Dialogue with Christians Yet to be edited Part One

In this I am going to save all my dialogues with Christians. They are yet to be revised and edited properly.  This is only for my personal use.

From my diary of November 8, 1998.

Norman came around 11.30 a.m. and we talked more than two hours.  The following is the small letter which he gave to me:

Dear Dayanandji

I want to tell you how much I appreciated meeting you and having the chance to talk.  I wish we could have stayed longer and I am sorry that we had to go.

I had the assumption that we were all of very similar persuasion regarding inculturation and contextualization and in that shared attitude, we were together to share and think together, and to ask some hard questions.  As you said, let’s be realistic about all the issues.  Yet I think that in asking you my questions, I unintentionally gave you the feeling that I am in opposition to you.  In fact, it was quite an honour to meet you and hear your vision of following Christ as a Hindu.  I will pray for you and hope you will also remember us in your prayers.  May you be centered in the peace and joy of Jesus.

Norman.

We talked so many things and one thing is important to be recorded.  When I said that we are keeping away from the church/mission and even Christian community and particularly encourage new believers to remain in their communities and keep away from Christian Community he immediately said that ‘It will cut the root and further growth is impossible”.

For this I said, “we have to take risk on this decision.  In the name of fellowship and church if we allow the new believers to join Christian communities, church/mission, gradually they will be brainwashed on every level and after few years they will began to talk, behave and communicate like the rest of the Christians and will never remain as a inside witness to their own communities.

On the other hand, in the Name of remaining as Hindu Christ bhaktas, we will keep them away from the true fellowship with other believers in Christ and be benefited by their ministry to them.  Going both extreme level has its own risk.  But which one is less dangerous and effective, we have to decide.  Even in this also there is no uniform policy applicable to every one.

@@@

A Confused Convert and Wrong Communication: From my diary of November 1, 1998.

Morning after breakfast I had some good discussion with Becky.  She feels that they have cut off from the fellowship with their Nepali believers with whom so far they had.  Though I understood her struggle I made it clear that it is not their mistake.  When Mark, being an outsider try to become All Things to All Men by identifying with the cultural and social aspects of Mevari Nepalies (as he is was wearing white dres to mourn the death of his father and because of that he has to resign from Nepali church).

Instead of remaining sensitive to the ethos and world views of their home, when the converts, in the name of faith hurt their sentiments then instead of witnessing for the Lord, we prevent them to know the truth.  “Without knowing, when a new convert immerse too much with Christian terms, ethos, world views which not necessarily based on the bible but which are more important to the Christians community, he/she is gradually brainwashed. Now the Christian ethos and world views are projected as biblical one and important to keep his/her faith.  and instead of assimilating his/her faith in Christ as an Indian/Nepali, appreciating his/her cultural and social values (which alone give his/her identity) a new convert without knowing will understand his/her faith only with Christian terms even Western cultural and social values which now projected as Christian values which are important to keep one’s faith.

When such a brainwashed new convert has to relate with his/her own family and community he/she will use certain terms, words and even values and behaviour which not only will fail hi/her to relate even on social level with them but even will hurt and confuse them.  In their reaction to his/her new behaviour though they cannot and may not use sophesticated technical terms related with their social and cultural values, yet they will feel hurt and close their heart and mind to the gospel.

What I mean here is that a new convert’s family and community cannot express their feelings towards him/her exactly in the same technical words/terms like world views, values etc. by which we could express them.  Not knowing this a new convert may defend his/her position as a brainwashed person by saying, “Oh, my family members are not saying like this or that.  They are not opposing or reacting as you think.  Even if they oppose it is not because I hurt or convey wrong message but as they are living in darkness and oppose my faith in Christ, they react in such a way.”

We must remember that there will be always opposition to the gospel as it introduces new values and challenges only views which are giving their security and identity.  But most of the time the opposition comes not for our faith in Christ but our changed alligeance to another community accepting its social and cultural values.  In the name of sharing the gospel or witnessing instead of challenging their (blind) faith, these new converts only challenge their social and cultural values which give their security and identity.  Like wise when a new convert try to convey his/her faith to his/her family knowingly or un-knowingly he/she is going to use only Christian technical terms which will never communicate the gospel to them.  Above all as the new convert has already hurt their heart and closed their mind in his/her social relationship even they will never will listen him/her.

Now people like Mark and Rajiv when try to adopt certain social and cultural values of the people among whom they want to work, naturally the existing Christians and church will oppose them.  And the new convert being embarassed by their model to keep his/her social and cultural values would naturally distance themselves from them.  But this is the cost we have to pay.  And God in His mercy would give more of His Grace to pressforward in our commitment to the people, we need patience and perseverence.

@@@

A G Church controversy

Recently a controversy eroupped in one AG Church in Chennai. That particular church was founded by one Rev. Charlas Aroan. When he passed away, as usual there came some division in the church.  I don’t know much about this person or his church. But as one Christian forwarded on video in which one ‘Night Watchman’ [Jamakkaran] gave his response through his video message.  I didn’t listen it completely. Because after listening sometime when he began to raise his objection to bring HINDU police inside while the service was held, I stopped.  Then I posted one short response.  For that one person wrote back that in spite of what he says  he is telling the reality.  First I thought of ignoring such controvery among Christains as this is not new as well as I am not interested in it. But when that ‘Night Watchman’ began to abuse the religious sentiment and identity of others, then I began to post my response in Tamil. And this is the English translation.

I began by posting one of my songs in which I criticized the ‘Church’ as an organized religion.  Here I am sharing only the English translation along with my commentary.

I wrote this song when I read American Poet Emily Dickinson’s letter to her friend about church.  As I have the similar view, I wrote this. My aim is not to criticize or condemn the need and role of church for the (traditional) Christians.  They need it.  But as I never fit into it, I shared my view through this song.  My intension is not to hurt anyone.

78.           Church

They gather together as a church

To proclaim a doctrine

Other than shouting along with the crowd

What else is the profit in it?

Religion become a ritual in

In the name of church

If I say that this is not correct

They call me as the enemy of the church!?

Forming rules and regulations/constitutions

And gathering inside a building

Is not a church

This is the truth that I found!

In the name of worship

Once in a week

They enact a drama

After having some rehearsal

Entry is free

But not for all

It is only for those

Who accepts that particular church’s doctrine!

Fortunately we escaped

Because of the grace which sought us

Protect us in the rest of life

To complete our race as your bhakta.

       16-10-1995-. Mahari, Rewa (M.P.)

I don’t want and cannot add any personal comment here.  As you all know well my view regarding ‘organized religion’, I have nothing to add.  Above all such songs and thoughts came in a particular context.  Now I wouldn’t even write such songs or even write such a book like Living Water and Indian Bowl.  They served as a safety valve to release the inner pressure within my brain.  At the same time I am not regretting for writing them.  God has a purpose for all our thoughts, action, reaction and inaction.  Keeping Him at the centre of our lives, when we do anything only to glorify Him and serve others, then we need not regret for the bad taste that some of our thoughts, actions (writing) have created for anyone (mainly to us).  It is like giving sugar coated medicine only to cure a patient.  God uses His ‘Marakkarunai’ which is part of His grace.  ‘Maram + Karunai’.  ‘Maram’ is the opposite to ‘aram’.  Aram is dharma, but ‘maram’ is a negative form of dharma but not ‘un-dharmic’.  As He keeps only the welfare of us in His mind He cannot act against His own nature viz., dharma.  Though we cannot claim to show ‘marakkarunai’ towards others, yet God can use even our negative¹ approach to serve the need of some—including ours. And this is one such song that served my purpose in that time.  This poem is more a critique² than mere criticism.

25-7-14

1. Another general observation is that our Lord was not content with making positive statements only; He made negative ones also.  He was not content with just stating His doctrine.  He also criticized other doctrines.  I am emphasizing that again in passing because, as I have pointed out repeatedly in dealing with this Sermon, for some extraordinary reason a peculiar flabbiness–intellectual and moral–seems to have entered into many people, Evangelicals included.  Many, alas, seem to object in these days to negative teaching.  `Let us have positive teaching’, they say.  `You need not criticize others views.’  But our Lord definitely did criticize the teaching of the Pharisees and Scribes….—D. Martin Lloyd Jones. Studies In The Sermon On the Mount.  Inter-Varsity Press. London. Reprint. Jn. 1966.  Ch.17. Christ and The Old Testament. p. 181.

• It often seems that being critical and producing a critique are being confused and conflated.— Werner F. Menski, Hindu Law, Beyond Tradition and Modernity, Oxford, (2003), Second impression, 2005, notes, 102, p. 524

This ‘Night Watchman’ in his response said that he was very much disturbed when he saw the HINDU police who tied yellow string on the wrist, hold the hands of the church leaders and try to bring reconciliation.  When I heard this I stopped listening as I was much irritated by his comments about the ‘yellow string’ which he noticed on the wrist of the police persons who came to the church only as they were invited.  Then I wrote:

Blessed are those who bring peace.  Those Hindus who came with yellow string on the are blessed as they try to bring reconciliation and peace among the warring Christians who wear golden cross studded with dimond.’—Modern New Testament, contribution: Modern Church going Christians.

There is a story about this.  In front of the church one Hindu was running a tea shop.  He used to supply tea for all the committee meetings held in that church. One time a newly elected bishop came to the church to participate in one such committee meeting.  But this bishop has some allergy about Hindus.  As usual the tea shop owner brought the tea. When the bishop saw it he was bit shocked and asked the shop owner how long he is supplying tea like this.  ‘Many years’ he responded.  ‘Though you are moving closely with them, why still you were not converted and became a Christian?’  In response he said, ‘If I too became a Christian then who will come and interfere to separate the committee members when they quarrel among themselves and try to bring reconciliation.  Then I should also join with one group and fight with another’.  [The following comment I didn’t add in my Tamil version.  After that there is a rumor that the bishop sent one oral circular to all the church in his jurisdiction that hereafter whenever any committee meeting held one Hindu should be invited either as an observer or peace maker as an impartial person.]

Part Two

First I thought of ignoring this controversy and not to comment. Because as the Christians were washing their dirty cloth in public it is none of my business.  But that ‘Night Watchman’ unnecessarily hurt the religious sentiments of others, I thought of sharing my thought.  Unless one points out our mistake then we will remain righteous in our own sight.  Other than this my aim is not to hurt anyone, particularly Christians or any Church.

@@@

Dheradhun, October 1, 2000, 6.45 pm.

This I write as usual as brain storm to get rid of my irritation.  I know I am wrong even to have such irritation against others.  But being a human with all my limitations, I cannot avoid it.

In this evening walk I was thinking about YWAM and this School of Hindu Studies.

My first major criticism about YWAM is that it is an Foreign rather American dominated Organization.  I don’t know much about YWAM in India.  But what all I know about it with my limited knowledge and experience is that till this day most of the Leaders of YWAM in India are Foreigners.  If at all there will be any Indian as the Leader, definitely his wife would be an American or at least a Foreigner.

A sub point here is that most of the Indian YWAM-ers are longing and even praying to have a Foreigner as their life partner.  Then alone there status in YWAM will increase and they will see any hope to become leaders within in YWAM.

I don’t know when YWAM came to India.  But all these years they cannot make good Indian Leaders who can take responsibility from their American (Western) bases.  If they say that they don’t find any dedicated Indian to take the responsibility (who has only an Indian as the wife or husband—is to  be remembered) that shows their poor leadership which failed to produce such Indian leaders.  What all the past Western Missionaries have done, it is still continuing.

Take for example of the SHS.  Jermiah Oltmann is its director.  But how long he was in India?  Just three years!  This evening before I typing this he himself told me, ‘even though I am the Director of this school, I don’t know much about Hinduism or India.  I am a babe and still a student.’  That is fine and it shows his humility and ready to learn.  But still being a student and a babe he can become the Director of SHS because he is an American?  May be his matted hair may be an additional qualification!  Cannot they find one Indian in YWAM with enough experience in the ministry to become the Director of this school?  If they are not ready to trust such Indians, still they can keep any American as his assistant or even as the bass.  But why not an Indian be the Director to such a school which is suppose to teach about Hinduism!

I say ‘suppose’ to teach about Hinduism.  Because twelve teachers are going to teach and their syllabus is: 1. SHS introduction, 2. Contextual Evangelism, 3. Indigenous Worship, 4. Biblical Storytelling/ The History of Redemption-NT; 6. Hindu Worldview: Understanding Hinduism, 7. Hindu Worldview: Redeeming Hinduism; 8. Padyatra Oureach, 9. History of Indian Mission & Hindutva, 10. Church Planting, 11. Praying into the Fondations of Hinduism and 12. Team Dynamics and Research Methods.

The ‘Understanding Hinduism’ will be taught by Dr. Raju Abraham and I don’t know about his knowledge about Hinduism.  Redeeming Hinduism will be taught by Rev. Titus.  Though my topic is ‘Indigenous Worship’, what is there to teach five days and each day having four classes?

This is the School of Hindu Studies, but there is no classes to teach Hindu Scriptures and other related matters!  May be Dr. Raju may teach on them.  Better to rename this school as ‘Study of Evangelim’.

Well here ends my brain storm.  I may continue after some reflection in some other days.

Dehradun.

@@@

AG Church controversy

சமீபத்தில் சென்னையில் உள்ள ஒரு ஏ‌ஜி சபையில் ஒரு பிரச்சனை ஏற்பட்டது. அது குறித்து எனது எண்ணத்தை ஒருவர் கேட்டபோது அவருக்கும், மேலும் எனது பதிலுக்கு மற்ற ஒருவர் தந்த பதிலுக்கு பதிலாக நான் எழுதியவற்றை இங்கு பகிர்ந்து கொள்கிறேன்.  முதல் கேள்வி ‘உங்களுக்கு என்ன தோன்று கிறது என்பது. இரண்டாவது பதில் இந்த பிரச்சனையில் உள்ள யதார்த்தத்தை புரிந்து கொள்ளும்படி எனக்கு ஒருவர் ஆலோசனை தந்தபோது அவருக்கு நான் தந்த பதில் இரண்டாம் பகுதி. அத்துடன் மேற்கொண்டு எனது சில தனிப்பட்ட எண்ணங்களையும் பிதிவு செய்துள்ளேன்.

எனக்குத் தோன்றுவது இதுதான்:

திருச் (தெருச்) சபை

கூடுகிறார் ஒரு சபையாக

ஒரு கொள்கை தன்னை அறிவிக்கவே

கும்பலோடு ஒரு கோவிந்தா

கண்டதே அல்லாது பயனென்ன

சபை என்கின்ற பெயராலே

சடங்காய்ப் போனது  மதமே

சரியில்லை ஈது என்றால்

சபை எதிரி என்கிறார் என்னை

சட்ட திட்டங்கள் போட்டு

ஒரு கட்டிடத்திற்குள் கூட்டி

நடத்துவதும் சபை அல்ல

நானறிந்த உண்மை இது

வாரம் ஒருநாள் கூடியே

வழிபாடு என்ற பெயராலே

நடப்பதோ ஒரு நாடகம்

ஒத்திகை சில பார்த்த பின்

அனுமதி என்றால் இலவசம்

ஆனால் அனைவர்க்கும் அல்ல

அச்சபை கொள்கை ஏற்கும்

அங்கத்தினர்கட்கு மட்டும்

நல்ல வேளை நாம் பிழைத்தோம்

நாடி வந்த இறை அருளால்

காத்திடும் எஞ்சும் வாழ்வில்

கடைதேற உன் பக்தனாய்

தழையத் தழைய [தங்கத்தினால் ஆன] சிலைவை காட்டிக்கொண்டு தங்களுக்குள் சண்டையிடும் கிறிஸ்தவர்களை சமாதானப் படுத்த கையில் மஞ்சள் கயிறு காட்டிக் கொண்டு வரும் இந்துக்கள் புண்ணியவான்கள்.-நவீன புதிய ஏற்பாடு, உபயம் நவீன சபை கிறிஸ்தவர்கள்

இதுகுறித்து ஒரு கதை உண்டு.  ஒரு சபை வாசலில் ஒரு இந்து தேநீர் கடை நடத்தி வந்தார். அச்சபையில் நடைபெறும் அனைத்து கமிட்டி கூட்டங்களுக்கும் அவர்தான் தேநீர் தருவது வழக்கம்.  ஒருமுறை புதிதாக தேர்ந்து எடுக்கப்பட பேராயர் ஒரு கமிட்டி கூட்டத்திற்காக அச்சபைக்கு வந்தார்.  அவருக்கு இந்துக்கள் என்றாலே அலர்ஜி. வழக்கம்போல் கூட்டத்தின் இடையே அந்த கடைக்காரர் தேநீர் கொண்டுவந்து கொடுத்தார்.  அவரைக் கண்ட பேராயர் அதிர்ச்சியுற்று ‘எவ்வளவு காலமாக இவ்வாறு செய்கிறீர்கள்’ எனக் கேட்டார்.  ‘பல வருடங்க்களாக’ என கடைக்கார பதில் தந்தார்.  ‘இவ்வளவு காலம் இவர்கள் மத்தியில் இருந்தும் நீங்கள் இன்னுமா கிறிஸ்தவராக மாறவில்லை’ என்று பேராயர் ஆதங்கமுடன் கேட்க. ‘நானும் கிறிஸ்தவனாக மாறிவிட்டால் பிறகு கமிட்டி கூட்டத்தின் இடையே இவர்கள் சண்டைபோடும் போது, வந்து அவர்களை விலக்கி சமாதானப் படுத்துவது யார்.  நானும் கிறிஸ்தவனாக மாறிவிட்டால் ஏதேனும் ஒரு பக்கம் சேர்ந்து சண்டை போட வேண்டியதுதான்’ என கடைக்காறர் பதில் தந்துவிட்டுச் சென்றார்.

இதில் யதார்த்தம் இல்லை எனபதுதான் யதார்த்தம்.  முதலில் நான் உங்கள் பதிவிற்கு பதில் பதில் தரவேண்டாம் என எண்ணினேன்.  ஏனென்றால் கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் தங்களின் அழுக்கை பொது இடத்தில் போட்டு வெளுக்கின்றார்கள். இதில் நமக்கு என்ன வேலை என எண்ணினேன்.  ஆனால் தேவையில்லாமல் அவர்களின் சண்டைக்குள் பிற மதத்தினரின் உணர்வுகளை மதிக்காமல் மிதித்ததினால்தான் நான் என் பதிவை பதிவு செய்கிறேன்.  அதிலும் நான் இவரின் முழுச் செய்தியையும் கேட்கவில்லை.  அவர் மஞ்சள் கயிறு பற்றி கூறியதுமே நான் கேட்பதை நிறுத்திவிட்டேன்.  முழுவதும் கேட்டிருந்தால் இன்னும் பலவிதமான பதில்களைத் தரவேண்டி இருந்திருக்கும்.  ஆனால் அதற்கான நேரமோ, தேவையோ எனக்கு இல்லை என்பதினால் நான் முழுவதுமாக கேட்கவில்லை.  அதுபோல் உங்களின் பதிவையும் முதலில் புறக்கணிக்கவே எண்ணினேன்.  ஆனாலும் நம்மிடம் உள்ள பிழைகளை யாராவது சுட்டிக் காட்டாவிட்டால், நாம் நம்பார்வைக்கு நீதிமானக இருந்துவிடுவோம் என்கின்ற ஒரே காரணத்திற்காக இந்த பதிலை அளிக்கின்றேன்.  மற்றபடி யாருடைய மனதையும் புண்படுத்துவது எனது நோக்கம் அல்ல.

எது யதார்த்தம்

காவலர்கள் வேறு வேலை இல்லாமல் அங்கு வரவில்லை.  அவர்கள் ஆராதனை செய்யவும் வரவில்லை.  அழைத்ததினால் வந்தார்கள். அவர்கள் அணிந்துள்ள காக்கி உடைத்தான் அவர்களின் அடையாளம்.  அரசாங்கம் தந்தது அவர்களின் அதிகாரம்.  அதன்படி அவர்கள் முதலில் சமாதானம் செய்ய முயன்றுள்ளார்கள்.  ஆனால் இவருக்கு அவரிகளின் சீருடை கண்ணுக்குத்தெரியவில்லை.  அவர்களின் கையில் உள்ள மஞ்சள் கயிறுதான் தெரிகிறது.  ஒரு மதச்சார்பற்ற நாட்டில் அரசாங்கப் பணி செய்பவர்களை இப்படி அவர்களின் மத அடையாளத்தின் அடிப்படையில் அடையாளப்படுத்துவது யதார்த்தமா. ஆனால் இது பொதுவாக எல்லா கிறிஸ்தவர்களிடமும் உள்ள குணம்.  உதாரணமாக அவர்களின் மத கொள்கையை பின்பற்றாதவர்களை அவர்கள் பொத்தாம் பொதுவாக ‘Non-Christian’ என்று அழைப்பார்கள்.  ஆனால் ஒரு இந்து இவர்களை ‘Non-Hindu’ என்று அழைப்பதில்லை. [Call people what they are as Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Sikh etc and not what they are not as ‘NON-CHRISTIAN] இதற்குக் காரணம் கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் தங்களின் ஒரே அடையாளம் அவர்களின் மதமாக மட்டுமே இருப்பதுதான்.  அதில் தவறு இல்லை.  ஆனால் அதற்காக மற்றவர்களை அவர்களுக்கு இல்லாத ஒரு மத அடையாளத்தை தருவது எப்படி நியாயம்.  அது மட்டுமல்ல அவர்களின் மதக் கொள்கைகளை ஏற்காதவர்  ‘இரசிக்கப்படாதவர்கள், இறைவனை அறியாதவர்கள்’, இருளில் இருப்பவர்கள்’ என பலவாறு அழைப்பார்கள் ஏதோ இரட்சிப்பை இவர்களே மொத்தமாக குத்தகை எடுத்தது போல.  அது மட்டும் அல்ல இவர்கள் சார்ந்த சபையின் கொள்கையை ஏற்காத மற்ற கிறிஸ்தவர்களும் இவர்களைப் பொறுத்தவரை இரட்சிக்கப் படாதவர்களே. முதலில் இந்த இரட்சிப்பு என்பது என்ன. ‘இரசிக்கபட்டோம், இரசிக்கப்பட்டுக் கொண்டே இருக்கிறோம், இரட்சிக்கப் பாடுவோம் [we are saved, being save and will be saved] என்பதுதான் முக்தி மறையின் தாத்பர்யம். அதைவிடுத்து ‘இரட்சிக்கப்பட்டாயா’ என்று இப்பதிவை யூடிபில் போட்டவரிடம் கேள்வி கேட்கிறார். இதிலிருந்து இவர் அறிவிக்கும் இரட்சிப்பே கேள்விக்குறியாக இப்போது நிற்கிறது. இறுதிவரையில் நிலை நிற்பவனே இரட்சிக்கப்படுவான். நிற்கிறேன் என்பவன் எச்சரிக்கையாக இருக்கவேண்டும். இதை விடுத்து ‘இரட்சிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறாயா’ என்று கேள்வி கேட்பத்தின் மூலம் ஏதோ இரட்சிக்கப்பட்ட எல்லோரும் ‘புனிதமான பசுக்கள்’ [Holy Cow] அவர்களிடையே பிரச்சனையோ பேதமோ வராது போல பேசுவது விந்தையாக இருக்கிறது.  இது முக்தி  மறைக்கு முற்றிலும் மாறுபட்ட கருத்து

இது போன்ற குறுகிய மதவாதத்தை தங்கள் அடையாளமாகக் கொண்டுள்ளவர்களுக்குப் பிறர் அவர்கள் செய்யும் பணி அடையாளம் இல்லை அவர்கள் கையில் கட்டி இருக்கும் கயிறுதான் அடையாளம்.  [அன்று ரத்தம் சிந்திய மரச் சிலுவையின் அடையாளமாக நவரத்தினங்கள் பதித்த தங்கத்தினால் ஆனா] சிலுவையை தழைய்த் தழைய அணிந்து கொண்டிருக்கும் இவர்களிடையே அவர்கள் அழைத்தத்தின் காரணமாக வந்த அந்த [கையில் எளிய பஞ்சினால் ஆன கயிறு கட்டியுள்ள இந்துக்] காவலர்கள் செய்த காரியம் இவருக்கு சங்கடத்தை ஏற்படுத்துகிறது. ஆனால் இவர் தன்னை முதலில் இந்து என்றும் பிறகு கிறிஸ்தவ பத்திரிக்கையாளர் என்றும் கூறுவது சங்கடமாக இல்லையா.  அதிலும் அவர்கள் மஞ்சள் கயிற்றுடன் சபை தலைவர்களின் கைகளை பிடித்துக் கொண்டு சமாதானம் செய்வது இவருக்கு தர்ம சங்கட்டமாக இருக்கிறது.  சமாதானம் செய்பவன் புண்ணியவான். அதை யார் செய்தால் என்ன.  அந்த காவலர்கள் என்ன வேறு வேலை இல்லாமல் அழையாதா விருந்தாளியாக வந்தா சமாதானம் செய்தார்கள்.  முதலில் நம் கண்ணில் இருக்கும் உத்திரத்தைப் பார்க்க வேண்டும், பிறர் கைகளில் உள்ள கயிற்றை அல்ல. அவர்களை சக மனிதர்களாகவோ, அல்லது தங்களின் பணியைச் செய்யும் அரசாங்க அதிகாரிகளாகவோ கண்ணுக்குத்தெரியவில்லை என்பதுதான் இதில் உள்ள யதார்த்தம்

இது இவரின் குற்றம் இல்லை.  இது இவர் சார்ந்த மதத்தின் மதக்கோட்பாடாக இருக்கும் வரையில் இவரைப் போன்ற கிறிஸ்தவர்களை மாற்றுவது முற்றிலும் இயலாத காரியம்.  Faith started as a relationship with a PERSON in Palestine, then it moved to Rome and became an administration, then moved to Germany and became a philosophy, then moved to Europe and became a culture, went to America and became an ENTERPRISE, came to India as British Imperialism and came to India as CHURCHIANITY and finally ended as Private Limited Company as if the family property of some individuals.

கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் ஏதோ செய்து கொள்ளுங்கள், மற்றவர்களை மதம் மாற்றி அவர்களை இரட்டிப்பாய் நரகத்தின் பிள்ளைகளாகவும் மாற்றுங்கள். ஆனால் பிற மதத்தினரின் மன உணர்வுகளை மதிக்கவும் கற்றுக்கொள்ளுங்கள்.  இந்தியாவில் இருந்தும் இதை இதுவரை இந்தியக் கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் கற்றுக் கொள்ளவில்லை என்பதுதான் இதில் உள்ள யதார்த்தம். அதற்க்குக் காரணம் இந்தியாவில் இருந்தும் இவர்கள் தாங்கள் இந்தியர்கள் என்ற எண்ணம் இல்லாமல் கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் என்ற ஒரே மத அடையாளத்துடன் இருப்பதுதான் காரணம். என்னைப் பொறுத்தவரையில் இந்திய அரசியல் அமைப்புச் சட்டத்தை ஏற்று வாழும் அனைவருமே இந்தியர்கள்தான். அவர்கள் தங்களின் சமய அடையாளங்களைப் பொது அமைதிக்குக் குந்தகம் வராதவரையில் எல்லா இடத்திலும் பயன்படுத்தலாம். அதைவிடுத்து பிறர் புறம்பாக அணியும் சமய அடையாளங்களை வைத்து நம்மிடையே பிரிவினை உண்டாக்குவது ஏற்புடையது அல்ல. கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் இந்தியர்களாகவும் இருக்கக் கற்றுக் கொள்ளாதவரையில் இதுபோன்ற பிரிவினை எண்ணங்களை மாற்றமுடியாது.

இப்போது எனக்கு ஒரு கேள்வி உள்ளது. இந்த ஏ‌ஜி சபை பற்றி எனக்கு எதுவும் தெரியாது. ஆனால் எனது கேள்வி இந்த சபைக்கு உள்ளதுபோல் அனைத்து ஏ‌ஜி சபைக்கும் தனித்தனி அடையாளம் உள்ளதா.  உதாரணமாக இந்த சபையை எஸ்‌ஆர்‌ஏ‌ஜி என அழைக்கிறார்கள். இதுபோல் அனைத்து ஏ‌ஜி சபைகளுக்கும் தனித்தனி அடையாளம் உண்டா.  அல்லது இந்த சபையை உருவாக்கியவரின் மறைமுக அடையாளமாக, அதாவது ஒரு குடும்பத்தின் அடையாளமாக இருக்கின்றதா.  அதாவது இந்த சபை ஒரு குடும்பமாக இருக்கின்றதா அல்லது ஒரு குடும்பத்தின் சபபையாக இருக்கின்றதா. இது ஒரு நிறுவனத்திற்கு உட்பட்ட சபையாக இருந்தால் அதற்குத் தனி அடையாளம் தேவையா. இதற்கு அந்த நிறுவனம் தான் பதில் தரவேண்டும். சி‌எஸ்‌ஐ சபை எல்லா இடத்திலும் சி‌எஸ்‌ஐ சபையாகத்தான் இருக்கின்றது என நினைக்கின்றேன். அல்லது அதற்கு அந்த ஊரின் பெயர் அல்லது அந்த இடத்தின் பெயர் வேண்டுமானால் தனி அடையாளமாக இருக்கும். ஆனால் இந்த ஏ‌ஜி சபைக்கு மட்டும் என் எஸ்‌ஆர்‌ஏ‌ஜி என்ற தனி அடையாளம் எதற்காக தர்ப்பட்டுளது.

இவர் பேசும்போது ‘சபையை பிரித்துவிடுவோமா’ என்று காட்டமாக கேள்வி கேட்கிறார். அதில் என்ன தவறு? ஏதோ இதுவரை கிறிஸ்தவ மதத்தில் ஒரே ஒரு சபை இருப்பது போல இவர் கேட்பது வேடிக்கையாக இருக்கிறது. அப்படி என்றால் நான் பிரிவினையை நியாயப் படுத்துகிறேன் என்று கேட்டால் நிச்சயமாக என்று தெளிவாக பதில் கூறுவேன். இந்த எஸ்‌ஆர்‌ஏ‌ஜி சபை ஒரு நிறுவனத்திற்குச் சொந்தமானதாக இருப்பதாக எனக்குத் தெரியவில்லை. ஏதோ ஒரு தனிநபர் முதலீடு செய்து அதில் பங்கு தாரர்களை சேர்த்து நடத்திய நிறுவனம் போலத் தெரிகிறது. அரசியல் கட்சிகளில் உள்ளதுபோல இவர்களும் தங்களின் சபையின் வருமானம் பிரிந்து போகக்கூடாது என்பதற்காக அரசியல் கட்சிகளில் உள்ளதுபோல வாரிசு அரசியல் செய்கிறார்கள். [Someone well said that: whatever may Christians preach when it comes to money matter everybody has same religion] இந்த சபை ஒரு குடும்பமாக இல்லாமல் ஒரு குடும்ப சபைக்காகத்தான் இருக்கிறது.  இதை மறைந்த போதகரின் மகனை மீண்டும் சபை போதகராக நியமத்திலிருந்துத் தெளிவாகத் தெரிகிறது.  அப்படி இல்லை என்றால் வேறு ஒருவரை இந்த சபையின் போதகராக ஏன் நியமிக்க வில்லை.  ஆரம்பத்தில் சில கமிட்டி உறுப்பினர்கள் சொல்வதுபோல் நிறுவனம்தான் போதகரை இந்த சபைக்குத் தந்தது என்றால் ஏன் அவர்கள் அதைத் துணிவுடன் வேறு ஒருவரை சபை போதகராக நியமித்து நிரூபிக்கக்கூடாது. அதற்குக் காரணம் அந்த சபையில் கூடுபவர்கள் ஆண்டவரின் விசுவாசிகளாகத் தெரியவில்லை.  ஏதோ ஒரு தனி ஊழியக்காரரின் விசுவாசிகளாகத் தான் இன்னும் இருக்கிறார்கள்.  அவர்கள் அங்கு கூடுவது இறைவனை ஆராதிக்க அல்ல. அந்த தனி ஊழியக்காரையையும் அவரின் வாரிசு அரசியலையும் தான். அந்த அரசியலை விரும்பாதவர்கள் அது குறித்து கேள்வி கேட்டதில் தவறும் இல்லை.  அதை எதிர்த்து பிரிந்து சென்றதும் தவறு இல்லை. பங்கு தாறர்கள் அந்த கம்பெனியின் இலாப நட்ட கணக்கை கேட்கிறார்கள்.  சரியான பதில் கிடைக்காதபோது தங்கள் பங்குகளை பிரித்து அல்லது விற்று வேறு கம்பெனியில் முதலீடு செய்ய சென்றதுதான் இங்கு நடக்கும் சபை அரசியல். அடுத்தவர்கள் அஸ்திபாரம் போட்டு கட்டிய கட்டிடத்தில் எந்தவிதமான மாற்றங்களை அடுத்தவர்கள், ஏன் அவரிகளின் வாரிசுகளும் செய்வது எளிது. அடுத்தவர்களின் தோளின் மீது ஏறி சவாரிசெய்தால் நடந்து செல்பவர்களின் பிரச்சனை புரியாது.  இப்போது உள்ள போதகரின் தந்தை செய்தது போல [தில் இருந்தால்] புதிதாக ஆத்தும ஆதாயம் செய்து அதே நிறுவனத்தில் வேறு ஒரு சபையை நிறுவினால் அவர் தான் தனது தந்தையின் உண்மையான ஆன்மீக வாரிசு என்பதை நிரூபிக்க முடியும்.  அதை விடுத்து அவரின் தோளின் மீது நிறுவனத்தின் உதவியுடன் வாரிசு அரசியல் செய்வது அப்பட்டமான சபை அரசியில்.  ‘இறைவன் உலகத்தின் மத்தியில் சபையை வைத்தார். ஆனால் பிசாசு சபையின் நடுவில் உலகத்தை வைத்தான்’ என்று யாரோ கூறியது இதைத்தான்.

சபையும் பிரிவும்

‘சபையை பிரித்துவிடலாமா’ என்று ஜாமக்காரர் இராஜாவை கேட்கிறார்.  இராஜா அதற்கு பதில் ஒன்றும் தரவில்லை. பிரிவினையும் சபையும் ஒட்டிப் பிறந்த இரட்டையர்கள்.  இருவரையும் பிரிக்கமுடியாதது மட்டுமல்ல, ஒருவரை ஒருவர் பிரிந்து வாழவே முடியாது.  பிற மதங்களில் சில பிரிவினைகள் உண்டு.  ஆனால் பிரிவினையில் பிறந்து, பிரிவினையால் வளர்ந்து பிரிவினையில் வாழ்ந்துகொண்டிருக்கும் ஒரே மதம் கிறிஸ்தவம் தான்.  பிரிவினையில்லாமல் சபையும் இல்லை, பிரிவினையில்லாத சபையும் இல்லை. இன்னும் சொல்லப்போனால் பிரிவினையில்லாமல் ஒரு சபையையே ஆரம்பிக்க முடியாது. முதலில் பிரிவினை வரும் பிறகுதான் சபையே வரும். ஒரு சபை இல்லாத இடத்தில் மத மாற்றம் என்ற பெயரில் இவர்கள் ‘புராஜாதியினர்’ என்றும், ‘இறைவனை அறியாமல், இருளில் வாழ்ந்து கொண்டு, இரட்சிக்கப்படாமல் நரகத்திற்குச் செல்லும்’ கிறிஸ்தவர்கள் அல்லாதவர்களை, அவர்கள் ஜாதியைத் தவிற மற்றபடி குடும்பம், கலாச்சாரம், பண்பாடு, நாகரீகம், நாட்டுப்பற்று, உடை, உணவு போன்று பலவற்றிலிருந்தும் பிரித்து, திரு முழுக்குக் கொடுத்து அவர்களை இறைவனுக்காகப் பிரித்தெடுத்தால்தான் ஒரு சபையையே நிறுவ முடியும். [பிறகு அவர்களை இரட்டிப்பாய் நரகத்தின் பிள்ளைகளாக மாற்றுவது தனிப் பிரச்சனை] அதன்பின் அது தொடர்கதையாக அதிகாரம், பதவி, பணம், வாரிசு, வேதாந்தம், சித்தாந்தம் போன்ற பலவற்றால் பல சபைகளாக பிரிந்து கொண்டே இருக்கும். ப்ரோடெஸ்டென்ட் சபைகளில் உலா பல்லாயிரக்கணக்கான சபைகளே இதற்கு சாட்சி. மதமாற்றம் என்ற பெயரால் இவர்கள் செய்தால் அது இறைவன் திருப் பணி, ஆனால் அது இவர்களின் சபைகளில் நடந்தால் அது பிசாசின் செயல். இவர்களுக்கு வந்தால் அது இரத்தம் அடுத்தவர்களுக்கு வந்தால் அது தக்காளி சட்னி.

தேவனுடைய பிள்ளைகள் தங்களுக்குள் [சபையில்] ஏற்பட்ட பிரச்சனையை தீர்க்க ‘இறைவனை அறியாத, இருளில் வாழும், இரசிக்கப்படாமல் நரகத்திற்குப் போகும் கையில் மஞ்சள் கயிறு காட்டிய புறஜாதியர் வந்து அவர்களின் கையைப் பிடித்து சமாதானம் செய்தது இவருக்கு தர்ம சங்கட்டமாக இருந்தது. அதுஎன்ன கோயிலா, மடமா, மண்டபமா, மதச் சட்டங்கா, சம்ப்ரதாயமா உடனே தடைசெய்ய அல்லது தடியடி நடத்த. இவர் ஒன்றை மறந்து விட்டார். இதே போன்ற சம்பவம் இந்துக்கள் மத்தியில் ஏற்பட்டிருந்தால் என்ன நடந்திருக்கும். ஒன்று தடியடி அல்லது தடை.  உதாரணமாக ஒரு கோயிலில் திருவிழா நடத்துவது பற்றி இரு தரப்பிரனிடையே பிரச்சனை ஏற்பட்டால் முதலில் நடப்பது திருவிழாவிற்குத் தடை, கோயிலும் மூடப்படும்.  ஏனென்றால் இந்துக்கள் அரசியல் கட்சியினருக்கு வாக்கு வங்கி அல்ல.  ஆனால் ‘சிறுபான்மையினரின்’ காவலர்கள் என்று சொல்லிக்கொண்டு அவர்களை வெறும் வாக்கி வங்கியாகவே நடத்தும் எல்லா திராவிட அரசியல் கட்சியினரும் [அது யாராக இருந்தாலும் சரி] சிறுபான்மையினரின் வழிப்பாட்டுத் தளத்திற்குள் அநேகமாக காவல் துறையினரை அனுப்புவதே இல்லை. ஒருவேளை காவல் துறையின் துணையை நாடும் பட்சத்தில் அவர்களிடம் மிக கவனமாக அன்புடனும் பரிவுடனும் நடந்து கொளும்படி நிறந்தர கட்டளை பிறப்பிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கும்.  ஏனென்றால் அவர்கள் நிறந்தரமான வாக்கு வங்கி. எனவே அவர்களை பகைத்துக் கொள்ளக் கூடாது. நோன்பு காஞ்சி அருந்தி, தலையில் குல்லா அணிந்தும், கிறிஸ்துமஸ்திற்கு சபையில் சென்று கேக் வெட்டி வாழ்த்துக்கள் சொல்லியும் தங்களது மதச்சார்பின்பையை நிலை நாட்டி,பொங்கல், தீபாவளி போன்ற பண்டிகைகளுக்கு வாழ்த்துச் சொல்வதை மதவாதமாகக் கருதி ஆட்சி நடத்துபவரிகளின் பாதுகாப்பில் பத்திரமாக இருக்கும் இவருக்கு சபையில் நடந்த சண்டையை சமாதானம் செய்யவந்த காவலரிகளின் கையில் கட்டியிருந்த மஞ்சள் கயிறு பிரச்சனையாக இருந்தது. [அதே மதச்சார்பின்மையினரின் வீட்டில் பெண்கள் ஆடுவெட்டி, கோழியறுத்து, காவடி தூக்கி, தீச்சட்டி எடுத்து, அலகு குத்தி, மொட்டை அடித்து, அங்கப் பிரதட்சணம் செய்து, யாகம் நடத்தி, தங்கத் தேர் இழுத்து தீமிதித்தால் அது அவர்களின் தனிமனித உரிமை கட்சியின் கொள்கையல்ல.] தேவையில்லாத இந்த பதிவு ஏன் என்று எண்ணுகிறீர்களா. வெளியே நடக்கும் அரசியலுக்கும் சபைக்குள் நடக்கும் அரசியலுக்கும் உள்ள ஒன்றுமை வேற்றுமையை எடுத்துக்காட்டக்தான்.

@@@

 Dear Dr Solomon,

Greetings.  I’m disappointed to see Alex Harris’ message to the World Church.  Please do not publish this tract.  It could do more harm than good.  McGavran himself was opposed to caste, and believed in conversion to Christ (redemption) as the first step toward abolition of caste.  If others have misused the so-called people group approach, it is better to deal directly (face to face) with the persons and institutions concerned.  

Thank you.

Yours in Christ,

Roger Hedlund
 

Dear Brother Solomon,

I am not competent to comment on certain assertions in this paper re the history of Hinduism and caste system. No doubt, the British used the caste system to their advantage. But to say that caste system “did not take root till the onset of the British” seems exaggerated. These debates I will leave to historians. And for our present purposes, these may not be so relevant. The fact is caste dynamics are strong in our context where we are called to preach the gospel and establish churches.

The charge made against the Church Growth concept of homogenous unit principle is nothing new.

The basic problem, in my opinion, is that what was meant to be a principle of mission strategy is made into an ideal – the way church ought to be. We cannot deny that h.u.p. has solidified caste feelings. This was not the intention of Dr McGavran. He was only thinking in terms of mission strategy.

All of us, I hope, will agree that a caste-based church (or a church based on any type of cultural exclusivism) is essentially idolatrous and falls far short of the inclusive community of the NT. It is tragic that some who applied Church Growth strategies were too eager to “exploit” caste dynamics for the sake of mission. Such a pragmatic approach to mission is a basic problem with Church Growth theology in general. However, it is not fair to accuse Church Growth of intentionally promoting casteism.

From my own ministry I have come to the conclusion that strategies based on caste or other principles may be provisionally necessary, but the goal has to be intentionally to establish multi-ethnic or inclusive communities. This is an application of “all things to all men” of the NT. Paul would bring himself “down” to the level of sinful structures in society in order to win them and to break those very structures. Similarly, I think it is justifiable that an approach, for example, to Brahmins must initially at least be on terms that would be acceptable to Brahmins. But if there is a prior commitment to establishing a Brahmin church that perpetuates untouchability and other evils, we have betrayed the gospel of Christ that has reconciliation and justice at its centre.

So, in short, recognize caste as a factor to be considered in forming a strategy, but from the beginning preach the gospel that destroys caste.

Mohan Chacko

Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Dehra Dun, India

Dear Dr. Hedlund,   Thank you for your message addressed to Dr. Solomon.  I concur with you.  Online messages have a way of landing in the wrong hands which could result in serious repercussions for God’s community of believers.   So good to see your name in my mailbox again.   I’ve lost track of your ministry in the recent years.  Are you still in India?  I recall with pleasure meeting you at Sat Dal in the late 1980’s and discussing issues of mutual interests.   Thank you for your contribution to God’s mission in India.   Blessings,   Melchi   Melchizedek M. Ponniah, Ph.D. Department of Communication Andrews University Berrien Springs, MI 49103 (269) 471-3162

We must affirm caste as unique cultural and in some cases geographic communities that we should celebrate and not deny.  A brahmin cannot but remain a brahmin, so does a nadar. We affirm the need for caste-based marriages as first choice as God’s means for nurturing Godly families. We also affirm based on God’s revelation in nature and His word that in a deeper, complementary bio-cultural reality `He created them male and female’ and even that were told dissolves in Eternity. However, Dalit communities that find their traditional identifiers a reminder of their oppressive past, must be free to change their names.   Just some thoughts on a debate that starts with the wrong assumptions about caste and dumps the baby with the bath water. In this liberated belief about caste, race and one’s identity happy and content to belong to the Nadar community – have to be careful to die to a certain kind of pride when it raises its head.

Chakravarthy

Thanks for your thoughts, Chakravarthyji. There is a story behind this which is a meeting just on Monday night with Alex Harris here at USCWM where he simply did not want to listen at all and posed as a great scholar. It was quite sad and his presentation could be so much better is he would have only listened a little bit and made some adjustments. I can’t think anyone will take him very seriously even though many will agree with his anti-caste stance. But his theories are quite absurd so best to ignore, and the caste questions can be dealt with in response to more sensible people. Dalits are free to change their names, but will only really be free when they can celebrate their community identity rather than run from it, and in Christ that should happen. If the underlying issue/emotion is “we can’t celebrate our community identity so we won’t let you celebrate yours either,” we are certainly not in the realm of the kingdom of God.   Rick

Rajeshji,

The stature of dalits in our country and that of the African-American in the US have some similarities in past social experience though dissimilar in contexts and history. When certain castes were destined only to doing the most menial of tasks such as clean my great grandfather’s dry open toilets i do not think it is fair or just to ask them to retain a name that has historically meant a shameful existence defined by the more powerful communities. It is similar to the situation where the Chinese who toiled on the railroads going West in the US could not own land, had to stay in designated areas, nor get married to the person of their choice because those in power decided so Or that Blacks were to be property to be bought and sold as slaves. If due to my destined vocation my family is labelled untouchables (permanently ritually impure with all its consequent implications) and do not have access to the common village well and have to drink in separate cups and sit on the ground I think they have a right to change their names and their destinies. Thanks to the modern democratic nation states, the framer of the Indian constitution was a dalit, we have a speaker that is a dalit and presidents that were dalit. Today I can enter pretty much any temple as a Hindu from any community. What is incredible  is that Hinduism with its supposedly rigid social rules determining caste  has in a mere 60 years allowed and encouraged so much positive change in society. The `Christian’ west took a lot longer to give up slavery and or racial apartheid. They all justified it from the Book!   

It is interesting that the nadars also legally changed their names from shanars which probably had a shameful connotation. Even today other communities in the deep South will use Shanar as a derogative term to call Nadars. so 150 years back the community leaders felt it necessary to move the British ruled courts to bring about a change in their name and in some way a symbolic act of stating that we will shape who we are and what we will be. That freedom to change is God given and is a birthright and this is embedded in the American constitution as M Luther’s tellingly uses in his I have a dream speech. 

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”  

In America Negroes have moved on to being called Blacks to the current African-American! the Right to self determination. 

The Kingdom of God is as much about breaking human structures and chains of injustice as about turning the other cheek in sacrificing one’s right in obedience to God. There is a time for everything.   

His Kingdom is here and it will advance justice and love towards its destined convergence to its fullness when Christ returns.

God bless and good night

Chakravarthy

Dear bro. Rick Hivner,

Thank you so much for initiating such a good and worthwhile response .

My heart felt appreciation for a mail of this nature to explain your position to us.

 I thank God for giving us this good opportunity to understand each other. Our common goal as missionaries is to bring India to Christ. If we put our minds together and draw up a strategy, we can do more to evangelize very effectively in India. Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

It will be good if I clear the air of some outstanding issues before we move on to the stage to work on the common goal.

You have written that,

“But if my silence has caused distress or furthered misunderstanding, I am truly sorry for that”.

Thank you so much for putting an end to the silence and sharing your feelings and opinions with us.

What  really transpired?

“If anyone was given the impression that there would be public debate and an opportunity for lengthy refutations of presentations, this was certainly never indicated to me. Thus my feeling at the seminar was that your effort to refute what I presented was inappropriate, since the floor was opened for questions, not for attempts at refutation.”

Kindly allow me to explain the situation for my counter presentation.

The need for a  counter presentation:

During Q&A time, Sadhu Chellappa raised a question on casteism. You replied saying that caste is a genetic factor which was contrary to reality and hence I had no other choice but to refute this statement. Besides, you have also written that,

“Since I was not reading a carefully prepared paper at Gurukul, it is possible that I said something I do not really believe, and I hope you will have the grace to accept that and drop this unhappy phrase from further discussion.”

And regarding the microphone issue, you have written that,

“I hope this was not the case, if so my apologies that we had differing perceptions about that gathering.”

Yes brother, since our common goal is to bring India to Christ, let us focus on the strategies that will bring India to Christ. We need to draw up these strategies together in order to  build  the Kingdom of God.

Admitting the facts:

Thank you for admitting the fact that the origin of casteism is unknown…

“This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from.  This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper.  There is a general scholarly consensus that the origins of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out…”

To understand the origin of casteism, we need to analyze the classical literatures of India which are in Tamil and Sanskrit.These are  the only two classical languages of India. 

