survive in such an organized society where identity is not tagged to one’s faith primarily, but more often only to one’s birth in a family and community, along with language. Instead, I follow Jesus as my guru and muktidata within my Hindu context. This shows it is indeed possible to faithfully follow Jesus without adopting Western Christianity or the name “Christian.”
Yet Indian Christians today live with a hybrid identity—neither fully Indian nor entirely Western. Their social identity is mixed with a religious identity and is slowly losing even its language and ethnic grounding (ethnic understood in a broad sense). This hybridity offers comfort but comes with a cost. Despite efforts toward “contextualization,” most Indian Christian communities guard Western forms selectively, formatting their faith in ways that maintain denominational and structural lineage. Often these decisions are made by outsiders or missionaries, not by local believers seeking authentic incarnated forms. This selective contextualization serves to preserve Western Christianity under new guises.
Though many Indian Christians identified this problem long ago and tried to address it through what they call the “indigenization” of Christianity, their thought forms remain dominated by Western categories—administration, organization, faith expression, music, theology, and almost every activity of their “religious” life—while they still remain Indian in their social life.
The Indian Challenge
Present-day Indian Christians face serious challenges. The post-Independence “mission fever” has cooled amid rising ultranationalism, legal restrictions on conversions, and social opposition. These pressures have not produced a flourishing indigenous Christian theology or practice but have mostly compelled survival—always attacking challengers such as ultranationalism, while seeking solutions in the West, taking issues to international forums like Human Rights councils instead of seriously addressing the many hurdles they themselves have created.
Adding fuel to the fire, the pressure of artificial intelligence and digital distractions further threatens Christian community life.
There is no point in endlessly defending all the good of the past. The selfless social services offered by many Christian institutions—education, healthcare—are sometimes sincere but are largely perceived as conversion tools or minority privilege mechanisms. Quotas in education serve their own community interests, undermining the credibility of Christian altruism in wider Indian society.
Beyond Christianity: The AI Factor
Artificial intelligence is emerging as a profound challenge to religion and humanity’s search for spiritual meaning. Western Christianity faces dramatic decline as the faithful shrink demographically, church buildings empty, and clergy leave ministry. Yet the Catholic Church under Pope Leo XIV is experiencing a digital revival. The recent canonization of Carlo Acutis, a teenage “God’s Influencer,” alongside conferences of Catholic social media influencers, demonstrates how faith adapts to digital culture.
However, this digital engagement is rooted in existing Catholic institutional presence and Western frameworks. While it injects vitality among young Catholics globally, including Indian Catholics, it risks being nothing more than a digital replication of Western Christianity transplanted to India. Such digital fellowships, in my view, cannot replace the depth and authenticity of physical, mutual community nurturing. They often serve more as smoke screens for self-promotion than as genuine spiritual growth.
Toward an Indic Future
My conviction is clear: for the Gospel to truly incarnate in India, Western and hybrid Indian Christian forms need to transform or transcend. Only then can the Gospel—not even “Christianity” as a system—reemerge as another sampradaya within Indic civilization, as a homegrown bhakti path alongside other indigenous traditions. India’s pluralistic, assimilative religious culture offers resilience and space for this transformation.
This path requires radical openness and the courage to let go of inherited Western ecclesial forms. It demands embracing Jesus authentically within India’s own spiritual ecosystem without foreign trappings.
Conclusion
My hope and challenge to Indian Christians and followers of Jesus is to reflect deeply and allow this transformation and new birth to happen. Bhakti in Muktinath, and not Christianity, need not remain the faith of the foreigner but can become truly Indian—alive, indigenous, and relevant within India’s vast spiritual heritage.
Though often quoted, it remains relevant to repeat: faith began as a relationship with a Person in Palestine, then moved to the Greek world and became a philosophy, to the Roman world and became an administration, then to Europe where it became a culture, then to Germany where it became theology, then to America where it became an enterprise, and finally it came to Asia and India as Western imperialism. But unless it returns back to that relationship—what bhakti truly means, derived from the root word bhaj as a personal relationship—no outer cosmetic changes will ever enable the Gospel to incarnate in India.
Nagercoil, September, 2025
Leave a Reply