Between these two classical languages, Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the common people, but a literary language of the scholars alone. Hence we cannot see the natural developments taking place throughout the ages in Sanskrit, as we see it in natural languages. So, the origin of casteism cannot be traced in Sanskrit literature.

The literature in Tamil, a language of the common people as well as the scholars, can be classified in three different stages, in correlation with the caste system.

They are

1. The Literature before the formation of the caste system i.e., Ancient Sangam literature (Classical Tamil  Literature)  [Is there any reference about Brahmins and their occupation in Sangam literature?—db]

2.     The Literature after the formation of the caste system i.e., Medieval literature and

3.    The Literature after the establishment of the caste system i.e., Later literature.

It should be noted here that the referred classifications in correlation with caste system, couldn’t not be seen in Sanskrit as clearly as in Tamil. The natural developments are seen only in spoken languages from time immemorial.

In the Ancient Sangam literature there is no reference for the caste stratification but occupational variations, which occur not only in India but also in the world society. Many confuse occupational variations with casteism since they are not aware of the intricacies of casteism in India.

To understand the culture of the Ancient Tamils and the Indians, before the formation of the caste system, careful study on Sangam literature i.e., Classical Tamil Literature is highly indispensable.

Reference for the practice of the caste system in the society after the formation of the caste stratification, is explicated in the Medieval and Later literature.

Only after the period of Aryavardha, i.e. after 7^th c.A.D, the caste stratification (Law of Manu) was devised by the Aryans. From 9^th c.A.D. caste stratification was evolved  into a caste system. It was Adi Sankara  who incorporated the principles of casteism with Saivism and Vaishnavism, through Advaita Philosophy, and had given religious sanction to the caste stratification which in turn evolved as a caste system.

Now we can see two different systems as follows:

System No.1. – ‘Hinduism’

Aryan Brahminism ( caste system) now known as ‘Hinduism’ / ‘Hindutva’- System that upholds casteism, was devised in Aryavardha;.

Hindutva leaders define the term ‘Hinduism’ as follows:

                        ‘Hindusim is not a religion;  but a way of life.  It has nothing to do with the concept of  God.’                       

The Supreme Court of India also confirmed it.

Mr.L.K.Advani, leader of the Hindutva Movement said that,

‘Hinduism’ is different from ‘Hindu Religion’. We are not religionists. I am ready to debate with anyone on this issue’. His speech-dated 25.05.2003 had been published in the News papers.

The term ‘Hinduism’ refers to the principles of law of Manu. [Pl. give reference—db]

It should be noted here that before 1794 AD, we do not come across the terms ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu religion’.

System No.2. – ‘Hindu Religion’:

Hindu Religion – Tamilar Samayam, originated in Tamil land.

Saivism and Vaishnavism, the religions of the Bhakthi Movement, emerged and evolved in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language are known as ‘Hindu Religion’ after 1794 AD.

Saivism and Vaishnavism were emerged and evolved in Tamil land due to the mission of St.Thomas, who worked and martyred in Tamil land and Christianity that developed in Tamil land, in Tamil culture and in Tamil language from 1^stc.A.D. is now known as ‘Tamilar Samayam’.

The following are the five fundamental doctrines of the religions of  Saivism and Vaishnavism, developed in the post-Christ era.                       

1.      Doctrine of Trinity

2.      Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation)

3.      Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice

4.      Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and

5.       Doctrine of Salvation by Faith

St. Thomas Tamil Christianity is explained in different aspects in Indian literature and they are as follows:

1.      Historical aspect

2.      Mythical aspect

3.      Literary aspect                        

4.      Theological and Philosophical aspect and

5.    Iconographic aspect

To comprehend the two different systems, let us elucidate the difference between the terms ‘Hindu Religion’ and ‘Hinduism’ as follows:

A Tank – Weed:

‘Hindu Religion’ of the Tamils, natives of India, is a beautiful tank with plenty of crystal clear water .

‘Hinduism’ of the Aryans, group of foreign invaders and traders, is a mass or weed that has clouded and defrayed the beauty of the tank.

‘Hindu Religion’ can be explained as a system that upholds equality, brotherhood and unity, the principles of Christ.

‘Hinduism’ is a system i.e. casteism that upholds discrimination, against the principle of Christ.

Crystal clear water i.e. ‘Hindu religion’ (system of unity) can be unveiled if the mass i.e., ‘Hinduism’ (system of discrimination) that dominated and defrayed the beauty of the tank, is removed.

Aryans:

The groups of foreign invaders who came in various periods, without any religion of their own, are Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas and Huns, were denoted by a common term ‘Aryan’  by the Indian Dravidians. The different periods of their invasion of India are given below:

1. Persians –   6th c.B.C.
2. Greeks   –   4th c.B.C.
3. Sakas     – 2nd c.B.C.
4. Kushans  – 1st c.A.D 
5. Huns       – 4th c.A.D. and
6. Romans   – 4^th c.B.C. They were not invaders but they came for trade purpose and were also included in the term ‘Aryan’ since they also came without any religion of their own.

Until 7th c.A.D. the invading groups were not united together. They were not united and lost political domination.They were also waging war against each other.

During the period of the great emperor Harshavardha, all of them lost their political power. They  later united together on the basis of their light or pale colour, in order to regain the political power, The invading groups joined together and formed a United Front at Mount Abu of Rajasthan, They plotted against the emperor Harshavardha and killed him.  Because of their united effort, they were able to capture the political power from the Indian Dravidians in North India and they formed ‘Aryavardha’, the Kingdom of the Aryans.

Once the Aryans captured political power, they devised the principles of casteism and wrote the Law of Manu. In 9^th c.A.D. caste stratification got religious sanction. Let us now see  the origin of casteism as follows:

[It should be noted here that we could not see reference for the Rajputs before 7^th c. A.D.]

ORIGIN OF CASTEISM

 FOUR STAGES FOR SLAVERY:

 First stage –  Ethnic Groups

 Society living as ethnic groups all over the world.

Second stage – Political Power:

Amongst the ethnic groups political power emerges – Petty Rulers. 

Third Stage:  – Control over other ethnic group:

When one ethnic group defeated and won the other ethnic group it started controlling the defeated ethnic group.

Fourth Stage: – Slavery:

The conquering ethnic group starts enslaving the vanqished ethnic group and rules over them. When the defeated ethnic group regains  political power, it  starts enslaving the other ethnic group.  Thus slavery is perpectuated.

These Four stages occur all over the world through the ages.

POLITICAL POWER ALONE IS THE ROOT CAUSE FOR SLAVERY.

OFFSHOOT OF  SLAVERY IS RACISM

Fifth Stage : Racism

When a ruling ethnic group wants to permanently maintain slavery over an other ethnic group once defeated by them,they will formulate new philosophy to justify enslavement. In this manner Racism emerges as a philosophy. Biological factors, genes, skin pigmentation, colour differentiation and similar factors… are focused and described as various criteria to justify racism.

POLITICAL POWER AND PHILOSOPHY JUSTIFYING ENSLAVEMENT ARE ROOT CAUSES FOR RACISM.

It should be noted that Political power and a philosophy justifying enslavement are based on external factors.  It has  nothing to do with internal religious beliefs.

OFFSHOOT OF  RACISM IS CASTEISM :

Sixth Stage: Casteism:

  If the ruling ethnic group is a minority and the enslaved ethnic group is majority, it is natural for the ruling minority to have a fear about the majority group that they would unite together and dethrown the minority at any opportune time. Therefore the ruling minority group is forced to keep the majority weak by fragmenting them into so many divisions and making the divisions to hate and degrade each other.  In India, this has been achieved by introducing a graded group of system called caste system.

For the majority to be fragmented into so many divisions and making them to hate, degrade and fight against each other, the religious beliefs of the majority have been utilized. For this, the minority has twisted and misinterpreted the religious beliefs of the majority according to their selfish interests.

It would be of interest to note that this can be done only in respect of a nation where the ruling minority has no religion of its own  and the majority ruled by them have their own religions.  If the ruling minority has a religion of its own, it would not opt to follow the religions of the majority and manipulate it according to the interest of the ruling minority.

THUS,

(1) POLITICAL POWER,

(2)     PHILOSOPHIES JUSTIFYING ENSLAVEMENT  AND   

(3)     RELIGIOUS SANCTION  BY TWISTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE MAINTAINING   CASTEISM.

·     Root cause for Slavery              –             Political power

·     Root cause for Racism               –            Political Power + Philosophy

                                                                    justifying enslavement

·     · Root cause for Casteism   –              Political Power + Philosophy

                                                                           justifying enslavement + Religious

                                                      sanction by manipulated religious beliefs.

OUR GOAL :

You have written that,

“I am not confident that any meaningful interaction can happen in this kind of email interaction …..”

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Yes, we cannot explain everything through email.  Since our goal is to bring India to Christ, kindly form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the different perspectives, comprehend and build strategies to evangelize very effectively in India. Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Expecting your kind reply.

Once again I thank you so much for initiating a good relationship between all of us in the Lord Jesus Christ by your kind and touching response.

In Christ,

Sis. Devakala Deivanayagam.

After reading Dr. Devakala Deivanayagam’s response to Rick’s mail, I have decided not to post my response which I wrote since last few weeks on the topic discussed in this Forum.  I am not a scholar to enter any discussion with other scholars like Dr. Devakala.  But I enjoy reading scholarly works.  My limited reading of several books by scholars like P. V. Kane, Chaturvedi Badrinath. S.A.A. Rizvi , Tapan Raychaudhuri,, Vijay Nath, Ramchandra Guha , S.N. Balagangadhara,, Arvind Sharma , Ansar Hussain Khan, Daud Ali,   S Ghate, Anantanand Rambachan , Pavan K Varma, Daya Krishna, Dipankar Gupta, Christophe Jaffrelot , William Dalrymple , Francis X. Clooney, Gavin Flood, Madeleine Biardeau, Gunther D. Sontheimer, H. L. Richard, Jan Gonda, Richard King, Patrick Olivelle, C.J. Fuller , Paul  Deussen, Susan Bayly , Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Ronald B. Inden, Julius J. Lipner, David Ludden , Giovanni Verardi , R.De Smet , Richard Fox Young , Ralph T.H. Griffith, Hans  Staffner, R.C.Zaehener , Maurice Phillips , N.T. Wright , Klaus K. Klostermaier, Edwin Bryant to mention only few is not convincing me to agree with Dr. Devakala’s conclusions.  There is no point of responding taking point by point, as I know that we will never agree with our responses. So the best way to keep peace is ‘Let us agree to disagree’ and part cordially. 

I request Dr. Ramaswami (Solomon) to remove my name from the mailing list.  Thanks. God bless you.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 12, 2010

Hello brother Bharati,

Casteism and Racism (based on one’s skin color) are deadly poisons in the World Society today, especially in the church; hence, we cannot as Christians (disciples of Jesus Christ) ignore or avoid it. We need to have a very clear understanding of it and make absolutely sure that it is not entangled in our mission strategies.

Hence this is very crucial discussion.

It is very important to understand the development of the Indian Caste System and how Racism (based on one’s skin color) was birthed from it. I have enclosed my article on the same. I see two thoughts expressed in your email. First you state that you are not a scholar, but secondly you list numerous books you have read (though a subset of your reading), that have convinced you to disagree with the facts laid out by Dr Devakala. As a promoter of the ‘People Movement Approach’, it is very important that you clearly outline what facts have been presented in these books and others you have read that have convinced you otherwise on Casteism.

So, can we agree to disagree on Casteism? I say no, that is not till all the facts are clearly laid out and discussed since this is too crucial an issue to ignore or avoid.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

The Development of Casteism and Racism in

the World Society

Let’s start with a historical world perspective using Angus Madison economic research into the regions of India, China, UK and USA. The vertical axis is GDP % of World Total.

The above graph is self-evident; it should be noted that the x-axis is not to scale. The Caste System was invented sometime early during the Rajput period (650-1200 AD) with the Vedic ancestors setting themselves up as the priests or Brahmins and the Rajputs as the warriors or Kshatriyas.  The Rajputs were no warriors. Khurana [K.L. Khurana, Political and Cultural History of India, 1992, page 362] points out the salient features of the Rajput period,

1. India remained free from foreign attacks during the Rajput period except for a mild invasion of Sindh by Arabs. This invasion also proved to be ineffective due to the sudden death of Muhammad bin Qasim, the leader of the Arabs. The absence of foreign raids rendered the people lazy and uncaring of military preparations. The feeling of patriotism was getting weak and it affected the national unity. Moreover, it created a sense of superiority and pride among

Indians that they were omnipotent.

2. India had no relations with the other countries of the world. It made the Indian civilization and culture to stagnate. Relations with China and the West were snapped due to political changes in Central Asia. Having been cut off from intercourse with progressive countries India could not forge ahead.

3. It is stated by foreign travelers like Ibn-Batuta that prostitution was not considered as an evil.  There were several shortcomings in religion. People were habitual of drinking. Morality, chastity and religious contemplation had bidden adieu, and intoxication and luxury were the order of the day. The monasteries and dwelling places of monks and nuns had become the centers of immorality and luxury. Casteism and Racism in the World Society July 2010

4. The entire northern India was divided into small principalities. These always remained at daggers drawn with one another. The political unity of India received a great setback during this period. These small kingdoms were getting weaker all the more day by day due to their mutual conflicts. They failed to patch up their difference even at the time of foreign attacks.

5. The presence of Charans and Bhats (bards) was a new feature of the Rajput period. They were appointed at the courts to recite poems in praise of their masters. They also used to sing the heroic deeds of the ancestors of Rajputs. They used to accompany the army to the battlefield.  Their duty was only to sing the heroic deeds and rouse the feelings of courage and bravery in the soldiers. They often used to act as messengers. The Vedic Ancestors were no priests either. In ancient India, prior to the Christian era, there were two types of philosophers – Brachmanes and Sarmanes, also called in literature as Brahmanas and Samanas, who were theists and agnostics respectively. Buddha is often referred to as samana Gautama. Also amongst the Brahmanas, there were some who lived an austere life while others though living an austere life for a while, transitioned to regular family life with comforts.

Many scholars today ignorantly link the Brahmanes (or Brahmanas) with the Vedic ancestors of the modern day Brahmins and the Tevijja Sutta is typically quoted as evidence. However, lets investigate the Tevijja Sutta. First in verse 2 we see that these Brahmanas were wealthy.

Now at that time many very distinguished and wealthy Brahmans were staying at Manasakata; to wit, Kanki the Brahman, Tarukkha the Brahman, Pokkharasadi the Brahman, Janussoni the Brahman, Todeyya the Brahman, and other very distinguished and wealthy Brahmans.

Then we see in verse 10 that these Brahmanas taught various paths of salvation to Brahman

‘Concerning the true path and the false, Gotama. Various Brahmans, Gotama, teach various paths. The Addhariya Brahmans, the Tittiriya Brahmans, the Chandoka Brahmans [the Chandava Brahmans], the Bavharija Brahmans. Are all those saving paths? Are they all paths which will lead him, who acts according to them, into a state of union with Brahma?

‘Just, Gotama, as near a village or a town there are many and various paths, yet they all meet together in the village — just in that way are all the various paths taught by various Brahmans –the Addhariya Brahmans, the Tittiriya Brahmans, the Chandoka, Brahmans, the Bavharija Brahmans. Are all these saving paths? Are they all paths which will lead him, who acts according to them, into a state of union with Brahma?’

Brahman is defined by the Brahma Sutras (1.1.2) as the Omniscient, Omnipotent, all merciful Being from whom proceeds the origin of all things. To a Brahmana, Brahman is God. Also, the Jews divided their scriptures into three books, often called the TaNaK: Torah, Books of Moses; N’vi-im, Prophets; K’tuvim, Writings)

Regarding the three Vedas, there is nothing in the Tevijja Sutta to indicate that it refers to the Rig, Yajur and Sama, rather the opposite seems apparent. On the contrary in verse 25 of the the Tevijja Sutta Buddha clearly states that the practice of those calling on Indra, Soma or Varuna are non-Brahmanic qualities.

‘In just the same way, Vasettha, do the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, — omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brahman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men non-Brahmans — say thus: “Indra we call upon, Soma we call upon, Varuna we call upon, Isana we call upon, Pajapati we call upon, Brahma we call upon!”

Verily, Vasettha, that those Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, but omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brahman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men non-Brahmans — that they, by reason of their invoking and praying and hoping and praising, should, after death and when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahma verily such a condition of things can in no wise be!’

Certain Vedic deities merged into Sun or Surya worship [A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India, Rupa & Co, 1994, page 315] and the evidence of the type of worship practiced by these Sun worshippers is well evident in the Sun Temples today with its explicit pornographic sculptures. Apart from this, Monism entered India after the 8th c AD as a philosophy called Advaita developed by Adi Sankara. Advaita claims that this truth is concealed by the ignorance of illusion. Advaita teaches that there is no becoming either of a thing by itself or out of some other thing. It teaches that there is no individual self or soul (Jiva ), only the Atman (all-soul). Individuals may be temporarily delineated from ‘allsoul’ just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space. When the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space.

Advaita affected India in several ways. It destroyed the theistic faith of the Hindus by leading to Pantheism – many paths, individual worships and polytheism. Advaita also taught that the process of reaching the ‘all-soul’ is achieved by Reincarnation or Cycle of Birth, which is the cyclic return of a soul to live another life in a new body.  Monism brings a false sense of unity and hope by the deception that no matter what path is chosen, ultimately we will all end up in the same place. However this false sense of unity is soon disturbed by the social disparity which becomes apparent, and this is where the cycle of birth is utilized. It is then taught that the one enjoying the higher status is due to his/her karma in the previous birth, and if one would presently follow dharma, i.e. Manu Dharma in this birth, then he/she could also enjoy the higher status in their next birth. 

Another important fact during the Rajput period is brought out in the account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about AD 1030 by Alberuni (edited by Dr. Edward C. Sachau). He states that,

“The Indian scribes are careless, and do not take pains to produce correct and well-collated copies. In consequence, the highest results of the author’s mental development are lost by their negligence, and his book becomes already in the first or second copy so full of faults, that the text appears as something entirely new, which neither a scholar nor one familiar with the subject,whether Hindu or Muslim, could any longer understand. It will sufficiently illustrate the matter if we

tell the reader that we have sometimes written down a word from the mouth of Hindus, taking the greatest pains to fix its pronunciation, and that afterwards when we repeated it to them, they had great difficulty in recognizing it.”

This is a clear opposite to Hiuen Tsiang’s time in the 7th c AD, when this young Chinese Buddhist scholar came to India on a mission to find authentic sacred books which he accomplished. This is an important fact since all the ancient writings of Indian thought were corrupted and our ancient history distorted to elevate the so called Aryans and degrade the inhabitants of the land, the Dravidians. Thus the land of India came under the control of the above Brahmins and Kshatriyas during the Rajput period. The top three Varnas in the Caste System – Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas constitute about 12% of India’s population. However, in spite of all this, the GDP of the land of India was still very good by World standards, but, China was slowly gaining. The onset of the Moslems did not help any; however, it was not till the 1800s we see a horrendous decline. What could have caused it? Racism in the World Society July 2010

Racism, based on one’s skin color or Varna, as a well-developed theory in the world society is a fairly recent phenomenon. If racism was prevalent in Shakespeare’s day, he would not have written his play Othello which portrays a black man marrying a white woman in the 17th century! The Encyclopedia Britannica states that, The 18th century was predominantly environmentalist in its outlook; the science of that day tended to attribute social behavior either to climatic and geographical environment or to sociocultural factors. Racism as a widely accepted “scientific” theory of behavior did not appear until the 19th century, which was the age of racism par excellence. Although Charles Darwin himself was not a racist, his theory of biological evolution was extended to social evolution, giving birth to the theory of social Darwinism. Mankind was regarded as having achieved various levels of evolution, culminating in the white-European civilization. These stages of evolution were thought to be related to the innate genetic capabilities of the various peoples of the world. By the second half of the 19th century, racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists, and various forms of it were popularized through the writings of Joseph-Arthur, comte de Gobineau. Houston Stuart Chamberlian, Rudyard Kipling, Alfred Rosenberg, and Adolf Hitler.

A question naturally rises as to why racism arose in the world society in the 19th century, though it has been prevalent in India from about the 8th century that is from the time of Adi Sankara. The answer is found in the fact that in 1794 William Jones started publishing his translation of Manu Dharma which was in Sanskrit into English. The British Dictionary of National Biography states,

As a great Jurist Jones understood that the power of England in India must rest on good administration, and that the first requisite was to obtain a thorough mastery of the existing systems of law in India, and to have them codified and explained. In short, in his own words, ‘he purposed to be the Justinian of India’ (TEIGNMOUTH, ii. 88). With this idea in his mind, he decided to prepare a complete digest of Hindu and Muhammadan law, as observed in India: and to assist him in the colossal labor he collected round him learned native pundits and Muhammadan lawyers. He did not live long enough to complete this task, but he was enabled to publish the first stages in his masterly rendering of the ‘Institutes of Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of Menu (Manu), 1794………The British came to India for trade; however, they deceptively took control by setting Indian against Indian, assisted by the Vedic ancestors, the Brahmins. This completely destroyed India’s moral fibre and ruined its economy. The Brahmins worked with the British to take control of India. They were quick to portray Manu Dharma (the law of the Caste System based on one’s skin color or varna) as the Hindu law, and through the translation of William Jones this poison entered the society of the world. As stated earlier racism was accepted as fact by a vast majority by the second half of the 19th century and many European scholars under its influence started identifying with the Brahmins. A.A. McDonnell in his book titled ‘India‘s Past‘ (Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1927) writes, “This work summarizes India’s intellectual history, which in its various aspects has been the subject of my studies for slightly more than half a century (1875 to 1926). It sets forth in nine chapters the mental development of the most easterly branch of Aryan civilization since it entered India by land till it came in contact by sea with the most westerly branch of the same civilization after a separation of at least 3,000 years. The four centuries that have since elapsed (1498 to 1926) are here touched upon only as showing the most recent distribution of the Indian vernaculars and the rise of their literature, as well as the process by which the development of the purely indigenous period gradually became known to the new-comers from the west….These two civilizations, starting from a common source, have after a separation of at least 3,000 years again become united during the last four centuries, representing together a quarter of the total of the earth’s inhabitants. During these four centuries the new-comers from the west have gained acquaintance with and recovered the history of India’s past mental development. At this, as set forth in the following pages, will, I trust, contribute something to clearer mutual understanding by two civilizations which in their origin were one and the same“.

Now that the Rajputs were out of power, and the Moslems probably were not interested in their offerings, the Brahmins now found a new customer – the British. The traits of the British were well known especially to men like Gandhi from South Africa. The year following after the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre in 1919 (http://appiusforum.net/jallianwallah.html), Mahatma Gandhi launched his first Indian Satyagraha (“clinging to the truth”) campaign; he was well aware of the atrocities of the British against the Boers. The following is an extract from The Concentration Camps, 1899-1902, by Hennie Barnard

England laid her hands on the mineral riches of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (Transvaal) under the false pretense of protecting the rights of the foreigners who swarmed to the Transvaal gold fields. On the battlefield England failed to get the better of the Boers, and decided to stoop to a full-scale war against the Boer women and children, employing a holocaust to force the burghers to surrender. Under the command of Kitchener, Milner and Roberts, more than homesteads and farms belonging to Boer people were plundered and burned down. Animals belonging to the Boers were killed in the cruelest ways possible while the women, whose men were on the battlefield, had to watch helplessly. The motive behind this action was the destruction of the farms in order to prevent the fighting burghers from obtaining food, and to demoralize the Boers by leaving their women and children homeless on the open veld. However, England

misjudged the steel of the Boer people. Despite their desperate circumstances, the women and children managed to survive fairly well in the open and their men continued their fight against the invader. More severe measures had to be taken. The English hoarded the Boer women and children into open cattle trucks or drove them on foot to concentration camps. To the world England pretended to act very humanely by caring for the fighting Boers’ women and children in “refugee camps”. An English school textbook published in 1914 in Johannesburg, but printed in England, Historical Geography: South Africa, by JR Fisher, makes the following claim: “During the later stages of the war, the relations, women and children, of those Boers still in the field, were fed and cared for at the expense of Great Britain, a method of procedure which, though humane, postponed the end of the war, at the expense of many valuable lives and much money.” This statement is contradicted by various sources. The Cape Argus of 21 June 1900 clearly states that the destitution of these women and children was the result of the English’s plundering of farms: “Within 10 miles we (the English) burned not less than six farm homesteads. Between 30 and 40 homesteads were burned and totally destroyed between Bloemfontein and Boshoff. Many others were also burned down. With their houses destroyed, the women and children were left in the bitter South African winter in the open.” The British history text book says nothing about this.

Please visit http://appiusforum.net/hellkamp.html for the complete horrendous details with more pictures. Their only crime was that they stood between England and the gold of Transvaal

If not for Gandhi’s Satyagraha, Indians would have been massacred in the thousands. However, it was the disgust of the world to greed and war after WW II that liberated India in 1947. So while we can classify the Nazis as ravaging beasts, we must classify the British as deadly poisonous snakes well hidden in the grass. They have been labeled as the biggest drug trafficker (http://appiusforum.net/guardian_article.html) of all time (please see Time Asia article also – http://appiusforum.net/time_asia.html).

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998 CD edition captures this dark history, The first major national efforts to control the distribution of narcotic and other dangerous drugs were the efforts of the Chinese in the 19th century. Commerce in poppy (opium) and coca leaf (cocaine) developed on an organized basis during the 1700s. The Manchus of China attempted to discourage opium importation and use, but the English East India Company, which maintained an official monopoly over British trade in China, was engaged in the profitable export of opium from India to China. This monopoly of the China trade was eventually abolished in 1839-42, and friction increased between the British and the Chinese over the importation of opium. Foreign merchants, including those from France and the United States, were bringing in ever-increasing quantities of opium. Finally, the Manchu government required all foreign merchants to surrender their stocks of opium for destruction. The British objected, and the Opium War (1839-42) between the Chinese and the British followed. The Chinese lost and were forced into a series of treaties with England and other countries that took advantage of the British victory. In 1858 the importation of opium into China was legalized by the Treaty of Tientsin, which fixed a tariff rate for opium importation.

Further difficulties followed. An illegal opium trade carried on by smugglers in south China encouraged gangsterism and piracy, and the activity eventually became linked with powerful secret societies in the south of China. 

An experience a few years ago with some brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho prompted me on the research above. One of them had travelled to India on a mission’s journey and came back with the “typical American Evangelical” perspective, stories, pictures, etc. My wife and I spent hours explaining but

it made no difference. I then felt in my spirit that I was missing something in my historical research. It was then that God opened my understanding through Angus Madison’s research and confirmed the role of the British in India.

Sometime later I did meet with my brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho. I started to explain how the region of India and China were the most affluent in the world till the onset of the British, and their role in destroying the land of India and China, and, the birth of Global Racism based on one’s skin color. I hardly took a minute or two and they all got it! In closing, my thoughts are,

· Our objective is to make disciples not bring in the multitudes. (There were two types who followed Christ–one was His disciples and the other the crowds or multitudes (http://appiusforum.net/christian.html)

· In the past the biggest separation was between Jew and Gentile, and, Christ has broken down the wall of partition (Ephesians 2). Hence, a Church has to be multi-ethnic.

· Any strategy MUST be defined on the right historical perspective since otherwise it will either fail or introduce leaven into the church.

· The right historical perspective also enables us as Paul writes, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all

disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor 10:4-6).

With warm regards,

Alex

Vanakam Swamiji
I thank you for your reply.  When I received a mail from Dr. Alex he asked me to share with others if I want.  I was familiar with the writings of Dr. McGavran.  It appeard that Alex expected me to look at the issue from a new perspective which I did and still doing.  As Thiruvalluvar said Epporul yar yar vai katpinum apporul meiporul kanpatharivu.  when I see conflicts of ideas expressed I am excited to read and understand the different perspectives.  These are my principles as I involve myself in any academic discussion.
What one believes is real to him. One must be true to his conviction. Honest people will honestly disagree. One must keep his mind open for new understanding. I started to write my response, but did not complete it My computer was attacked by a virus that affected my work in the computer.  I could not open any program. Dr. Hedlund asked me to convey his greetings to you.  I do not plan to share anymore mail that come to me on this issue.  I have better things to do and practical things to do. We plan to come to Bangalore in August.  We are waiting for the visa from Indian consulate.
Wish you well
with regards
Ramasamy

Dear All:

I am sorry if in any way I say anything out of turn. I am not even in the scene as an academic, I’m only a small-time amateur dabbler in the field of history of Christianity and India. I dearly love the Lord and his people, and am happy we can communicate in a constructive manner. Since Dr. Alex Harris and Dr. Devakala separately forwarded this conversation to me I was contemplating talking to her on the phone today when I happened upon this response, and as a result I just thought it would be better to just respond to it.

Dr. Hivner, I fully understand the position you have taken in this debate so far, and if you feel that the material that Dr. Devakala and Dr. Harris brought into the debate or bemused by the method of open refutation or disputation, I do fully affirm that feeling. I use the word “bewildering” advisedly because I reacted in exactly the same way when I was first confronted with it over 10 years ago. Dr. Deivanayagam and Dr. Devakala have been immersed in this research for about 3 decades now, and Dr. Harris too, as far as I know, has been into this for almost 20 years. 

The outcome of the patient research, publication and training undertaken by the Deivanayagams has, in the past decade or so, found increasing acceptance in academic circles in Tamil Nadu, where the scholars specialising in their chosen field – Saivism and Ancient Tamil Literature, are based. This is not to say that it is not controversial, because their works are, as far as I know, counter to the existing trends in scholarship, whether in the secular university system, and in theological circles, both “Hindu” and Christian. I can say that it is finding more and more takers not because I am a scholar working in these fields but was a participant in a large colloquium organised by them in Chennai a couple of years ago where there were large numbers of scholars, religious heads, students of the related subjects, and Christian pastors and theologians of almost all sections – including Catholic – in fact, the event was co-hosted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese in thier own premises. 

I have a fair knowledge of spoken Tamil, even the slightly technical language used in the debates and so was able to glean in the four-day programme, sufficent information to understand that the heads of departments and professors of Tamil/History of the oldest and most prestigious universities – Madras and Madurai, and scholars and professors from Loyola and TTS, Madurai, were present, to listen, participate and respond. I can vouch for the fact that there was a very good and healthy debate throughout and the atmosphere conducive to debate, barring on one occasion, which became tense due to one participant using strong language in his talk which was objected to by a few people from the floor. This was defused by a humble, meaningful and even-handed response by Dr. Deivanayagam who in my opinion is a real man of God. 

For me, as a lay participant auditing the meeting, there was a lot of learning and it was heartening to see what was very much opposed in earlier years had now gained currency and was slowly almost becoming mainstream. Independent research by unconnected researchers showed results which corroborated/complemented a number of the points being raised by the Deivanayagams.

What I wanted point out through this is that these methods – debate in an open forum, instant response/rebuttal, etc., is very much a method which has been in vogue in Indian culture since ancient times.  Formal presentation, publication of journal articles, peer review, etc, also do happen, and especially in formal academic institutions both secular and (Christian) theological.

However, in keeping with our oral tradition, these formally accepted methods are probably less influential in typically Indian-style places of learning. As Saivism, Vaishnavism, Veerashivism/Lingayatism, etc continue to be strong streams of faith and teaching in India and the Deivanayagams engage with them perhaps much more than they engage the formal systems, it is natural that they adopt methods which are conducive to dialogue with these schools. In fact, it was this method – or a modified version of it – which was adopted at the large event I referred to earlier, and everyone concerned was quite comfortable with the format.

May I humbly suggest that a large part of this issue is because of this different methodology/ cultural approach? 

Coming to the Gurukul event around which this discussion is taking place, and being well-trained and experienced as a debater in this manner, Dr. Devakala’s taking issue with you is the floor in keeping with this practice, which may have been startling for you.  But this approach is, I dare say, not very alien to discourse in the circles within which she mostly works.

This is not to take any sides on the subject, though my personal position is open to their opinions, and in broad agreement, though I do need to study their material more closely, and intend to do when I have an opportunity. I may add that even as a child of about 14, I often used to feel that the kind of “Christianity” we experienced in India alienated me from my cultural roots and I used to long for a more “rooted” faith and spiritual practice. I also wondered how it was that even though a direct disciple of Jesus had lived, served and been martyred on our soil, so little of his witness survived here. I believe the work of the Deivanayagams does something to answer this question, and that their work has already begun to show a huge impact here. 

I apologise most heartily in advance if anyone feels hurt by either the form or content of my communication, which, I humbly offer, and which I hope will perhaps bring in some more clarity. And if anyone disagrees with the content of what I offer, I will not offer any defence as I feel I have already taken liberties by putting in my two cents’ worth into this erudite debate, and will like Job cover my mouth and remain silent.

Most humbly,

Cynthia Stephen

Cynthia Stephen
Independent Writer and Researcher

And may you be blessed with the foolishness to think that you can make a difference in the world, so that you will do things which others tell you cannot be done
“Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they’re a mouthy lot and they don’t line up and salute very easily.”  Margaret Atwood : Canadian Literary Icon

Dear Dr. Devakala,

I am afraid your reply confirms to me the points I opened my last email with. I really do not see that there is any way forward for us to carry on a meaningful dialogue due to vastly varying perceptions and presuppositions. Let me amplify this with two points.

First is just the general understanding of history and how we approach history. R. E. Frykenberg, a historian of India who is a follower of Christ, has written this about history:

“Historical understandings are never absolute and never complete. They are always tentative – sometimes highly so and sometimes hardly at all. Historical knowledge, in technical terms, is never entirely certain. It is never entirely free from question. This always being so, in some measure, the task of the historian is to maximize plausibility.”

I do not see any evidence of this attitude and approach in your writings, which seem to me to be ideologically driven. All of your historical points below would need to be rewritten as tentative explorations before I could even imagine engaging them in discussion and research.

Second, you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research. There are many different currents in that stream and plenty of disagreements, but there is a broad perspective from which the academic tradition carries on its work. You are clearly and intentionally outside that stream, and do not even bother to interact with it. For me to in any way interact with your position I would need to see that you have deeply grappled with this mainstream position. (I hinted at this in my last email by my suggestion that you respond to Caste and Christianity by Duncan Forrester.) Your total dismissal of Sanskrit in your email below is not a valid way to respond to the academic world. I am a very small bit player (not even that really) in this academic consensus so it is not for me to represent that against your position, and I cannot assume such a role.

So it seems to me the only way forward here is to agree to disagree and trust God to do his work in us, and perhaps someday in His grace our differences will be overcome.

May God lead and guide you,

In grace,

Rick Hivner

Dear Dr. Rick Hivner,

I was taken aback by the reference to your presentation at Gurukul on June 26 where you were purported to have said that caste is a genetic factor.  On the face of it, it sounded utterly preposterous.  I allowed the benefit of the doubt to linger until it was clarified forthrightly. This appears to have happened in your response to Dr. Devakala (the date is missing).  I do not speak for Dr. Devakala. 

I am very marginal to the serious exchanges that have occurred and might continue.  Yet, as a long time movement orientated Christian Indian layman wherever I happened to be, I have exercised my mind faithfully about the need for the melding of the Christian presence in India and the Indian culture. 

The use of the adjective “genetic” to denote what is ostensibly an ingrained caste mentality of Indians of all shades triggered my attention to the brewing discussion.  My mind playfully raced with the absurdity of man-made genetics (a contradiction) and a more likely speculation on the eugenics of the caste system!  Well, we are not engaged in an undergraduate classroom exercise.  I am glad you are distancing yourself from the acute meaning of what you have referred to as an “unhappy” phrase. You have preceded it by saying that if you had said anything resembling that “caste is genetic” at Gurukul, you were hoping [the participants would understand] that “it was qualified in many and various ways and was in the context of the exceeding complexity of the topic”. 

After seeing your response to Dr. Devakala and reading the two articles you have mentioned (Religious Movements in Hindu social contexts… and the Community Dynamics in India…), I see the inadvertence. I have not been boxed into any theological ground to stand on, just as well.  I have resolutely remained a layman, well, a layperson.  I see the seriousness of the focus of your extensive scholarship with your specified mission on hand. As for refutation, it would be inappropriate, rather crass, for reconciling differences in the perceptions of committed lives.

With due appreciation and concern, I would like to raise a string of questions on the issue for further mulling by all of us evincing interest: In the present influx of rapid change (more than appearing to be so) that is uprooting just about everything in India from the 20^th century on to this day, why would you and other like-minded faithful and scholars like to leave caste (gothra, jati and such) essentially unchanged? How do we (leaving aside the ad hominem reference to de Nobili, K.S. Singh, MM., Newbegin, Reddy et al) square the underpinnings of the mentality of that system to Christ, his life and teachings in our guts? If at all, what inner virtues would you discern in the underpinnings of the caste system, even if you denounce it otherwise, that would be valid for all Indians (without distinction) as they are struggling with the torrent of change to lead to a greater human future for all?   Is the caste system still an all-encompassing nub of the culture of India that the ‘strategy’ for spreading the Gospel could also/only be tethered to that nub?  Could not the ‘strategy’ (in itself self-serving), even if not meant to uphold the original (asal, authentic) sin of the Indian culture, be seen as countering the near renaissance currents of modern India, beginning the Indian National Movement to the inauguration of the Constitution of the Republic of India?  Great many Christian Indian leaders were part of the modern Indian mind that squarely relegated the caste system (varnashrama dharma system!) to being a case of  “communalism”.  The asal (authentic) Indian contempt the phrase carries was so designed to reflect what was grossly exceptional to Indian life.  At best, it was/is a verbal enabler (a euphemism, more aptly, idakkar adakkal in Tamil) to stay focused on the inconvenient truth about us and to trash away what was most oppressive and awkward in our culture.  How can the phrases ‘community’ and ‘communitarian’ (with all the alien sociological assumptions, as though the Christian presence in India is not alien enough) be super-imposed on ‘communal’ and ‘communalism’ without distorting the truth?  What is the ethical rationale, Christian or secular, to what appears to be just recasting a uniquely egregious condition, for the Christian communitarian communities to subsist within the confines of that conditioning?  Communalism is an unvarnished truth that is staring at us unblinking asking for liberation from our sordid conditioning, not victory of the things as they have always been (Satyameve Jayate, an essentially dodging abstraction).  Dr. Alexander Harris has drawn attention to this serious problem.   The strategic consideration of the communalism Christian Indian communities would make our message all the more suspect of insincerity and unauthenticity.  I have said enough.

As an aside, the emerging Tamil scholarship in literature, religious traditions, bakthi movement and history offer much to reflect and re-evaluate great many assumptions about Indian culture and history (The spurious BJP attempt to rewrite history is not one of them). Tamil scholarship, in particular Tamil Christian scholarship,  is boldly emerging,  providing new insights that have long remained ignored, suppressed, or ploughed over.   Dr. Devakala, and Dr. Deivanayagam (her father) may be considered as the cutting edge of this debunking and regenerating surge in Tamil Nadu.  Their risks are immense.  All may not appear to be dandy at the first instance.   By the force of their original research, articulation and risks of a committed life, they are joining step by step into the mainstream of scholarship, of peer review and validation.  Their scholarship cannot be ignored; it has to be factored in if we are in search of liberating truths about us. By the way, similar awakening in other major language communities (!) need to be identified and collated.  If your are familiar with any such efforts, please share that information. 

At least this much I need to share with you as I have invited myself into the exchange.   I am happy to become  marginally familiar with your life of scholarship pertaining to India.  Thanks.

In different lights, may His name, Christ the only name, be glorified.

Sincerely,

Louis Sundaramani Simon.

I might as well add a piece here below that would give a glimpse of the movement I am part of. I also have another essay on “Indian Culture—a Christian Indian perspective”.   It is really not ready yet for releasing.

The Christian Ashram Movement of India (CAM of India)—A Brief

*The Christian Ashram Movement of India is singularly focused on Christian faith and Indian culture—what does the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ in Indian culture or the idea of Christian presence mean to ordinary Christian Indians?  With that fused focus, the Movement will explore, clarify and affirm our Christian Indian identity.

* It is a grassroots’ movement of the ordinary faithful in and out of India that faithfully lead their daily lives in the awareness of God’s love for all His children in India and everywhere.

* Ashram is the pre-eminent spiritual channel of the Indian mind and remains open to all faiths.

* The CAM of India is primarily, a lay-initiated self-reflective movement to deepen and broaden what has remained a quietly passionate, conscious, but scattered awareness of the spiritual and cultural significance of ashram as a natural environment for prayer, meditation, worship and service of the Christian faith.  St. Thomas who germinated the Christian faith in our soil can be rightly seen as the first Christian ashramite, as he became Indian to Indians as other disciples became Greek to Greeks, Roman to Romans, or Ethiopian to Ethiopians.

* Of the many features of the ashram, the CAM of India takes its cue from ashram’s primary meaning, that is, siramam or shram, meaning, a strenuous effort.  Such an effort is within the reach of every Christian Indian to engage in personally and culturally transforming spiritual exercise in India and elsewhere. It is not limited to deep spiritual seekers or the ideal of renunciation, as it is a faith-induced cultural effort in the daily life of the ordinary faithful.

* It upholds the value of human dignity as intrinsic to every human being as a child of God. The secular extension of the value is embedded in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. That makes the value a potent objective of the movement for personal and cultural transformation.

      *The CAM of India will work together with all secular and non-secular efforts in upholding the fundamental value of human dignity as the inclusive bond that interfuses the unity and integrity of India. A nation-wide constituency that would consciously work for this vision is greatly needed.

      *The CAM of India is inclusive of all Christian efforts, irrespective of the

denominational differences, within the scope of the above understanding. The lay leadership of the movement, coming as it does from different denominations, makes the fervent appeal to all of them to consciously infuse in our worship forms of prayer, liturgy, music and singing the elevating tones, texture, and phrases of the richness of the Indian culture. Several churches have begun doing this. Thank God.  Our cultural offering will resoundingly join the universal chorus of all nations in praising God.  It will prove as a blessing to our immediate neighbours as well.

     * Its cultural focus will help make known new research discoveries on the nativism of the Christian Indian roots.  It would also enable Christian Indians shed their meekly held relegated slot as a minority, to emerge and function as a rightful component in the changing spectrum of Indian  culture.

    *The sounding of the incarnate Word, strummed across India by many, will keep it resonating.  By being involved wherever you are in that spirit, you will glow as a Christian ashramite by choice.  

     *As a grass-roots’ movement, the CAM of India leaves aside the need for organisational setups, membership drive, or fund-raising.  Faith and prayer will sustain the movement. Spontaneous mushrooming of the clusters of the movement will, by their very nature, freely determine the foci and the nature of their functioning across India. Please get involved.

             Please initiate conversation on the Christian Ashram website, WWW.christian-ashram.net.    (By L. Sundaramani Simon, a sojourner in the ashram movement. lsimon7248@yahoo.com)

Dear friends in Christ:

I have been keenly following the discussion that has been going on by email, on the issues of how and why we need to address/look at casteisms in India so that we are able to bring a clear critical understanding of our society, its organisation, and the task of bringing the Truth to light under the adverse circumstances caused by these casteist tendencies. 

The history of social change in our culture is impossible to understand without understanding the critical role played by religion. While there is no doubt that the issue of caste is one of the central factors in our society, the anti-caste struggles that have taken place – right from the days of the later Bhakti poets – starting from the first half ot the first millennium to  the 13th C reformer Basaveshwara and on to the people’s poets including Ravidas, Kabir and Tuka – are a clear indication that there was an unbroken history of struggle against religious orthodoxy and hierarchy which the Brahminical religion honed to a high form of political/cultural/social/economic dominance. 

However, colonialism, and the perceived need of the colonisers for legal texts which codified the “law of the Land” enabled the crafty Brahmins of the day to present the Manudharmashastra  as the las of the Land. This was based on the totally wrong understanding by the colonisers that India was one unified religio-cultural whole and the Brahmins constituted the priestly class of the whole population barring the Muslims. This ignored the diversity of faiths, philosophies and worship systems which existed in India   This pernicious text, which institutionalised caste and gender-based discriminatory legal and social practices, excluded the women and the lower castess from learning, restricted their mobility, and prescribed totally inequitable punishments for infractions and crimes, based on the caste , gender and social status of the perpetrator – became the basis for the colonial laws which then began to be administered through religious leaders  in the colonial courts , which in turn became the basis for the existing legal system in India which has still to throw off its colonial shackles.  

However, the Constitution of india, which for all its drawbacks, has been the hope for those who believe in human Rights, religious freedom, equality and justice, as it has given us all these freedoms and in theory, protects us from discrimination on any basis. It even recognises the impediments faced by the women, children, and margnialised populations, and prescribes various amelioratives and correctives to protect thier rights and promote thier equtable development. But the impacts of these have been very much limited, one may even say thwarted,  by the intransigent attitudesof the 15% of the savarna (caste) population who dominate, and hold the decision-making powers, of every institution of the country – political, economic, social, religious, and academic.  The church and many parachurches – are no exception to this situation. That is why even though the marginalised – adivasis, tribals, and Dalits – are present in the church in overwhelming majority, these sections do not have much to do with the leadership and decision-making processes in these insitutions, including in many para-churches and theological institutions.    

That this is indeed the case is exemplified by the fact that even though there has been a legal challenge to the discrimination against Dalits Christians and Muslims in the law for the past 0ver 60 years, the church at large has not seen fit to strongly back the just demands of the Dalit Christians who have been forced to make thier own fronts to struggle for this right. On the contrary, there are huge outcries  by bishops and church administrators whenever there are any attempts to abridge in anyway the managements of “minority” educational institutions – which are basically islands of privilege and wealth in the country. There are  even  sections of the church which glory in the history of Brahminism and privilege, and parachurches which are noted for thier parochial attitude to staffing, leadership and funding.

Therefore, we have a situation where on the one hand the percentage of Christians does not go above 3-4 % overall in the country for 6 decades; on the other one perceives a rising interest in the gospel among large sections of society; especially those who have traditonally not been part of “missions strategies” – the OBCs, who constitute about 65% of our population, but are not part of the elite 15% who rule the roost in India.

To make matters worse, there are some strategies which have been adopted in recent years which, while attempting to address this situation, have not been critically analysed with reference to the logical and ethical impact they may have. Hence, on the one hand, there has been a rise in the perception that large numbers of people are leaving thier traditional faiths and choosing to become Christians due to aggressive conversion drives by dollar-driven groups, and caused an anti-Christian backlash with persecution of certain sections of the Christian population, selectively, by Hindutva’s adherents. 

On the other hand, widespread criticism of the role of the church,its leadership and its institutions,  and the practice of caste within it – on which, indeed, the question of denial of constitutional rights to the Dalits actually has been seen to hinge in the courts of law – remain unaddressed. This is precisely because there are vested interests both inside and outside the church who do not want to address this important, even crucial, political question because it cuts to the core of our existence as a faith community. 

Under the circumstance, the ecclesiastical establishment of almost all denominations, theologial training institutions,missions organisations, and other sections of the mainstream Christian society have tried to get along without addressing the elephant in the living room – the huge discriminations of caste, gender and region which exist within these institutions. While much scholarship is used to promote “biblical” models of church and family leadership, hierarchy,and perpetuate hegemonic practices and beliefs, There is every effort to deprecate those who take positions which question these “givens”.  Still, we who stand on the margins, outside the walls – the women, the Dalits, sections of the OBCs, the youth and poor tribals and adivasis – take comfort from our sure knowledge that Christ has a preferential option for us,and stands with us in our efforts to be a voice crying out in the wilderness of ideas, of liturgical practice, and sexist and casteist practice among us. 

We therefore call upon whoever will, to come, reason this out, with a “listening heart”. We are asking why the conondrum of an increased interest in the gospel among the masses and growth in the churches has not resulted in an outbreak of peace, justice and righteoussness, of improved relationships in our familes, homes, churches, institutions and an end to unethical practices in our schools, hospitals, parachurches, missions.

Too long have we played along with the power blocs in our ecclesiastical and theological and missions establishments.  Too long have we worked out strategies which have yielded short term results without perceiving that they are doomed to failure because they do not address the heart of the matter – the worship of hierarchy, of caste and gender, and have compromised with, even promoted, these aberrations which stand in oppostion to the essence of the gospel.   

We need to sit across the table and understand the philosophical and historical basis of this critique. Hence I call upon our elders – such as Roger Hedlund, and others who like him have spent thier entire lives working on these issues – promote such a dialogue and to work towards a community which will have Christ-like values to distinguish its members, and of whom the world will say: “Look at these people – how they love one another and others!”  ; of whom it will be said “By thier fruits (which will last) we shall know them”.

Humbly, in His Name:

Cynthia  

 Dear bro. Rick Hivner,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

With the following prayer of Jesus Christ kindly allow me to write this mail.

My prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

The divine Grace of God blessed us to be the missionaries to carry His unsurpassed precious teaching to all over the world.

As missionaries, while enjoying the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ, as Christ is in the Father, it is our responsibility to make others to realize and receive the same experience, so that all of us will be one in Christ. 

Our Discussion:

We have been discussing a critical issue on casteism for the past few months.

Does casteism build up ‘Divine Unity? or

A stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

As missionaries, it becomes our responsibility to carefully analyze the stumbling blocks of this ‘Divine Unity’. Discussing the critical issue on casteism in a forum of great scholars and dedicated missionaries is indeed an opportunity and we are simply indebted and thankful to God.

One’s actions are based on one’s thoughts;

One’s thoughts are based on one’s principles;

One’s principles are based on one’s beliefs; and

One’s beliefs are based on one’s religion.

Casteism that has gained religious sanction becomes the fundamental principle of a society that thinks and acts according to this system of thought.

Two systems of thought:

In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that

“you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research………………

I like to mention here that my father Dr.M.Deivanayagam and myself have secured doctorate on Hindu Religion i.e., St.Thomas Tamil Christianity from Madras University. My father has been spending more than 40 years in this academic field, and established his new findings in the academic arena.

In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that

I am a very small bit player (not even that really) in this academic consensus so it is not for me to represent that against your position, and I cannot assume such a role.”

Thank you so much for modestly accepting the reality. The issue that we are discussing is not an issue between just two individuals, but an issue between two different systems.

1.    System that upholds casteism and

2.    System that is striving to uproot casteism.

Hence, instead of a discussion between just two individuals, and as you have said earlier, that you are standing in the broad stream of academic research, discussion among a team of scholars will be very effective. Discussion on this core issue is highly indispensable.

In your reply, you have mentioned the name Duncan Forrester, author of the book titled  Caste and Christianity. Likewise our Bro. Dayanand Bharati has also referred the names of many scholars. I am much thankful to both of you for graciously pointing out the names of many scholars.  Since this crucial issue on casteism should be analyzed in depth in different perspectives , I have finished my last email dated 10-7-2010 with the following demand:

“..kindly form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the different perspectives, comprehend and build strategies to evangelize very effectively in India.”

Established the new findings in the stream of academic research – video recordings:

In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that

“I do not see any evidence of this attitude and approach in your writings…”,

I like to recall my email-dated 25.06.2010 I have clearly furnished the issues, which we have been discussing, has already been established in the broad stream of academic research in 7 stages. For your easy reference, I am tabling a few stages extracted from the earlier mail.

2nd stage:

Proved that Hindu religion is the offshoot of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity, in the stream of academic research – Debate and Video recordings:

 Dr.M.Deivanayagam in 1985 in his Ph.D. thesis titled ‘Comparative study of Bible, Thirukkural and Saiva Siddhantha Sastras Fourteen’ established that ‘Saivism and Vaishnavism’ known as Hindu Religion, are the denominations of St. Thomas Tamil Christianity. Christianity that developed in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language from 1st c.A.D. is now labeled as ‘Thamizhar Samayam’ (Religion of the Tamils). Saiva Siddhantha Sastras are the Theological exposition of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity.

  The International Research Institute on Saiva Siddhantha in Dharumai Aadheenam in Tamilnadu organized a Two Day debate on the 5th and 6  th December 1986 and invited Dr. M. Deivanayagam, author of the thesis, that had created a great excitement.  The said facts were academically presented to the scholars of Saiva Siddhantha from various universities and heads of the Dharumai Adheena Mutt, Thiruppananthal Mutt, under the chairmanship of Kundrakkudi Adheena Mutt. 

Prof. Dr. T.B. Siththalingiah, Head of the Department of Saiva Siddhantha of Kamarajar University, summarized the two days discussions in the following words:

  “A good Research Seminar took place here for the past two days. Dr. M. Deivanayagam has clearly answered all the questions raised by the scholars. When new findings are delivered, we are yet to attain the maturity to accept them immediately. As Dr. M. Deivanayagam said, it was the beginning of an effort to analyze, understand and accept the new findings.   As such, this beginning was done well”

At the end of the seminar, the Head of  Dharumai Aadheena Mutt  honored Dr. Deivanayagam. This programme was video recorded.

3rd stage:                      

Why the challenges could not be met?

 Racial and Caste discriminating principles were devised by the Aryans in 7th c.A.D when they captured political power in India collectively. These discriminating principles were incorporated into ‘Saivism and Vaishnavism’,  denominations of St. Thomas Tamil Christianity in the 9thc.A.D. Thus Christianity that spread in India from the 1st c.A.D. got corrupted and diluted.  Principles of racism and casteism were given religious sanction in the 9thc.A.D. by Adi Sankara and Sankara Mutts were established in the four directions of India to maintain and propagate these principles. Racial and caste discriminating principles are now known as ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’.

Challenges posed by Dr.M.Deivanayagam through letters and books, to the Sankara Mutts and Brahminical forces of Hindutva Movements that corrupted and diluted St.Thomas Tamil Christianity, did not stand up to the challenge, because they were not able to deny the foundational facts that Saivism and Vaishnavism, known as ‘Hindu religion’ is the offshoot of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity and racial and caste discriminating principles, known as ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ that were incorporated into ‘Saivism and Vaishnavism’, were the principles of the Aryans.

4th stage:  

The above  mentioned findings established in the International Conference – New York:

 Our ‘Dravidian Spiritual Movement’ and ‘Institute of Asian Studies’ had jointly organized the ‘First International Conference on Early Christianity in India from the arrival of St.Thomas to Vasco- da-gama’, from 13th  to 16th  August 2005 at Concordia college,  New York.  In the conference the above-mentioned facts were presented and established on the International floor, and the facts were well received by the scholars.

 5th stage:  

‘First International Conference on ‘Thamizhar Samayam’ :

  The above facts have been established and elucidated in the ‘First International Conference on ‘Thamizhar Samayam’, held jointly by our ‘International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils’ and the ‘Archdiocese of Madras – Mylapore’, from 14th  – 17th  August 2008.

6h stage – 

One Fold One Shepherd:

 Established the new findings on ‘Soulology’ in various universities (broad stream of academic research) and video recordings:

            “Science without religion is Lame;

          Religion without Science is Blind”

Says Einstein.  Systematic and scientific study on ‘Soul’ (different from ‘Spirit / Life’) is termed as ‘Soulology’. ‘Soulology’, the crown of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity, that brings unity and brotherhood in society, is decoded and disclosed.

Papers on ‘Soulology’ presented by Dr.M.Deivanayagam, in the ‘First International Conference on ‘Thamizhar Samayam’ were published under the title  ‘Religion and Soulology of the Tamils that unite the religions of the world’ (‘Vulaga Samayangalhai Onrinaikkum Thamizhar Samayamum Thamizhar Aanmaviyalum’ – in Tamil). This book on ‘Soulology’ was well received by the scholars.

The Director in charge of Central Institute of Classical Tamil, run by Government of India, having realized the significance of this book, that puts an end to Religious and Communal conflicts and brings brotherhood and unity in the society, ordered 500 copies and distributed them to the scholars of various universities. He also invited Dr.M.Deivanagam to speak on ‘Soulology’, in various universities. Hence he delivered lectures in Tamil University – Thanjavur, Venkateswara University – Andhra, Kamarajar University – Madurai  and Vooris College –Vellore. There was very good response among the scholars of these universities. The lectures and the question / answer sessions were completely video recorded.

Intentionally outside that stream???

In your email dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

“You are clearly and intentionally outside that stream, and do not even bother to interact with it”.

If I was clearly and intentionally outside the stream, surely I would not have requested you to form a committee. Brother, if you carefully read my emails you would obviously understand that I am the one who have been initiating to form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the core issue in different perspectives. It is very clear that forming a committee will be effective in analyzing and understanding the issue, instead of imposing the opinion of the individuals.

Issue on Casteism:

In your email dated 5-7-2010, you have written that

“This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from. This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper. There is a general scholarly consensus that the origin of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out…”

Yes, you have already graciously admitted the fact that the origin of casteism is unknown…

Hence in my reply I sent to you on 10-7-2010, I have written that,

To understand the origin of casteism, we need to analyze the classical literatures of India, which are in Tamil, and Sanskrit. These are the only two classical languages of India.

Between these two classical languages, Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the common people, but a literary language of the scholars alone. Hence we cannot see the natural developments taking place throughout the ages in Sanskrit, as we see in natural languages. So, the origin of casteism cannot be traced in Sanskrit literature.

The literature in Tamil, a language of the common people as well as the scholars, can be classified in three different stages, in correlation with the caste system.

They are

1.  The Literature before the formation of the caste system i.e., Ancient Sangam literature (Classical Tamil Literature)

2.  The Literature after the formation of the caste system i.e., Medieval literature and

3.      The Literature after the establishment of the caste system i.e., Later literature.

In Ancient Sangam literature there is no reference for the caste stratification but occupational variations, which occur not only in India but also in the world society. Many confuse occupational variations with casteism since they are not aware of the intricacies of casteism in India.

 To understand the culture of the Ancient Tamils and the Indians, before the formation of the caste system, careful study on Sangam literature i.e., Classical Tamil Literature is highly indispensable.

Hence, without having in-depth knowledge of Tamil, especially that of Sangam literature, one cannot understand the culture of the Ancient Tamils and the Indians and the origin of the caste system.

Misunderstanding the origin of Sanskrit:

It should be noted here that the Dravidians, original inhabitants of India, form 85 percent of the Indian population whereas the Aryans form below 15 percent of the Indian population.

According to the caste system of the Aryans, Dravidians were labeled as Sudras and Panchamas.

During the reign of the British, Sir William Jones, Supreme Court judge based in Calcutta at that time, translated the Law of Manu from Sanskrit to English in 1794 AD for judicial purposes. He misconceived that the ‘Law of Manu’, the law book of Aryavardha of the Aryans, which was against the Dravidians, was the common law book for all the Indians.

Being a scholar in Latin and Greek when seeing Latin and Greek words in Sanskrit, he erroneously concluded that Sanskrit was the oldest language of the world and the mother of Latin and Greek. He was not aware of the Tamils in the south and their literature and never visited this part of Tamil land.

After Sir.William Jones translated ‘Law of Manu’, Max Muller translated the Religious Literature of India, which were in Sanskrit. He speciously believed that there was a race known as ‘Aryan race’. In fact there is no such a race as Aryan race. ‘Aryans’ the name referred to the group of foreign invaders who came to India in various periods. The groups of foreign invaders who came in various periods, without any religion of their own, were Persians (6^th c.BC), Greeks (4^th c.BC), Sakas(2nd c.BC), Kushanas(1^st c.AD),  Huns(4^th c.AD) and the Romans (4^th c.BC),  who came for trade purpose, were denoted by a common term ‘Aryan’ by the Indian Dravidians.

On the basis of their white complexion they joined together and captured the political power from the Dravidians and formed ‘Aryavardha’ in 7^th c.AD and devised the ‘Law of Manu’.

Since Max Muller misconstrued that there is a separate race called Aryans and Sanskrit is the worlds most ancient language, he promoted Sanskrit as the supreme language of the world, and the Aryan race alone is the worlds and thus promoted racism. He never visited India and was not aware of the Tamils and their literature.

At that time Indus Valley civilization was not deciphered and both of them were not aware of the antiquity and the greatness of Tamil language, and the great spiritual heritage of the Tamils.

Between the two classical languages of India Sanskrit was greatly admired by Sir. William Jones and Max Muller. It is depressing to note that both were not aware of the antiquity and greatness of Tamil, which is the other classical language of India. Hence the antiquity, greatness and the spiritual heritage of Tamil and the Tamils are hidden. That’s why the culture of the Dravidians who form 85 percent of the Indian population is concealed.

Sanskrit:

In your mail dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

“Your total dismissal of Sanskrit in your email below is not a valid way to respond to the academic world.”

I don’t understand why you have come to this conclusion.

Regarding Sanskrit I have written that,

Between these two classical languages [Tamil and Sanskrit], Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the common people, but a literary language of the scholars alone. Hence we cannot see the natural developments taking place throughout the ages in Sanskrit, as we see in natural languages. So, the origin of casteism cannot be traced in Sanskrit literature.

This doesn’t mean that Sanskrit was totally dismissed by me. To make it clear let me place the following questions for your kind analysis.

·    Can we find evidence for Sanskrit as a spoken language of the ‘common people’ anywhere, any time in India?

·    Can we find epigraphical evidence for the occurrence of Sanskrit in the pre – Christ era as we find for Tamil?

·    Can we find Numismatic evidence for the occurrence of Sanskrit in the pre – Christ era as we find for Tamil?

First occurrence of Sanskrit inscription is from 150 AD only.

Dr. Alexander Harris has done an in-depth study on the development of Sanskrit language and has published his research paper titled ‘Christianity and Origin of Sanskrit’, and presented it in the International Conference on Early Christianity in India, New York, August 2005 (http://www.appiusforum.net/paper.pdf). (You can discuss further with him.)

In fact Sanskrit is not a language of the Aryans. It was formed by St.Thomas Christians. St.Thomas Christians proclaimed gospel in Tamil in Tamil land. For the people who do not speak or understand Tamil, they formed Sanskrit on the basis of the then existing languages of India viz., Tamil, Pali, Ardhamagathi, Persian, Greek, Aramaic and Latin. At that time we had no link language in India.  Hence it became the need of St.Thomas Christians to form a language for sharing the gospel. Fundamental doctrines of Early Sanskrit literature are the 1.Doctrine of Trinity 2. Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation) 3. Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice  4. Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and 5. Doctrine of Salvation by Faith, which are the doctrines of Christianity.

Vedavyasa had compiled and classified the nomadic worship songs of the Aryans as Rig,Yajur,Sama and Atharva Veda. He is not an Aryan but Dravidian /Tamilian (the term ‘Dravidian’ is the twisted form of the term ‘Tamilian’). He belongs to Vedantic concept i.e. St.Thomas Christianity. He compiled and classified the Vedas in order to proclaim Vedantic concept i.e., St.Thomas Christianity to the Indians.

Development of Soulology:

During the arrival of St.Thomas in India there were no theistic religions but only theistic worships. Worship is different from religion. Religion requires scripture, literature, theology, philosophy etc., where as worship doesn’t need these requirements. During his arrival in India there were atheistic and agnostic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism. In this context it won’t be appropriate to present the gospel on the basis of faith. Accordingly St.Thomas Christians had to present the gospel scientifically. Hence we find development of ‘Soulology’ in India in only in Tamil language.

Three major divisions:

Your kind response sent to me on 16.7.2010 has three major divisions.

1.    Academic field                  – scientific and logic analysis

2.    Religious field                   –  based on faith and beliefs

3.    Personal Experience                       – based on one’s experience but cannot be

                                                                       explained to others evidently.

We are discussing about dynamic evangelism.

Evangelism is purely based on one’s experience in the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ, which doesn’t come under academic field.

Can our experience be systematically and logically explained?

Can we find systematic and grammatical explanation for our personal experiences in the languages of the world?

Grammatical explanation for personal experience – (‘Agap porulh’):

Careful analysis on this subject reveals that it is systematically and that too grammatically explained in Tamil alone. Separate grammar had been developed in Tamil for the systematic and logic explanation for personal experience in Tamil, which is known as ‘Porulh Ilakkanam’ that means a grammar for our personal experience., where as all the other languages of the world have four rudiments among the following five.

1).  That which is written is known as ‘Yezhuththu’ (Script or a letter)

         2). That which is joined together by written letters is known as  ‘Sol’ (Word).

3). Each word contains ‘Porulh’ especially about ‘Agap porulh’ and ‘Purap     ’                        

     Porulh, i.e., ‘Subjective sense’ and Objective Sense’).

         4). Joining the words together is a sentence, known as ‘Yappu’ (‘prosody’).

5). Every sentence or Yappu must have a proper array of the above elements

which is described as ‘Ani’ (‘a rhetorical embellishment’)

Tamil alone has grammatical explanation for all the above said five rudiments. Apart from Tamil, no other language has systematic grammatical explanation for ‘Porulh’ i.e., theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of the people.

In Tamil, theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of human beings (‘porulh’) had been grammatically classified as

(1) Subjective Sense that relates to the theme of human love / divine love (‘Agap porulh’)

(2)   Objective Sense that relates to the theme of war, bravery etc., (‘Purap porulh’)

Individual soul experiencing supreme bliss by experiencing Supreme Soul is explained beautifully in Tamil.

Living being with sixth sense – ‘Uyarthinai’ :

Living beings are classified in Tamil into 6 categories on the basis of ‘senses’. Human being alone has ‘sixth sense’ and root cause for sixth sense is known as ‘Soul’ which is entirely different from Spirit / Life.

Tamil grammar divides all beings, animate and inanimate into two categories namely ‘Uyarthinai’ and ‘Agrinai’. Interestingly the distinguishing factor used here is the soul. Those who endowed with souls (human only) belong to ‘Vuyarthinai’ (higher category) and the rest fall in the ‘Agrinai’ (lower category). This kind of distinction is unique to Tamil culture and Tamil language. This kind of classification is not seen in any of the languages of the world.

The study on ‘Soul’ – ‘Soulology’ :

All the living beings from one sense to five senses have only two entities i.e., Body and Life, but only human beings have the third entity called ‘Soul’ which differentiates human beings from other creatures. The study of this specific entity i.e., ‘soul’ is known as ‘Soulology’. So far, in the world, at large,

            1). The study that pertains to material body is known as ‘Science’.

         2). The study that pertains to life is known as ‘Philosophy’ and

         3). The study that pertains to God is known as ‘Theology’.

All these three dimensions will not be meaningful unless and until a study on ‘Soul’, the root cause for the sixth sense and for the formation of the said thoughts, is developed. This study has not grown in any other languages of the world except in Tamil. Indeed it is important to note that in Tamil alone the study on Soul is developed sharply and systematically in grammatical form and that too in the form of aphorism.

Experience of ‘Divine Unity’ is magnificently explained in Tamil literature and Grammar.

Without having a in-depth knowledge in Tamil and Tamil literature one cannot understand the systematic explanation for personal experience of both human and Divine love, elucidated in Tamil literature and grammar.

Nutshell of our discussions:

Whole discussion is based on your talk on casteism.

1.      In your lecture in the seminar at Gurukul one of the key points you have explained was about casteism in India.  You said that,

a.      · Casteism is a part of the Indian culture,

b.      · While evangelizing one should not disturb it.

2.      Sadhu Chellappa raised a question on casteism.  In your reply you said that caste is a genetic factor.

3.      I encountered and said that casteism is not of the Indian culture but of the Aryans and before I finish, the microphone was taken out of my hand upon your instruction.

4.      Dr. Alexander Harris raised these issues regarding casteism and the microphone in your organization.

5.      Since he didn’t receive any response, he raised it on the International floor.

6.      Mr. Jason Fry started giving explanation regarding microphone issue and said that everything was video graphed.

7.      I raised questions on the basis of his statement and asked for a copy of the video. But he didn’t reply. Why?

8.      I sent a mail to you explaining that the issue we are discussing is not an issue between just two Individuals, but an issue between two different systems, one upholding casteism and the other uprooting casteism and placed 3 questions before you, regarding casteism and the microphone.

9.      Your reply expressed apology for the microphone issue, thought pattern in line with casteism and admitting the fact that the origin of casteism is unknown. In your mail dated 5-7-2010 you have written that, “ I am not confident that any meaningful interaction can happen in this kind of email interaction…”

10.  So, I requested you to form a committee to know the origin of casteism and to analyze the two systems, one elucidating the origin of casteism through Classical Tamil Literature and the other through Sanskrit literature.

11.  You have not come forward to form a committee to scrutinize this crucial issue but remarked that I am not up to mark to discuss academically.

12.  Since you are claiming that you are standing in the broad stream of academic research, let me place the following seven questions to you for your kind analysis.

1.      Is caste a genetic factor?

2.      Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.      Is casteism an age-old concept of India?

4.      Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.   Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

6.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against the constitution of India?

For the above seven questions

discussion between two systems is indispensable:

1.      In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

                     “…you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research” Accordingly, kindly appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of your system of thought and we’ll be happy to appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of our system of thought. Since the issue on casteism is a crucial issue of the Indians, wish to have discussion in India, particularly in Gurukul, the same premises where the discussion started.

2. Since the two systems are based on Tamil and Sanskrit, and the technical terms are in both Tamil and Sanskrit, the papers and discussions will be presented in the respective languages with translation in English.

3. Let the discussions be based on our research papers to be presented and analyzed in depth.

4. Let us have this discussion powerfully and fruitfully by answering the issues and questions raised by the academicians of your system and vice versa.

5. We may meet the expenses of our academicians and you may meet the expenses of your academicians and we are happy to meet the rent for Gurukul.

6. Let us completely video the whole programme for further analysis.

7. Let us carefully analyze this issue in different perspectives and find out which system of these two will be appropriate and effective for bringing India to Christ.

8. Let us find out the solution for making others to realize and receive the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ as we are blessed with this same experience .

In case you are not willing to take part in this discussion with the dedicated scholarly missionary team representing your system, it will make everyone to think whether you are striving to bring India to Christ unequivocally.

Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Kindly allow me to finish this mail again with the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My  prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

May the divine Grace of God blesses and strengthens us to carry out

His unsurpassed precious teaching all over the world.

Expecting your kind reply.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

Dear Brother Dorairaj,

Thanks for the fitting reply and tribute to the personnel involved. Thanks for the power of God which brings salvation as in Romans 1:16 to multitudes through contextualized evangelism.

When we say evangelism, “Evangelism with no boundaries for caste and color.”  The proclamation of Gospel with compromising on caste is not Gospel. Good news of Jesus from Asia – from the birth place of civilizations comes in civilized manner with no reference to accepting Him while living in Caste Crutches & promoting or accepting the same. Hence, we have to aware that the promotion or supporting of caste is not the of doctrine of Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, who brought the doctrine of caste discrimination in the Christian World in India? Either Christian Institutions or Churches?   

Best regards,

Chandrasekeran

Dear Dr. Kala,
Dr. G. J. Pandithrai has written on page 4 about Adventists doctrine on Avathara.  Did he mean the Sevent-day Adventists or Adventists………

Solomon.

Dear Dr. Solomon,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You have raised a doubt from bro.Pandithurai ‘s mail dated 24-7-2010 .

You have asked, “Did he mean the Sevent-day Adventists or Adventists………” found on page No.4 of bro.Pandithurai’s mail.

Being a Seventh day Adventist, and the founder of ‘Karunaiyananthar Ashram’ (Tanjore) that was established with the prime motive of understanding Indian culture and Indian theology and to present the message of salvation to the Indians in Indian culture, the doubt you have raised is important in this context.

The doubt has been raised in the midst of our discussion on casteism and the dynamic methods of evangelism.

Though it seems a separate matter, in fact it is closely connected with our discussion in presenting the gospel to the elite group.

In his mail bro.Pandithurai explained well about their ministry and reproduced some part of my pamphlet titled ‘Why God took an Avatar?’.  In it, it goes on to explain the concept of God taking the form of a man to redeem us, through Saivite and Vaishnavite songs, in which this word occurs. In fact the word should be ‘Advaitists’ and not ‘Adventists’. 

• Clear understanding between Advaitists, Saivites and Vaishnavites will help us to comprehend Hindu religion and
• Obviously help us to do evangelism dynamically in India. 
• Hence I am sending this mail not to you alone but to all who observe / involve in this ongoing discussion.

Advaitists don’t believe in God and according to Advaita concept everything is maya or illusion including sin. Each one of them claims that ‘I am God’ which is totally contrary to the concept of God, whereas Saivism and Vaishnavism accept that all people are born with a sinful nature and God alone can redeem human beings. Here again, to repeat, from the earlier explanation, the word should be ‘Advaitists’ and not ‘Adventists’.

At this juncture I like to write about our mission among the Vaishnavites who vehemently oppose the concept of Advaita.

I am glad to share with you the reaction of a Vaishnavite professor in Mylapore while distributing the tract mentioned above. I like to recall my email-dated 25.06.2010 in which I have hinted the effects of sharing the message of salvation, explained in the above said tract, distributed with Sis.Bhuvana and another sister, the staff members of Dr.Alexander Harris.

Dr.Alexander  Harris,  when doing a challenging ministry among the Brahmins of Mylapore, asked me to write a pamphlet for the Hindu intellectuals. On the basis of Saivite and Vaishnavite (Hindu) literature, I wrote a pamphlet titled “Why God took an Avatar?’.  Then he asked me to distribute it to the same Mylapore area, which is densely populated with the Brahmins.  Two of his staff members [Bhuvana and another sister] came along with me to distribute that tract from door to door.  In one of the houses, a middle aged woman came and asked me,

“Are you giving this tract to us? My father is a Great Vaishnavite Professor. Can you meet him and answer his questions?”

Immediately with great pleasure I agreed and started discussing with him who was 83 years old, and by birth, so called ‘Aiyangar’, who is in the summit of caste stratification, devised by the Aryans. He raised so many questions and I explained things to him on the basis of Vaishnavite literature. After the discussion when we were about to come out of his house, suddenly he fell down at my feet. I was shocked. He said the following:

 “For many years I have been teaching Vaishnavism, but today you have opened my eyes.’

At this juncture I like to point out how the new research findings of Dr. M.Deivanayagam on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity i.e., Saivism and Vaishnavism (‘Hindu religion’) are very powerful and useful tools to make the Hindus to realize the Truth.  Many of his students, especially scholars and missionaries are incorporating these new research findings in their ministry for powerful evangelism among Hindus, in diverse methods. Bro. Pandithurai’s mail shows how beautifully missions are developed when incorporating these new research findings on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity with their mission. I am glad to share that Dr. J.D. Baskaradoss and myself are the two among many of his students who are applying these new research findings in our mission. Bro. M. Sundar Yesuvadian, author of the book titled “India is a Christian Nation”, stayed with us for some years and understood this new research on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity and incorporated it with his mission. Mr.Ragavan Suppiah, Organizer of our Movement – for Malaysia, is doing mission effectively among Hindus and Atheists on the basis of these research findings.

I am glad to recollect the good experience of distributing the tract written by Dr.Alexander Harris titled ‘Brahmins awake’, along with him and a team of God’s children in Mylapore, as was explained by bro.Pandithurai. Ministry of Dr.Alexander Harris in Mylapore was the good answer to B.V.Kamath’s question whether anyone could do mission in a brahmin ward like Mylapore.

God is using his children in different ways and blessing all of us to share the gospel multi dimensionally.

Thus the new research findings of Dr. M.Deivanayagam on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity i.e., Saivism and Vaishnavism (‘Hindu religion’) are very instrumental when sharing the gospel with the Hindus. Understanding his new research findings on

·         St.Thomas Tamil Christianity,

·         Origin of casteism, 

·         Corruption and dilution of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity and

·         Restoration of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity

are useful for dynamic evangelism in India. Hence through classes and courses he is training the evangelists and scholars. Through seminars and conferences, he is making others realize and receive the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ.

Thank you.

In Christ,

D.Devakala.

All religious thought can be classified into two distinct mutually exclusive classes – Monotheism and Monism.

The school of Monotheism teaches that there is One God, the creator of all things including man. However, man having sinned is separated from God, and, God provides a unique Way of Salvation to man for restore his/her relationship back to God.

The school of Monism teaches that there is only one reality or thing or substance; everything else is ‘maya’ or illusion. If we call this ‘one thing’ God, then man becomes God since there cannot be God and man (two things or dualism). So in the school of monism, we become God! The cycle of birth or reincarnation is the process/vehicle through which man unites into God.

Thus in the school of Monism, man declares that ‘I am God’, just as Lucifer (as recorded by Isaiah) said in his heart I will be like the most High! In the ‘Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religious and the Occult’, by George A Mather and Larry A Nichols, the authors indicate that cults typically operate by personal transformation,

PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION. Whichever path an individual chooses, several goals are on the horizon. The first is “personal transformation.” This entails undergoing a person mystical or psychic experience that will usually result in a paradigm shift from an “old world” belief system to a realization of “New Age” or “Aquarian” beliefs. The first step in this transformational process is to embrace a monistic worldview. Again, this does not come through cognition of propositional truths or creedal formulations, but rather, through mystical experience.

The goal is to embrace a monistic school of thought and this is achieved through seemingly harmless mystical practices. Monism teaches that the mind awakes or dreaming moves though maya (illusion) and only nonduality is the final truth. A key underlying practice is to ‘tap’ into that reality or god within oneself especially by meditation.

As indicated earlier, Monism entered India after the 8th c AD as a philosophy called Advaita developed by Adi Sankara. Advaita affected India in several ways. It destroyed the theistic faith of the Hindus by leading to Pantheism – many paths, individual worships and polytheism. Advaita also taught that the process of reaching the ‘all-soul’ is achieved by Reincarnation or Cycle of Birth, which is the cyclic return of a soul to live another life in a new body.

This entangled in the Caste System which further enslaved and oppressed the Hindus. Monism brings a false sense of unity and hope by the deception that no matter what path is chosen, ultimately we will all end up in the same place. However this false sense of unity is soon disturbed by the social disparity which becomes apparent, and this is where the cycle of birth is utilized. It is then taught that the one enjoying the higher status is due to his/her karma in the previous birth, and if one would presently follow dharma, i.e. Varnashrama Dharma (the law of the ones skin color) in this birth, then he/she could also enjoy the higher status in their next birth. Amusing! Over the years, the caste system was in this manner deceptively maintained by the philosophies of monism and cycle of birth.

Today in America, the philosophy of Monism and Reincarnation is the underlying foundation of many cults or groups – Kabbalah, Masons, Divine Light Movement, etc. The followers within these groups do not even realize this and are often deceived by high sounding words and mystical actions. As indicated earlier, they are unaware that the goal of their cult or group is to embrace a monistic school of thought though seemingly harmless mystical practices. Also, global racism based on one’s skin color entered the world society when William Jones translated Varnashrama Dharma, the law of the Caste system from Sanskrit to English about 200 years ago. Hence, it is important to ask if it is being used within these cults or groups today for the same purpose?

Monism is an atheistic philosophy which will divide society, and many are deceived thinking that it is a “scientific” justification for rejecting God and His authority as Creator. Monism leads to a series of beliefs about the past and future in explaining facts that are observable in the present. It is a religion since it can be defined as a concept or system of belief that is held to with ardor and faith. Thus ultimately monism is a religious view concerning life. Monism quite naturally leads to Pantheism, which teaches that all religious paths lead to the same ultimate end, since there is (according to monism) only one ultimate reality and everything else is illusion. This has led many to think that these paths are like rivers that finally lead to the same ocean. This is error since all religions are not the same, and, when two paths contradict each other, both cannot be right.

Many have deceptively tried to prove that all religions are the same especially by pointing out the Christian Gospel similarities in Hinduism, for example the Bagavad Gita. False claims are made that the Gita was written in the pre-Christian era and hence all religions teach the same thing. However, this is not true. The Gita is written in good classical Sanskrit, and epigraphic evidence clearly shows that the Gita could not have been written before the 2nd c AD, and under the influence of early Indian Christianity. Hence in world missions, the right historical perspective of the religious development in India is very crucial today rather than concern over the broad stream of academic research.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

So Alex, do we simply not recognize the ‘religious thought’ behind various forms of ‘polytheism’, animism, nature worship etc where there is no assumption of a universal One that under-girds everything else? And what about the mix of multilevel pantheism and bhakti that we find in ISKCON etc?

The broad categorisation of religious thought into Monotheism and monism seems to be too sweeping and not in keeping with the various religious experiences and thoughts that people have pursued across the centuries.

Ajoy

Hello Ajoy,

Years ago around 1997in Mylapore I was discussing the significance of Sanskrit in Hinduism with Rick at his home; abruptly he asked me to leave his house. Apart from the fact that if he had taken time to listen it would have mitigated his confusion today, these types of ‘symptoms’ displayed by him in the past lay ground for Vishal’s question today.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

Hi, Alex
Hope the Lord would provide an opportunity for you to meet with Rick and discuss the 1997 incident with the benefit of hindsight and the wisdom that it brings. Its obvious that ideologically your positions continue to be opposite or atleast running parallel to each other. However, under the ever active grace of God, your hearts might be nearer than it initially appears to be!
As a non- academician, I’m grateful for the various views that are being brought to this table. Esp to Dr. Devakala, Vishal, Rick and you. Despite the differences, its a gathering that is rare (and I think precious) in its formation.
Thanks
Ajoy

REMINDER

Dear bro.Rick Hivner,

Greetings in Jesus’ name.

I am sending this mail as a kind reminder for our discussion, obviously explained in my last mail dated 22-7-2010. Since it has been quite a while (18 days), I trust you would be taking efforts for a healthy fruitful discussion and would send a valid reply to me.

Let me reproduce the concluding part of my last email dated 22-7-2010 for your kind attention

12.  Since you are claiming that you are standing in the broad stream of academic research, let me place the following seven questions to you for your kind analysis.

1.      Is caste a genetic factor?

2.      Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.      Is casteism an age-old concept of India?

4.      Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.   Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

6.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against the constitution of India?

For the above seven questions

discussion between two systems is indispensable:

1.      In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

                      “…you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research” Accordingly, kindly appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of your system of thought and we’ll be happy to appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of our system of thought. Since the issue on casteism is a crucial issue of the Indians, wish to have discussion in India, particularly in Gurukul, the same premises where the discussion started.

2. Since the two systems are based on Tamil and Sanskrit, and the technical terms are in both Tamil and Sanskrit, the papers and discussions will be presented in the respective languages with translation in English.

3. Let the discussions be based on our research papers to be presented and analyzed in depth.

4. Let us have this discussion powerfully and fruitfully by answering the issues and questions raised by the academicians of your system and vice versa.

5. We may meet the expenses of our academicians and you may meet the expenses of your academicians and we are happy to meet the rent for Gurukul.

6. Let us completely video the whole programme for further analysis.

7. Let us carefully analyze this issue in different perspectives and find out which system of these two will be appropriate and effective for bringing India to Christ.

8. Let us find out the solution for making others to realize and receive the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ as we are blessed with this same experience .

In case you are not willing to take part in this discussion with the dedicated scholarly missionary team representing your system, it will make everyone to think whether you are striving to bring India to Christ unequivocally.

Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Kindly allow me to finish this mail again with the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My  prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

May the divine Grace of God blesses and strengthens us to carry out

His unsurpassed precious teaching all over the world.

Expecting your kind reply.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

Dear Dr. Devakala

I am so grateful that you are forcing this debate.

We Indians are guilty of not loving our neighbors as ourselves, of treating some people (including fellow-believers) as untouchable and polluting. Likewise, for centuries the American Church was guilty of racial segregation. In recent decades some Americans have promoted their sin in India in the name of planting “mono-ethnic” or “homogeneous” churches. Rick Hivner’s advocacy of Homogeneous House Churches is nothing more than a camouflage for caste-based “racial” segregation. Therefore, it is right for Indian Christians to stand up against all white Americans and their Brahmin followers who continue to export racial segregation into India, justifying their sin with pseudo scholarship and academic mumbo-jumbo . . . However, it is even more important that we set our own house in order — because while most American churches have taken care of their problem, many Indian Christians continue to look down upon their neighbors as the image-bearers of God.

Vishal

Dear bro.Vishal,

Thank you for your mail.

While discussing the issue on casteism in the International floor, with a great burden for the Indians you have written that,

“We Indians are guilty of not loving our neighbors as ourselves, of treating some people (including fellow-believers) as untouchable and polluting…..

However, it is even more important that we set our own house in order —“

Yes, we Indian missionaries should make rational analysis of ourselves and make corrections where necessary.  Whether it be Indian or foreign missionaries, or  whoever promotes casteism, to them we have this responsibility to enlighten them with facts and figures. Your spirit, wanting  amends from the Indian missionaries, who have more responsibility than the foreign missionaries, regarding the barriers of ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ in India , is  appreciated by everyone.

Thank you.

In Christ,

D.Devakala.

Dear Dr. Devakala,

I am sorry that you have been waiting for a reply from me. I have considered your emails carefully and also the email that I wrote to you last time, and I do not see any way that I can alter what I wrote in my last email. I really do not see that there is any way forward for us to carry on a meaningful dialogue due to vastly varying perceptions and presuppositions, as I wrote last time.

My first point was about history, and I suggested that all history is tentative yet I see no evidence of your holding this position. I said that “All of your historical points below would need to be rewritten as tentative explorations before I could even imagine engaging them in discussion and research.” Your response said nothing about this, in fact contained yet more dogmatic statements like Sanskrit being a language developed by St. Thomas Christians.

My second point to you was that I cannot assume the role of representing mainstream scholarship in debate with you. I am not a Sanskritist, and I do not even know a Sanskritist. I tried to suggest to you an avenue of approach, which was your interacting with “Caste and Christianity” by Duncan Forrester. This also you did not address.

So I can only say again what I said in my last email, “So it seems to me the only way forward here is to agree to disagree and trust God to do his work in us, and perhaps someday in His grace our differences will be overcome.”

May God lead and guide you,

In grace,

Rick Hivner

Dear Vishal

You might not remember me but we have had a few conversations and also travelled from Chennai to Mumbai together. Your books have stimulated much thought and your remain an inspiration to many of us in India through your various projects (like the book of the millennium) and  writings.

You have posed a stacked wager where its a heads-I win-tails-you lose position for Rick. I’m not sure if his sincerity needs to be (or can be) proven, especially over emails. Besides, this is a double edged sword and cuts in all directions. All of our motives in this discussion can be suspect and we will be hard pressed to prove our sincerity. In fact, any attempt to prove sincerity itself can be dismissed as an over eager attempt to protect one’s reputation.

Its best to keep this discussion revolving around content, sources, opinions and its validity and let God judge the motives. Unless of course duplicity and ill motives are obvious and evident to us, in which case we can stop being part of the discussions.

I have met believers from the ‘bhakta’ movements who prefer to be “insiders” within their Hindu contexts and they have not expressed any grand intention of creating the perfect church in India. Nor do they have reservations in generally fellowshipping with believers of other backgrounds, though they may not be excited about doing it within the regular church format.

All that they ask for is the social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context.  In my opinion, efforts to totalise and homogenise the spiritual and social behaviour of believers from various religious backgrounds will eventually snuff out the beauty that diversity brings – regardless of whether these efforts come from the East or the West.

The above thoughts may not be directly related to the theories of Indian Christianity being discussed and disputed through this group. Hopefully, they add to them in some way, however remotely.

With regards
Ajoy

Silence Dr. Devakala – Promote Racial Segregation

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Dear Brother Ajoy

Who can forget you or your wonderful wife? Thank you for your hard work for the king, kind words about me and those in the Insider Movement. I have no doubt that many of them are sincere . . . but does that make them right?

I am quite happy to accept your admonition, “Its best to keep this discussion revolving around content, sources, opinions and its validity and let God judge the motives.” Let’s do that.

The Mike is being Snatched from Sister Devakala Again!

Some of us weren’t  there in Gurukul seminar, so we do not know all the circumstances under which the microphone was snatched from sister Devakala. Now however, we are watching how a low-caste scholar is being silenced again.

Dr. Devakala is being asked to get her thesis certified by “mainstream” “Sanskritists” (i.e. from Brahmin scholars) before she can speak.  Why shouldn’t Insider Scholars get their thesis certified by low-caste scholars?

What If Apostle Thomas was martyred in Chennai?

Assuming (tentatively, of course) that Thomas did come to India and that he did establish the church in Kerala . . . And

Assuming (tentatively) that he also came to what is now Tamil Nadu and that his ministry was effective enough to provoke Brahmins to kill him . . . Would you not expect, his ministry to have left some (or plenty) of influence in Tamil culture?

Would this impact be seen best in Tamil language or in Sanskrit? Wouldn’t those who killed him also minimize his influence in Sanskrit literature?

If so, how can Sanskritists sit on judgment on Dr. Devakala and her father?

Why would “mainstream” historians bother looking at the data Dr. Devakala is presenting? Admittedly, her view is a minority opinion . . . but is that a good reason to silence her?

Whatever may have been the circumstances of snatching the micro-phone from her in Gurukul . . . shouldn’t Christian scholars accord courtesy of listening to 30 years of painstaking original research? Especially, if it challenges a missiology that is promoting racial segregation in India? Or, will the Insider Movement listen only to the murderers of Apostle Thomas?

I Suspect That Rick Hivner is Partially Right

I suspect that the data Dr. Devakala has looked at is incomplete. And I would not be surprised if some of her conclusions are partially or wholly wrong. However, will you stand and watch as people snatch the mike from her on the ground that “all history is tentative?” That means that Jesus was crucified and buried only tentatively.

Someone who has done original research and arrived at radically innovative conclusions has every right to champion her/his thesis with enthusiasm and deep conviction. To dismiss her convictions on the ground that she has not yet obtained a certificate of approval from the descendents of Thomas’ murderers is at best prejudiced.

Should Indian Christians stand and watch American missiologists snatch the mike a second time from a genuine Indian Scholar . . . just because she happens to be a low-caste woman, whose views challenge mainstream scholarship?

The Moral Issue

St. Thomas Christians in Kerala have looked down upon lower castes for 2,000 years. American Church practiced racial segregation for centuries. Now white American missionaries are asking their upper caste followers in India to establish racially segregated churches. Do you really want to promote this evil non-sense as the “beauty of Indian culture?”  If diversity is really beautiful, why not listen to a law-caste Tamil scholar? Or is it only caste-based segregation . . . and silencing of low-caste scholars . . . that appear beautiful?

You write, “All that they [Insiders] ask for is the social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context.” Well, that is exactly what the priest and the Levite wanted in the parable of the Good Samaritan . . . their own space . . . distance from the oppressed.  That is what the Church in Kerala has wanted for 2,000 years. That is what led Dr. Ambedkar to reject Dr. McGavran’s gospel . . . as no Gospel for the oppressed.

Dr. Devakala deserves to be honored for standing up to the intellectual hegemony of Pasadena missiology. If Pasadena missiologists believe that their convictions are biblical and their scholarship is sound then they ought to be willing to debate them . . . instead of silencing critics either by snatching their mikes or with hypocritical humility.

Thank you for moving the debate further.

Your brother

Vishal

Dear Vishal,

Thanks for the mail. Gratified that you remember details of meetings long ago. Its good to be in touch with you again.

Since I was one of the organisers of the Rethinking Forum presentation which Dr. Devakala attended, I can assure you that there was no organised attempt to silence her from presenting her views. I remember though that during the Q&A, her query (which was actually a presentation of her views) took an inordinately long time and the person who was coordinating the mike handling took the mike away after a few mins. This, as you would be very familiar with, is common in a typical open forum setting. Dr. Devakala, however, (as mentioned in one of her earlier emails), was of the idea that this would be an open discussion in which every view would be provided equal time. I realise that this was an organisational gaffe and a result of lack of clear communication on the organisers’ part. However, I took time to meet with Dr. Devakala and Dr. Devanaiyagam after the meeting and thank them for their attendance (since they were leaving immediately afterwards). I think Jason, who was handling the mike, did the same.

And in line with the belief that diversity must be preserved, my pastor and I have been planning to visit Dr. Devakala for the past 3 weeks but I have been unable to because of a seriously bad back condition. Perhaps next week, I will visit Dr. Devakala when its convenient for her to ensure that we get to know more from her that what has been discussed over emails so far. My hope is that the discussion can be mainstreamed so that both the academic strengths and weaknesses of the position can be understood and evaluated. And every position and missiological effort has its own strengths and weaknesses – as the history of Indian mission and indeed worldwide mission has demonstrated. So dialogue and discussion are inevitable and desirable.

There are queries that you have raised that might need a more academic response than I’m capable of. So others in the group might want to offer their views.

Once again, grateful for your response and glad that you remember.
Thanks
Ajoy

Hello Ajoy

Yes the Lord did provide an opportunity a few weeks ago for Rick and I to meet at USCWM, Pasadena, CA. Unfortunately the benefit of hindsight and the wisdom did not play out – Rick walked out of the meeting. That is why I was clear in my statement earlier – these types of ‘symptoms’ displayed by him in the past lay ground for Vishal’s question today.

Irrespective, let’s focus on our objective – to win the lost and see them as disciples of Jesus Christ. In this objective there are many hindrances and strongholds, and, to break those one needs to have the right historical perspective. As Paul writes,

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.  And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. (2 Cor 10:4-6 KJV).

Hence, the current discussion – early Indian Christianity, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Sanskrit, Advaita, etc. are of utmost importance. Also historically, the greatest segregation was the separation of Jew and Gentile, and Christ has made both one by breaking down the middle wall of partition between us (Ephesians 2:14). Hence, let us not violate the Law of Christ by bringing segregation into His Body.

Regards,

Alex

Thanks Alex.

I’m currently reading a book co-authored by Marcus Borg (of the Jesus Seminar – by no means orthodox in his Christian beliefs) and N T Wright (the former Bishop of Durham, broadly representing orthodox Christianity). Despite their huge differences, they have been able to coauthor a book and leave it for the general public to decide, especially since there is often more than one (possibly legitimate) historical perspective.

Historical reconstructions are tedious business and often inevitably subject to leaps of faith, judgment etc. But both authors demonstrate that it is possible to disagree and present opposing views in the same book (!), as long as there is no intentional caricaturing or tarnishing of the other’s position. This discussion need not lead to the writing of a book, but as long as we understand clearly, what the other position is, then we may offer our judgments. My impression is that currently we are dealing with caricatures and not with actual positions. And this might apply to both sides of the discussion.

Your quote of Paul from Eph 2 is in order. We are all one in Christ. (To clarify, I daresay that everyone in this groups believes in the Scriptural teachings on oneness and unity in Christ and that no one  in this group justifies or sanctions the hierarchical or oppressive forms of the Caste System).

However, I submit that the same Paul (Galations) fought for ensuring that the Gentiles don’t have to adopt Jewish cultural practices (despite their being united with the Jews in Christ) and he did not want the Judaisers to dictate to the Gentiles how they must express their fledgling faith in Christ. He recognised that circumcision was only the head of the cultural Jewish camel which would eventually move into and abrogate the Gentile tent.

To illustrate, when Paul says that there is no male or female in Christ (Gal 3:20), it surely does not mean that male and female distinctions are abrogated. So why do we think that ALL distinctions, including cultural, between Jews and Gentiles were abrogated? Indeed, in Christ, these distinctions, if inherently good, whether created or subcreated by humans, can be preserved and redeemed and transformed to become part of the multilayered and manifold tapestry of the church. This is hard work and takes significant time since all fundamental change has to be from within and cannot be coerced extrinsically.

So, cant we let those following Christ from Hindu backgrounds work out their faith in Christ in their context instead of insisting that they must become exactly like those following Christ from Christian backgrounds? Isnt there a possibility that their embeddedness in their context can bring about change eventually from within?

Through my limited experience with them, I dont think that any one among the Bhaktas actually believe that they are superior to others in any way. I dont even think that there are only one kind of Bhaktas or that all Bhaktas are Brahmins or that all Brahmins think alike.(My last landlords, were religious Brahmins, who had lived in Kolkatta for many years were very inclusive in their worldview and exceptionally kind and courteous and favourable towards us – not at all like the caricatures that we usually are presented with). Do we, who are part of the organised Christian church actually think that we can do what the Bhaktas are doing? Can we actually replace them in their context? Surely, any fundamental change needs significant time? These are some questions that I have which prompts me to be open to further discussion.

For some reason, Dr. Ebe Sunderraj has not been part of this discussion. I have taken the liberty of including him in this discussion since he had graciously presided over the meeting in Chennai.

Thanks and regards
Ajoy

Dear Ajoy

I am so glad that you are planning to visit Dr. Devakala and her dad. Thank you. Given the sincerity of your heart, my guess is that you will find this to be much more profitable than a mere Public Relations exercise. I wish I could join you myself.

Given the current state of historiography in America (. . . I was supposed to attend the last big gathering of historians in San Diego in January – – – this event which draws several thousand has been completely taken over by Lesbians, Gays, bisexuals, Transgender and other Queers. Christian historians seems to have had only one seminar in a basement on a medieval monk!. . . ) it is not difficult for a historian to present a tentative thesis to fellow historians that Thomas may have been killed for stealing a chicken . . . since “Hinduisms” are inherently tolerant.

That may be far-fetched . . . but I have no doubt whatsoever that you can get a Ph.D. from Pasadena by writing a thesis that Thomas could have saved his life by becoming an Insider. . . because your thesis would be quite true. Thomas would have avoided martyrdom by becoming an Insider. His problem was that he was commissioned to carry a Gospel that turns the world upside down. . . that is a threat to a sinful status quo. That is also Dr. Devakala’s problem.

The most likely reason for Thomas’ martyrdom was that he had converted enough “Hindus” to be perceived as a serious threat by Chennai’s religious establishment. If that was the case, that is, if his ministry was really effective, then it is very likely that his followers as well as his opponents preserved some of his teachings in ancient Tamil. That is what is being researched by Dr. Devakala and her father. It is a pioneering research . . . but even if many of their interpretations are exaggerated or wrong, it is a genuine research in indigenous Christianity, its impact and the challenge it poses and promise it makes to Indian culture. This is why she deserved to be heard much more than American missiologists who have lost America and are corrupting the Indian Church by injecting racial segregation into it.     

I believe your explanation of why Jason took the mike from Dr. Devakala. It makes sense. However, I do not understand, why Rick (or someone else in the Insider Movement) will not answer her questions now. She seems to be willing to forget the Gurukul episode. She may have made the mistake of presenting her thesis, instead of asking questions. But now she is asking questions, based on what Rick said. If Rick is confident of what he believes and teaches, why do you think he is refusing to answer her questions? If he is not interested in listening to her thesis, he can at least summarize his own thesis and answer questions that it raises in the minds of a genuine Indian scholar . . . even if she happens to be a low-caste woman.

May I add own questions to hers?

• Caste-based Untouchability or discrimination, Racial segregation and Apartheid are parts of significant segments of Indian, American, and South African cultures, do you really think they constitute the beauty of cultural diversity?
• The Scriptures say “My house will be a house of prayer for all people” – is a “church” a church if it is designed to exclude some castes . . . because your caste wants to keep its own space (unpolluted by others)? Or is the concept of “house church” being hijacked to plant racially segregated churches that are designated as “Homogeneous” or “Mono-ethnic” churches? Do these academic terms mean anything more than racial segregation?
• Is the command, “love your (low-caste) neighbor as yourself” binding on Bhaktas?

Yours – for a transforming Gospel.

Vishal

Attached is my latest piece for FORWARD Press – a bilingual monthly from New Delhi

Dear Ajoy

I am taking the time to respond to your email to Alex, because I really appreciate your spirit. I think your sincerity is exemplary.

The Scriptures that you are using are the ones that Dr. McGavaran and Dr. Ralph Winter used to promote their concept of establishing mono-ethnic churches. The problem is with the verses that they did not discuss.

Like them you write, “ I submit that the same Paul (Galatians) fought for ensuring that the Gentiles don’t have to adopt Jewish cultural practices (despite their being united with the Jews in Christ) and he did not want the Judaisers to dictate to the Gentiles how they must express their fledgling faith in Christ. He recognised that circumcision was only the head of the cultural Jewish camel which would eventually move into and abrogate the Gentile tent.”

More relevant question is: why did Paul call Peter “hypocrite” in the same passage in Galatians?

The answer is . . . Because Peter decided to keep his space . . . retain his Jewish culture . . . stay away from Gentile believers when it comes to eating and fellowshipping together.

In my book “Truth and Transformation: A Manifestos for Ailing Nations” I take a fresh look at how Jesus had tried to deliver Peter from his culture, long before Peter’s vision of the sheet with unclean animals (Acts 10). You can get a copy of the book from Ivan Kostka. Here may I mention that Paul put up a determined fight against Peter’s culture because of his understanding of God’s mission:

1. Ephesians 1:9-10 “having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, ¹⁰ that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.

• Colossians 1: 19-20 “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, ²⁰ and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Jewish culture . . . just like Brahmin culture . . . was to keep one’s distance from non-Jews. Paul’s taught that God’s mission was to unite Jews and Gentiles into one body, one bride, or one temple . . . even though there is plenty of diversity within that one body.

Why has Pasadena missiology missed this simple and obvious point about the teaching of the New Testament?

One reason is a selective reading of the Bible. A classic illustration of this problem is in John Stott’s opening essay in Dr. Winter’s “Perspective.” John Stott’s exposition of Missions was presented in one of the Urbana’s Conferences. He expounds Missions from God’s promise to Abraham – to give him the promised land, to make him a great nation and to bless all the nations through his descendents. What Stott fails to see is that the land God promised to Abraham was already occupied by nations, much stronger than his descendents. Therefore, when they went to take possession of their land, God’s promise turned out to be a very bloody promise.

That aspect of God’s promise and mission (totally ignored by John Stott) was best articulated in Psalm 2: “Ask of me and I will give the nations as your inheritance . . . you will rule them with an iron scepter . . . you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” This aspect of God’s mission is diametrically opposed to western multi-culturalism that is echoed (perhaps unconsciously) in your email to Alex. The unpleasant fact is that the New Testament uses that imagery and motif throughout. See, for example, Revelation 2: 26-27: “To him who overcomes . . . I will give authority over the nations – He will rule them with an iron scepter; [he will not preserve sinful separatist aspects of Jewish or brahiminical culture but] he will dash them to pieces like pottery – just as I have received authority from my father.”

If you go through 780 pages of Pasadena “Perspective” you will find that it has only 8 short discussions of the issue of “authority” . . . that makes it impossible for Pasadena missiology to understand the Great Commission, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore, go into all the world and make disciples of all nations.” This authority includes the authority to shatter sinful aspects of various cultures like pottery. That is why the Lamb of God has a sharp double-edged sword. That is what the Lamb is doing now (in the book of Revelation).

I hope to expound these themes in a series of articles because Western missiology is a product of western sociology and it has seriously misled the rest of the Christian world. I have not read the details of Dr. Devakala’s arguments and I may not agree with many of her arguments. . . however, I am glad that she has had the courage to stand up to Pasadena Missiology, because the Indian Church – especially your church in Kerla – has enough sin of caste and untouchability. It is absolutely important that the Tamil Church takes a firm stand against allowing the cultural evil of caste-prejudices to be written into the DNA of the Tamil Church.

Christ is out not simply to redeem all cultures but also to shatter them to pieces like pottery. . . there are plenty of Scriptures that say that and I leave it to you to examine them with the sincerity that you have displayed.

The question is: If racial (or caste-based) segregation is really evil, then why is that our sincere American bretheren are so anxious to inject it into the Indian Church. As a result of my long reflections . . . that I will present in a series of articles . . . I have come to the conclusion that the best explanation is that American sociology has profoundly affected evangelical missiology of the last 40-50 years. The problem begins with Dr. McGavran’s mistaken definition of nation . . . more on it another time . . . Centuries of racial segregation has made it hard for our American brothers and sisters to see what is so obvious to some of us. . . that God’s mission to unite all things in Christ, not to keep them in separate churches. If an Indian village has 100 families and 20 castes that do not intermarry or interdine, the Insider Movement will ask you to organize 20 distinct churches in that village . . . i.e. baptize the evil of casteism. Did Christ die to help us embrace this evil or to shatter it and set the oppressed free?

It is nothing but hypocrisy to say that we are against all forms of racism, but we believe in organizing separate churches for separate castes.

Thank you for keeping this debate going.

Vishal

Hi, Vishal Thanks for taking time to write and raising key issues to ponder over. I must confess that I feel that some of this is heady stuff and some of the sources you quote I have not even read or heard about! So I hope to spend some days checking out some of the details as close to the primary sources as possible. From a biblical exposition point of view, the book of Galatians specifically mentions that Peter withdrew from the Gentiles when the Judaisers visited due to his fear of them (Gal 2:12). This obviously is a wrong reason for exclusion and a betrayal of the cause of Christ. I’m not sure however if fear can be attributed as the only motive for all “insiders” – whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian. It is possible that many “insiders” have good methodological and context-specific reasons for their position. I will need some time to study the relationship between Ps 2 and Rev 2. I’m happy to do that as part of my own spiritual journey and appreciate your inputs on the same. Could you pls give me Ivan’s contact details so I can get your book? While I check out some of the sources you have mentioned, it would be useful to have the others in the team respond and provide insights etc from the rather rich and varied experience that we have as a group. Thanks and regards Ajoy

Dear Vishal, Thanks for your mails and for taking the time out to respond. This is a response to the earlier mail that you sent and I have tried to respond faithfully as I understand the situation and the issues involved.
I will provide some response to your other mail which also raises some weighty issues. My responses are below ( in blue, and it has nothing to do with how I am feeling!!! ) just below your thoughts. Sorry about the clutter, though. The article on Tantric Hinduism is interesting. I hope to study it further and might get back to you separately with some queries for understanding it better. Thanks. Ajoy
— On Tue, 8/17/10, VISHAL MANGALWADI <vishal@vishalmangalwadi.com> wrote:

Dear Ajoy

I am so glad that you are planning to visit Dr. Devakala and her dad. Thank you. Given the sincerity of your heart, my guess is that you will find this to be much more profitable than a mere Public Relations exercise. I wish I could join you myself.

Given the current state of historiography in America (. . . I was supposed to attend the last big gathering of historians in San Diego in January – – – this event which draws several thousand has been completely taken over by Lesbians, Gays, bisexuals, Transgender and other Queers. Christian historians seems to have had only one seminar in a basement on a medieval monk!. . . ) it is not difficult for a historian to present a tentative thesis to fellow historians that Thomas may have been killed for stealing a chicken . . . since “Hinduisms” are inherently tolerant.

Ajoy: Completely agree. To pass of figments of imagination as historical positions is surely possible with the “killing of history” that is all pervasive.

Also since there is good evidence that “hinduisms” are not inherently tolerant -either philosophically or socially (which includes invasions, razing down of buddhist temples etc). This would apply to “christianities” too, I suppose.

That may be far-fetched . . . but I have no doubt whatsoever that you can get a Ph.D. from Pasadena by writing a thesis that Thomas could have saved his life by becoming an Insider. . . because your thesis would be quite true. Thomas would have avoided martyrdom by becoming an Insider. His problem was that he was commissioned to carry a Gospel that turns the world upside down. . . that is a threat to a sinful status quo. That is also Dr. Devakala’s problem.

Ajoy: Surely a possibility. However, insider movements are not as “comfortable” as imagined, especially when the “insiders” are inside militant Hindu or Islamic contexts. Also, the “insider movement” is a methodological issue at its core (though I do think that it has a huge redemptive component). Methods are developed by believers due to varying contexts. Thomas methods are not necessarily inspired. Even if they were, they do not necessarily provide us an iron clad template for all generations, I suppose.

The most likely reason for Thomas’ martyrdom was that he had converted enough “Hindus” to be perceived as a serious threat by Chennai’s religious establishment. If that was the case, that is, if his ministry was really effective, then it is very likely that his followers as well as his opponents preserved some of his teachings in ancient Tamil. That is what is being researched by Dr. Devakala and her father. It is a pioneering research . . . but even if many of their interpretations are exaggerated or wrong, it is a genuine research in indigenous Christianity, its impact and the challenge it poses and promise it makes to Indian culture. This is why she deserved to be heard much more than American missiologists who have lost America and are corrupting the Indian Church by injecting racial segregation into it.

Ajoy: Completely agree that Dr. Devakala and her views must be heard by one and all (Dr. Devakala is available next Monday for the meeting which has been fixed). I’ve already had a few friends who have listened to her and Dr. Devanaiyagam’s views and thesis who have encouraged me to meet with them over the last few years. However, my serious limitations with Tamil language has been a discouragement. I also think that Tamil speaking believers should be more involved with examining the thesis and mainstreaming it as one of the possibilities if they find sufficient historical data and theory that can be reconstructed.

Also agree that the Western presentation of the gospel has come to us tainted with their social practices, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is as inevitable (though not desirable) as the Hellenisation and resultant abstractions that have slipped into Christian theology with platonic and aristotellian categories overriding the primitive Hebraic categories of much of Scriptural revelation.

Or it is as inevitable as the Roman government structures which have slipped into our church governments due to the early Latinization of the church which eventually brought about the division between the clergy and laity.

Interestingly, the Syrian Christians in India with their (not well substantiated) claim to their forefathers being converted by St Thomas 2000 years and their fairly consistent and rigid practice of oppressive casteism are a good illustration that it does not require the West for the gospel to be brought to us with an injection of an prejudiced and oppressive spirit! We have home-grown these evils for a long time ourselves!

I believe your explanation of why Jason took the mike from Dr. Devakala. It makes sense. However, I do not understand, why Rick (or someone else in the Insider Movement) will not answer her questions now. She seems to be willing to forget the Gurukul episode. She may have made the mistake of presenting her thesis, instead of asking questions. But now she is asking questions, based on what Rick said. If Rick is confident of what he believes and teaches, why do you think he is refusing to answer her questions? If he is not interested in listening to her thesis, he can at least summarize his own thesis and answer questions that it raises in the minds of a genuine Indian scholar . . . even if she happens to be a low-caste woman.

Ajoy: This is clearly a question that Rick must answer. Perhaps he has reasons. However, its good that the rest of us discuss this. We may or may not reach agreement but hopefully we retain healthy channels of communication for the future if additional data/evidence become available at some point in the future.

May I add own questions to hers?

(i) Caste-based Untouchability or discrimination, Racial segregation and Apartheid are parts of significant segments of Indian, American, and South African cultures, do you really think they constitute the beauty of cultural diversity? (Ajoy: No, they represent the ugliness that can result when diversity is corrupted. The fact that people have different skin colour is obvious. The idea that it should be used to discriminate and divide one from another and oppress the socially weaker is a corruption of the beauty that diversity brings and hence should be called ugliness).

(ii) The Scriptures say “My house will be a house of prayer for all people” – is a “church” a church if it is designed to exclude some castes . . . because your caste wants to keep its own space (unpolluted by others)?

(Ajoy: If the exclusion is to be “unpolluted” (socially) then it is a perversion of the gospel. If the exclusion is for methodolgical or contexual reasons, I submit that it is a plausible position to hold for followers of Christ).

Again, most churches end up being exclusive economically, atleast. The local church that I am part of in Chennai is attended mostly by middle class or the upper middle class. We dont intentionally keep out others and we also support other churches working among other sections. However, it is obvious that its a middle class and upper middle class church.

I imagine that the needs of people in various contexts are so different that it would not be feasible for a local church to cater to all economic sections equally well all the time. So a formatting of the church on economic lines does happen, even if not intended. This need not be interpreted as social or economic exclusion. At all points however, we must obey the command to us in Jas 2:1-7 at all times.

The bhakta groups (and there are various kinds of them) have intentionally chosen to exclude themselves from social Christendom for methodological and contextual reasons, instead of economic reasons – atleast that’s my understanding till date.

Or is the concept of “house church” being hijacked to plant racially segregated churches that are designated as “Homogeneous” or “Mono-ethnic” churches? Do these academic terms mean anything more than racial segregation?

(Ajoy: I have very little empirical knowledge of these matters, especially the house church movement. Others in the group should submit their views, especially those who have ground level knowledge of local churches, house churches etc)

(iii) Is the command, “love your (low-caste) neighbor as yourself” binding on Bhaktas?

(Ajoy: Its binding on all who claim to be followers of Christ, regardless of their context. Since different contexts usually require different expressions of love, the Bhaktas can submit how this plays out in their lives and within and outside their context. It would be a presumption for me to comment on how they should express their love for their neighbor)

Yours – for a transforming Gospel.

Vishal

PRINCIPLES OF ANTI-CHRIST Vs PRINCIPLES OF CHRIST

Dear bro.Rick,

Greetings in Jesus’ name.

Thank you for your response.

As missionaries, it is good to analyze ourselves in the light of Christ’ teaching and submit ourselves to Him for fulfilling His divine plan for us.

Really I am grateful to you for having modestly admitting the following.

1. Admitting the facts:

You have written in your last mail dated 11-8-2010,

“My second point to you was that I cannot assume the role of representing mainstream scholarship in debate with you. I am not a Sanskritist, and I do not even know a Sanskritist..”

Through this statement you are humbly sharing with us that, you are

1.      not a scholar representing mainstream scholarship

2.      not a Sanskritist and

3.      do not even know a Sanskritist.

Apart from that in your mail dated 5-7-2010 you have written that,

4.      Origin of casteism is unknown

 (“This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from. This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper. There is a general scholarly consensus that the origins of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out…”)

Indeed admiring your spirit of humility.

At this juncture kindly allow me to write the real position.

Prior to this mail I have made it clear to you that that without having an in-depth knowledge in Tamil literature one cannot understand Indian culture, especially the origin of casteism.  

2. Varying perceptions:

In your mail dated 11-8-2010 you have written that,

“I really do not see that there is any way forward for us to carry on a meaningful dialogue due to vastly varying perceptions and presuppositions,”

Yes brother, there are vastly varying perceptions since your system is upholding casteism and our system is striving to uproot casteism. So it is quite natural to have different perceptions.

3. Your presupposition:

You have brought to my attention and now I am focused on your presupposition that casteism is  part and parcel of Indian culture. Views of this nature is due to lack of in-depth knowledge in Tamil, one of the two classical languages of India.In the interest of the Gospel, it is best if you give  another look at it.

4. Your stand – ‘‘History is Tentative’’:

You have written that,

“My first point was about history, and I suggested that all history is tentative”…

 Brother, can you completely dismiss the historical perspective?

Then what will be your stand ?

Will not it show that you are hesitating to find out real history and holding on to presuppositions?

I would like to remind you that already we have explained that without in-depth knowledge in Tamil literature one cannot understand the origin and development of casteism in India. Besides that we have explained to you in our earlier emails origin and development of casteism in India historically. Kindly make a note of it that history seems to be tentative as you said, when not knowing real history and holding onto presuppositions.

5. Already answered:

You have written that,

“I tried to suggest to you an avenue of approach, which was your interacting with “Caste and Christianity” by Duncan Forrester. This also you did not address.”

If you have read my earlier mails carefully you won’t be repeating Duncan. I have already explained in my mail dated 22-7-2010 as follows:

“In your reply, you have mentioned the name Duncan Forrester, author of the book titled Caste and Christianity. Likewise our Bro. Dayanand Bharati has also referred the names of many scholars. I am much thankful to both of you for graciously pointing out the names of many scholars.  Since this crucial issue on casteism should be analyzed in depth in different perspectives , I have finished my last email dated 10-7-2010 with the following demand:

“..kindly form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the different perspectives, comprehend and build strategies to evangelize very effectively in India.”

But you have neither formed a committee nor have you come forward to appoint scholars representing your system, which would make an avenue for more questions and clarifications like this, but instead Duncan is repeatedly mentioned. It doesn’t show here that you are not interested in analyzing various perspectives without presuppositions.

6. Vedanta:

 Regarding Sanskrit you have written that,

“……in fact contained yet more dogmatic statements like Sanskrit being a language developed by St. Thomas Christians.”

Though we have explained the origin of Sanskrit in our previous mails, without reading them carefully, and without coming for discussion, holding onto presuppositions, intentionally you are labeling our research findings as dogmatic statements.

Without knowing the origin and development of Sanskrit, you have stated above.

‘Samskrit’ (‘Sanskrit’) means ‘formed well’.  It is not a natural language, but a code language of the scholars.

If it was ‘formed well’ means, naturally there arise four questions as follows:

1.      Who formed it?

2.      When was it formed?

3.      Why was it formed? and

4.      How was it formed?

In fact Sanskrit is not a language of the Aryans. It was formed by Vedantists in the post – Christ era to proclaim Vedantic concepts all over India, since at that time there was no common link language in India, on the basis of the then existing languages of India viz.,

1.      Tamil,

2.      Pali,

3.      Arthamagathi,

4.      Persian,

5.      Greek,

6.      Aramaic and

7.      Latin.

They have produced Vedantic literature in Sanskrit to proclaim Vedantic concepts all over India.

Vedantic concept is based on fulfillment of sacrifice.

Vedic concept is based on sacrifice.

Vedantic concept cannot be explained without Vedic concept.

Hence Vedantists compiled Vedas to proclaim Vedantic concepts.

Vedantic school of thought was named after Vedavyasa.

Vedavyasa, a Vedantist, produced both Vedic and Vedantic literature in Sanskrit.

Vedic literature                                             

– Four Vedas (10^th Mandala in Rig Veda explains Vedantic concept)

Vedantic Religions such as

1. Saivism and

2. Vaishnavism were developed in Tamil land.

Vedantic literature                                       

Saivite and Vaishnavite literature.

1. Literature in Tamil

1)      Panniruthirumurai

2)      Naalaayira Divyapprabhantham

3)      14 Saiva Siddhantha Sastras

2. Literature in Sanskrit

        1). Ithihasas

        2). Epics

        3). Prasthanathraeya

Vedantic philosophies (in fact they are Theologies)

·         Saivism            –  Advaita and Saiva Siddhantha

·         Vaishnavism  –  Visishtadvaita and Dvaita

Saivism was developed by 63 Nayanmars of Tamil land.

Vaishnavism was developed by 12 Alwars of Tamil land.

Vedantic philosophies such as

1.      Advaita,

2.      Visishtadvaita and

3.      Saiva Saiddhantha were developed in Tamil land.

4.      Dvaita was developed in Karnataka adjacent to Tamil land.

Basic doctrines of Vedantic School:

1. Doctrine of Trinity

2. Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation)

3. Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice 

4. Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and

5. Doctrine of Salvation by Faith.

Above said five doctrines cannot be seen in the worships and religions of pre – Christ era in India.

Worships and religions of pre – Christ era:

Worships and religions of pre – Christ era can be classified as follows:

Worships                                                                        

1.    Indus Valley Worship                                                          

2.    Ancient Tamil Worship and                                

3.    Aryan Worship

Religions

1.      Jainism (Atheistic)

2.      Buddhism (Agnostic)

They can further be grouped as follows:

1.      Worships which practiced sacrifice –

          Indus Valley worship, Ancient Tamil worship and Aryan worship

2.      Religions which denied the concept of God

          Jainism and Buddhism

Above said five doctrines cannot be developed from the worships and religions of pre – Christ era. If so, where did it come from?

It is very clear that the said five doctrines of Vedantic school are of Christianity that developed in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language i.e., St.Thomas Christianity.

St.Thomas Christians used Tamil and Sanskrit as their tool for propagating St.Thomas Christianity.

Without having an in-depth knowledge in Tamil, classical languages of India, one cannot understand

·         St.Thomas Christianity of India.

·         Indian culture and

·         Origin of casteism

How will it be the books written by foreign authors about Indian culture without having an in-depth knowledge in Tamil literature? 

7. Caste stratification – against Indian people:

(according to caste stratification

85 percent of Indian population are Sub Low Caste)

Core issue of our discussion on casteism, the principle of segregation, degrades the original inhabitants of India as follows:

If we deeply analyze caste stratification, devised by the Aryans, we can see three major divisions in it.

·         High caste

·         Low caste and

·         Sub Low caste.

Aryans:

According to the caste stratification, among the Aryans

·         Brahmins who form 4 percent of Indian population are high caste;

·         Kshatriyas and Vasishyas who form approximately 10 percent of Indian population are low caste next to Brahmins;

Dravidians:

·         Dravidians, the original inhabitants of India and who form 85 percent of Indian population are Sub Low castes (either Sudras or Panchamas).

Thus

               Foreigners are branded as            High castes and

                                                                           Low castes

               Dravidians, are branded as           Sub Low castes (Sudras and Panchamas).

Thus caste stratification of the Aryans degrade whole Dravidians, the original inhabitants of India, as Sub Low castes.

–          8. Racism and Casteism are the principles of the followers of          Anti –Christ. How?:

Vedantic religions talk of Triune God i.e., Siva, Vishnu and Brahma.

Trinity concept is explained in different aspects in Vedantic literature and they are as follows:

1. Historical aspect

2. Mythical aspect

3. Literary aspect

4. Theological and Philosophical aspect and

5. Iconographic aspect

Mythical Aspect:

Among trinity, concept of Son of God has been described in ‘Mythical Aspect’ in following four different aspects in Vedantic religions i.e., Saivism and Vaishnavism.

1.      Kumarakkadavul            –  Son of God who conquered Satan

2.      Pillaiyar / Ganesh           –  Death and Resurrection of Son of God

3.      Brahma                             –   Creator of the world

4.      Ayyappan                         –   Light of the world

Saivite perspective                         – Kumarakkadavul and Pillaiyar

Vaishnavite perspective – Brahman and Ayyappan

 Trinity concept has been explained as follows:

v      God the Father is known as                        – Siva (both Saivite and   

   Vaishnavite perspective)

v     God the Holy Spirit is known as                – Vishnu (Vaishnavite perspective)

v     God the Son (Christ) is known as             – Brahma (Vaishnavite perspective)

·         Followers of Siva                     – Saivites;

·         Followers of Vishnu                – Vaishnaivites; and

·         Followers of Brahma              –  Brahmins.

Among trinity, concept of Brahma i.e., Son of God, is glorified in Brahma Sutra by Vedavyasa.

In 9^th c.A.D. Adi Sankara had alienated the concept of ‘Brahma’ from trinity and  incorporated with it his new interpretation that claims that ‘I am God’, the concept against Son of God, i.e., the principle of Anti – Christ (2 Thessalonians 2 : 4) and based on this principle he had given religious sanction to racism and casteism through Advaita philosophy and formed a new sect known as ‘Brahmins’. (It should be noted here that according to the caste stratification of the Brahmins, the Brahmins are superior (highest caste) by birth and all non-Brahmins are inferior (low caste) by birth, and thus the Brahmins are holding top most position of egotism i.e., the principle of Anti – Christ.)

9. Discussion between Two Systems:

Discussion between two systems:

System 1:

Followers of Anti – Christ :

(Both Brahmins and pro–Brahmins who support caste stratification, against the concept of ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ)

Principles of upholding racism and casteism that totally breaks down 

‘Divine Unity in Christ’.

System 2:

Followers of Christ :

(Christians who are striving for bringing ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ )

Principles of eradicating racism and casteism, which build up

‘Divine Unity in Christ’.

10 . Highly Indispensable – irrespective of religion:

Discussion between

Followers of Anti-Christ  (System 1) and

Followers of Christ (System 2) 

is highly indispensable.

Hence, kindly bring scholars including the scholars who secured Ph.D. in Sanskrit, even though they are not missionaries or Christians and irrespective of religion.

11. Conclusion

In my previous mails I have outlined the following seven questions and invited you for a discussion with your team of scholars. But you haven’t come forward for discussion and did not even bother about the following seven questions.

1.     Is caste a genetic factor?

2.      Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.      Is casteism an age-old concept of India?

4.     Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.    Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

7.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against the constitution of India?

For the above seven questions

discussion between two systems is indispensable.

If you are convinced that the stand of the pro – Brahmin is the stand of Anti – Christ, then we can sit together and form strategies for delivering India from the clutches of Anti – Christian Brahmanical  fold, to the Kingdom of Christ.

So Kindly select,

1. Discussion between two systems

or

2.   Discussion for forming strategies to deliver India from the clutches of Anti – Christian Brahminical fold to the Kingdom of Christ.

Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Kindly allow me to finish this mail again with the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My  prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

May the divine Grace of God blesses and strengthens us to carry out

His unsurpassed precious teaching all over the world.

Expecting your kind reply.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

Dear Vishal,

The following email was forwarded to me by someone not listed here.  Since it refers to something I supposedly said, let me clarify.  

The Muslim believers in question, did meet and even participate in small bible studies with some of the believers from the Spanish evangelical church in our country.  However, when the pastor of that church wanted them to join his church, and we asked if he was willing to ask the women of his church to wear less revealing clothes (they wore spaghetti-strap tops and mini skirts at that time), he said “What? Our women dress like those “Moros” (a very derogatory name Spaniards used for Muslims, literally meaning “negros/niggers” or “blacks”).  Neither were the church members willing to remove pork from their lunch potluck menu.

Needless to say, it was the established Christians not the new Muslim-background believers that made eating and fellowshipping together difficult. “We” missionaries were not making the decisions.

I hope that helps anyone who might have misunderstood what I was saying.

Thanks,

Becky

This certainly reflects the sad state of the church today. First the violation of God’s principles in  1 Corinthians 8, and then the attitude of a so called ‘Pastor’.

However, this should not lead to segregation but rather the planting of a new local church governed by true shepherds based on God’s Word, practiced in love and open to all.

With warm regards,
Alex

Hi Alex,

That is in fact what happened. There were two fellowships started by Muslim believers, who Spanish believers were free to come to, and some did.  They had to get used to things like drinking mint tea, eating with their hands, sitting on the floor, and being led by former Muslims, of course. Praise God for the few Spanish believers who were willing to do that and even dress modestly too! Yeah!

Perhaps it would help to point out that while we can of course encourage people from different cultures/language groups/races to fellowship with each other, the gathering itself will tend to be one culture or the other. We ourselves met a few weeks ago with the couple-hundred workers we have in S.E.Asia.  They came from 13 nations. I was in a small group that had no language in common except Indonesian (Argentines, Germans, Philippinos), so they shared in that language. However, I did not understand it, so one of the couples translated into Spanish for me (since none of them knew English).  Yet the “big” meetings themselves were still in English, the language the most people understood, with songs in English. Everyone seemed OK with that, but it could not exactly be called a “multicultural” worship service.

I hope this helps understanding of how these things often play out in practice.

Becky

Dear Becky

Thank you for clarifying. I have encountered that sort of thing often in India. For a while we worshipped in the Centenary Methodist Church in New Delhi. The Senior Pastor then was an American. One day I was sharing with him about a group of dalits who wanted to be baptized. He responded, “Do we really want those people to come into our church? Isn’t the Indian church looked down upon because of such converts?”

Another Indian pastor in Delhi went farther in calling the dalits “dogs” (who wanted to quit Hinduism. In Hindi a Dog is not a cute little animal that you want in your home. It is an animal you chase with sticks or bricks.) Obviously, it will be very hard to worship in a church where the pastor treats you as low and untouchable.

So, while your situation is understandable . . . to understand one problem with the Insider Movement to the Hindus you have to imagine this. A white American missionary goes today or ten years ago to South Africa  in order to establish a mono-ethnic, homogenous, racially segregated (white only) church in the name of Homogeneous Unit Principle. It is possible that SA whites will be very uncomfortable in most black churches . . . but would it be contextual to establish racially segregated churches in South Africa?

The Insider Movement is supposed to be contextualizing . . . but how can it be so completely out of touch with the social context of Tamil Nadu (which began the current national agitation against casteism.) The reason the Insider Movement is so non-contextual is because its theoretical foundation is Dr. McGavran’s mistaken definition of “Nation.”  For Pasadena missiology, Tamil Brahmins are a nation, India (or South Africa) is not a nation (biblically). Therefore, India’s need to overcome the caste-problems created by “Hinduisms” is not important. This is why my problem is not Rick Hivner but Dr. McGavaran. His definition of nation is the problem and beyond that American Fundamentalism is the larger historical problem. It privatized the Gospel of the kingdom . . . making it publically “irrelevant” (Guinness/Marsden) i.e. Gospel and mission cease to be about discipling nations.

The reason Rick’s seminar in Gurukul raised this storm is not because people like Devakala and Alex do not know how to speak the truth in love. It is because an attempt to plant racially segregated churches in South Africa is vastly different than establishing four different worship services in Lake Avenue church to suit different musical tastes. Caste is not even an issue about interdining or intermarriage. It is the issue on which the Lord spoke to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 . . . don’t look upon these people as “unclean” . . . the Lord had to persist with Peter by repeating the vision, which is really the same thing as rebuking him.  This segregation is an issue that so angered James that he called those church leaders hypocrites who separated people along class (not race) lines. This fight against segregation is about violation of human dignity of the vast majority of Indians. The issue is profound enough that it merits 4-40 hours of discussion and I hope Bruce Graham will organize it. As Dr. Winter correctly saw, the roots of the problem go back to D. L. Moody and British-American (Fundamentalist) eschatology and Christology and ecclesiology. I do want to write a series of articles on this and eventually a book on The Great Commission According to Revelation because Pasadena Missiology (built on American Fundamentalism) has really blundered on a number of points . . . Let me give one example, I have been meaning to write the following to Ajoy, but perhaps I should just add it here . . .since he is getting this email.

To understand and correct some of the fundamental errors of the Insider Movement I recommended to Ajoy to study Psalm 2 and Revelation 2 . . . “Ask of me and I will give you the nations (not just souls) as your inheritance . . . you will rule them with an iron scepter (“Authority” that Pasadena Perspective fails to see) . . . you will dash them to pieces like pottery (Sati and idolatory and untouchability and corruption and oppression are obvious issues in India). Ajoy and the rest of us have to go on reading the rest of the book of Revelation to understand who Christ is, what his mission is and how John saw the Great Commission at the end of his life.

The promise to Abraham, explained in more details to the Messiah in Psalm 2 . . . I will give the nations as your inheritance . . . begins to be fulfilled in Revelation 5 when the Lamb-Lion takes the title deed of the earth from the hands of the Almighty. As he opens the seals, he begins to shatter the nations to pieces. By the end of the sixth seal the kings and generals and the mighty of the earth begin to say to the rocks to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb . . . and the Lamb goes on to spread his tent over the poor and meek (of the Sermon on the Mount). This is the historic transformation of India that began with the Gospel and William Carey. He was involved with Brahmin Pandits on an intimate and daily basis, translating the Bible with them and teaching Indian languages to British civil servants. So, on any given day he spent far more time with upper castes than with the lower castes. Carey understood India and contextualized the Gospel, He  made it a requirement that anyone genuinely repenting and converting had to eat with believers from all castes . . .  He was responding to the context of centuries old apartheid in India . . .

His (God’s) mission was messed up by post 1813 British missionaries who brought the snobbishness of the British Class system to India and the American missionaries who brought the moral failure of the American church (segregation) into India . . . But at least they had most of the Gospel right . . . and the two centuries of missions is what has generated the present nation-wide movement against Hinduism , , , but now thanks to Pasadena missiology which does not understand even the biblical meaning of terms such as “nation,” we have American missionaries who in the name of contextualization will go against both God’s mission to reconcile all things in Christ as well as go against the cry of the Indian nation to find a spirituality that helps us transform our hierarchical society into an egalitarian society.

Dr. McGavran was wrong because the “modern” (post-Reformation) understanding of nation-state is in fact biblical. God promised to make Abraham a great nation by giving him a land to own and govern (authority), descendents (people group) that will rule than land, and become a blessing to the nations (bring the kingdom to them by making them disciples of the King). Being a nation involves geography, economics, law and governing authority and love for all of this – nationalism. “Dsicipling Nations” therefore includes issues of justice, development and freedom. These are dimensions that were part of the 19th century theology and missionary movement (do take the time to read my book “India: the Grand Experiment.”) But pietistic, pessimistic, premillinial, dispensationalism reduced the Gospel to what we see today.

The conflict over the Insider Movement is about whether the “spiritual” needs of the Brahmin nation supersede the need of the nation of India to find a spirituality that promotes human dignity, equality and freedom. The different perspectives emerge from different theological worldviews. That is why I am asking for a minimum of a four hour discussion.

I respect you dear Becky . . . you are a wonderful sister and I have no doubt that you will be a blessing to India. However, this is a battle where I have no choice but to take a very firm stand against much of what Dr. McGavran and Dr. Winter taught. I just wish that I had paid enough attention to this two years ago and persisted in arguing my case with your dad. I think that he had begun to move in the right direction when be began to rethink the theology of the Kingdom – the public dimensions of the Gospel. Anyway, what I couldn’t do with him, I hope I can do with you. . . study these issues . . . not to correct what Rick is doing, but to correct the problems created by Moody and Wheaton and Scofield and the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism and Fuller and the US Center. My concern is not just the Dalits and OBC but America. It is terrible that in India we lost 10 million Dalits to Neo-Buddhism but to see America being lost to paganism, homosexuality, corruption and poverty becomes heart-breaking when you consider that American missiology is still driven by “Finish the task in our generation” mind set which is so mistaken about its basic assumptions of what the Gospel and God’s mission are all about.

I am glad to be an Outsider looking at American missiology critically.

It was great to see Emily last night. I am so grateful for the community of girls = Suzana, Davita, Emily = who are being used to impact India in a way, none of us can hope to do and it is so good that they have you and Silvia and Linda as models and supporters.

Thank you also for connecting me with Beth.

Vishal

Dear Vishal,

I do not believe that my father, Dr. Winter, (or Dr. McGavran, whom I also knew) ever promoted racism or segregation, any more than Paul the Apostle did when he defended the right of the Greeks to remain uncircumcised and still deserving of the respect of the Jewish believers as joint heirs. Although they may have been misunderstood by others to be saying or promoting that, as even Paul is sometimes.  ALL are made clean before God by the cleansing power of the Gospel, both the oppressed and the oppressor.

“Insider Movements” more than anything else reveal this most amazing power of the Gospel to “break down the walls of hostility”… as I have seen with my own eyes orthodox Jewish Israeli believers in Jesus their Messiah embrace Muslim insider followers of the Lord Jesus.  Yes, arch enemies for 4000 years embracing each other EVEN THOUGH each remains a light and a witness INSIDE their communities of birth. My experience has confirmed my faith that Jesus Himself is our peace.

Therefore, I do not think we need to fear these kind of Jesus movements. The transforming power of the Gospel itself brings that unity of the Spirit across all former barriers that we all desire.

Perhaps some think we have too much faith in the power of the Gospel to transform people (and eliminate racism) if it can gain a hearing in their midst. But is seems to me that is where Paul put his faith. 

From my perspective, the problem of racism in the USA does not exist among true believers (like my father), who freely love and fellowship with believers wherever they find them (yes, even Muslim believers). Racism exists among the half-Christian who demand that others become “like us” before they will embrace and fellowship with them. My father even had our family attend black churches, Vietnamese and Spanish churches, and churches from very different denominations, like Seventh Day Adventist, Quaker and Catholic churches. 

You misrepresent both my father’s character and his teachings if you imply anything different. And those who knew him will know that you are misrepresenting him.

Respectfully,

Becky

Hi Becky

How would you explain McGavran’s statement in his book – Bridges of God (page 329),

“In many parts of the field it was psychologically difficult for a person to become a Christian as it would be for a white man in South Africa to join a Negro church knowing that his children would intermarry with the black children.”

Alex

Dear Becky

I am not suggesting that either Dr. Winter or Dr. McGavran were racists. But they sowed and watered the seed that is now blooming in this idea of establishing racially segregated churches. In an email to me, copied to few others, your dad defended caste-based churches on the ground that Lake Avenue had four services to cater to different musical tastes. Organizing worship services to cater to different linguistic preferences or musical tastes is one thing, organizing churches in order to exclude some races or castes is entirely different issue.

Dr. McGavran confused the issue with his argument that since Paul did not oppose slavery, we do not need to oppose casteism. Slavery and Racism are two different things.

Slavery is an economic evil which can become a moral evil. God’s desire was that each family should own its own land in the Promised Land and enjoy economic freedom and security. However, in a fallen world, wars, famines, disease and death do drive people away from their land. Therefore, the Scripture recognized that situations would arise where an individual or a family (of the same race) may have nothing to barter but their labor. God commanded that such victims of “natural” or social disaster should be set-free during the Sabbath year and their land restored to them in the Jubilee year.

Racism, in contrast, is a moral evil which has no justification. It is our refusal to love our neighbor as ourselves. Dr. McGavran was confused about it and from what I see your dad followed him in this confusion. Together, their influence has promoted a missiology of establishing Caste-based churches which is sinful. It is not surprising that Dr. DM and Dr. RDW and you keep quoting Paul, but never come to terms with Paul confronting Peter’s hypocrisy. Paul didn’t make campaign against slavery his priority . . . but don’t you think he put up a pretty determined fight against race-based segregation? And incidentally, Paul’s battle was not about inter-dining. It was about Peter’s refusal to obey the vision God gave him in Acts 10 – about not treating other people as unclean or inferior. As James puts it the fight is about treating human beings with the dignity of God’s image. Brahminical separation from other castes violates that dignity. Insider Movement respects that sin as “Indian culture.”

Vishal

Dear Vishal,

I can see how you would be offended if you felt that my father was equating caste with musical tastes. I assure you that was not his intention, and what perhaps he intended to refer to were the different services for different language groups that exist at LACC, which are NOT done in order to keep the Latinos (etc.) separate ethnically from the Anglos due to any racial prejudice, but to better provide for the needs of both groups and occasionally they all meet together.  

Regardless, the problem of caste is clearly at a whole different level than the above, and please forgive anything that appears to either minimize or overlook that fact, in what I have said or my father may have written during his dying years.

The passage you refer to below in Galatians, about Paul confronting Peter over his hypocrisy, I discuss  in my latest article entitled The Intergrity of the Gospel and Insider Movements (in the January 2010 issue of IJFM) which I have attached.

The context makes clear that Paul was condemning Peter’s actions because his actions gave the impression that a person could be “justified before God” by the “following Jewish customs” or “the Law” (i.e. eating kosher food in this case). This point is made clearly and repeatedly in Galatians 2:14-21, 3:2-5, most of the rest of the book, but then summarized again by Paul writing “in his own hand” Gal. 5:11-16.   It appears that Peter, Barnabas, and some other Jews had already clearly been fellowshipping with the Gentile believers, but Peter apparently withdrew to another (kosher) table when some ritually-strict Jewish believers showed up, drawing some of the other Jews with him, including Barnabas.  While Paul acknowledges previously (Galatians 2:6-10) that he and Barnabas were called by God to reach the Gentiles and Peter to reach the Jews (showing that reaching people by people-group was OK), Paul insisted that in their fellowshipping together, they must not imply a greater holiness before God by either being circumcised/kosher or NOT being circumcised/kosher. 

So it appears to me that Paul was not just fighting racism or prejudice (as important as that is) but he was fighting for something he seemed to believe was even more important: he was fighting to obtain equal access to salvation for all people groups (both the Jew and the Gentiles) by grace alone. With nothing added.  

My attached article explains why I believe that Paul’s defense of the Gospel for all peoples must included a freedom to not change people-groups as part and parcel of salvation itself (unless they want to). Salvation is free to all sinners, both to those in the downtrodden groups and those in the oppressive elite groups. Ultimately it is this free salvation (including the sanctification aspects of it) that delivers people from the evils of prejudice and hatred (as Gal. 5 and 6 makes clear), and all their other besetting personal and cultural sins.   

We all want to destroy prejudice and oppressive systems like the caste system. My father did too. While access to the unencumbered Gospel might not be sufficient to see this transformation, it is certainly both the foundational and the necessary precursor to any internal transformation. Jesus was both very patient and persevering in helping his 12 disciples put off their Jewish prejudices, continuing the process even after his ascension.  Jesus himself (the apostle or missionary) associated from the beginning with people from all “castes”: Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. It seems to me that for the (sinful) disciples it was a process that began with faith.

You asked for me to comment on Paul’s rebuke of Peter. That is my understanding of what happened.

I send you greetings from Greg Watts and his wife!

Becky

Hi Alex,

Sorry, somehow I missed this email. 

You asked:

________

How would you explain McGavran’s statement in his book – Bridges of God (page 329),

“In many parts of the field it was psychologically difficult for a person to become a Christian as it would be for a white man in South Africa to join a Negro church knowing that his children would intermarry with the black children.”

__________

The key phrase here is “to become a Christian”… I believe that McGavran was simply pointing out that NON-believers were seeing that the only gate into being a believer (or “Christian”) was to join a people group that they despised.  Since prejudice is something only removed BY the Holy Spirit (after conversion) , non-believers will reject the Gospel out of hand as “not being for us” if it is only seen as possible for people in other people groups they currently hate. 

McGavran was not in favor of apartheid. So I do not believe that McGavran said this to in any way condone prejudice (in either India or S. Africa, or either in the church or out of it), but to point out that prejudice is a fact we cannot just ignore, especially when reaching out to people in unreached people groups. 

For example: In Jesus’ time, the hated Samaritans or the Greeks thought they “had to become Jews” to be saved by a Jewish messiah, and Jesus (John 4) and Paul (many places) had to disabuse them of that idea.  Jesus said basically, “no you don’t have to worship God in Jerusalem instead of on this mountain,” to the Samaritan woman, “BUT, you do have to worship Him in spirit and truth.” In the end the Samaritan village understood that Jesus was “the savior of the world” not just of the Jews.

This separation of the Gospel from having to change people groups (during evangelism) is important because the Gospel is for SINNERS, including horribly prejudiced sinners who would not even consider joining another (hated) people group to receive salvation.  AFTER they begin to have the Holy Spirit work in their lives, the Jews, Samaritans and Greeks/Romans were able to begin to love each other without requiring changes in culture for that to happen (the Greeks didn’t have to mutilate their flesh with circumcision or become Kosher, and the Jews didn’t have to break all their Jewish laws either to be accepted by God and as fellow brothers by the Greeks).  

The “dividing wall of hostility” is broken down by the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives. The unity is a “unity of the Spirit” created BY the Spirit. 

And YES the believers do need to be encouraged and rebuked to overcome their prejudices (as Paul did to Peter when he forgot the lesson he had learned post-conversion through dreams and the visit to Cornelius). [And I also agree with Vishal that we must fight prejudice in society through the courts of law, as did McGavran, by the way.]

But you notice, Jesus, in John 4, after telling the disciples to “see” the Samaritans ripe for harvest, goes and stays in the Samaritan village two days ALONE, modeling no racism but still giving his disciples time to get over their prejudice. It is only later in Acts that we see any examples of the disciples going into Samaritan villages, BUT THEY DO! That is the encouraging thing. Would the Jewish disciples have seen the Gospel as good news for themselves if part of receiving it was to go and live among the Samaritans? Not likely. But, post-conversion, the Holy Spirit gave them a love and brotherhood with the hated Samaritans and later the idolatrous Greeks.

So I believe that McGavran’s only point is that we should not expect more of non-believing prejudiced people than Jesus himself expected. We need to go to them where they are, whether in their Jewish ghettos or their Samaritan ghettos, win them to the Lord where they are, THEN help them overcome their sinful thoughts and attitudes.

That is how I have always understood McGavran’s teachings, from the time I was little.

I hope this is helpful to the discussion.

Becky

Dear Becky,

I am sorry that it has not been possible to go through your Bible study carefully and respond to the details. Today is my deadline to finish some projects – – – but I did want to respond to at least one of your fundamental assumptions . . . that is “Since prejudice is something only removed BY the Holy Spirit (after conversion)”

You are one of the few American evangelicals I know who are interested in Finny and the Second Great Awakening, therefore, that statement coming from you says to me that you are still struggling with “pre” and “post” D. L. Moody understanding of biblical spirituality. May I suggest, respectfully but without beating around the bush, that a fundamental problem between us is that I think that you know better, but you are still choosing to side with post-Moody American evangelicalism, which is confused about Christ, Holy Spirit and the Church. This is admittedly a sweeping statement and can easily mean that I am utterly conceited or that we really do need 40 hours of Bible study. I wish I had discussed these things with your dad when he was with us, because I think during the last few years he was trying to get out of the theological errors of the last 100 years but hardly any one at the US Center worked with him in the profound struggle in his soul. He was a greater than the ideas he inherited from his theological climate. I think you are also greater than your ideas . . . so, by His grace I will make up in what I failed to do with your dad – that is, discuss the details with you.

To begin with a response to your statement above . . . may I begin by asserting that the Holy Spirit does not bear our cross. We have to bear it ourselves and stand against the sins of our cultures and suffer for our stand. The Spirit gives us the grace and the power to do that. Peter – the apostle to the Jews – was crucified in pagan Rome, because Pagans saw him and his messianic movement as a threat to them! The Jews in Jerusalem saw Paul – the apostle to the Jews – as a threat to Jewish culture and therefore wanted to crucify (stone or kill) him in Jerusalem. These apostles were turning the world upside down because they were like Finny, not Moody or Billy Graham (though Billy Graham did take a great stand against racial segregation in his crusades.) As you know, it was white Christians who burnt down Finny’s first church in New York, forcing him to move to Oberlin College. He preached against slavery that had ceased being an economic evil but become a great moral evil (as in the days of Nehemiah, when the rule of releasing slaves in Sabbath year had been set aside due to economic greed. Finny did not leave his culture’s sin up to the Holy Spirit.   

I am attaching a chapter, “Jesus the Troublemaker” from my book “Truth and Transformation” (commended by your dad). If you cannot read the whole chapter, please do read the section on the untouchable Canaanite (Syro-Phoenician) woman whom Jesus called a “dog.” Jesus was transforming his disciples way before Peter’s vision of the unclean animals in Acts 10. His Jewish disciples could not see Him as the Savior of the World (not just a Jewish Messiah) and go into all the world (including India) and make disciples of all nations, unless they were freed from their racial prejudice.

My book (you can get a copy from Ivan) has a chapter on the Holy Spirit on Social Reform . . . but right now let us begin with a discussion of Christ and our cross, because my contention is that we have this conflict because the Insider Movement does not understand Christ of the Gospels – it has a caricature of Christ of post-Moody American evangelicalism.

Yours for a recovery of the transforming power of the Gospel.

Vishal

Hi Becky,

Having a strategy to change people groups during evangelism is understandable. However, our message is (Acts 26:20) – Repent and Turn to God and Perform Deeds worthy of their Repentance. There can be no compromise on this.

God is very clear in His Word,

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envying, murders, drunkenness, reveling, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21) 

And YES, this transformation is accomplished BY the Power of His Holy Spirit evidenced by the individual’s works/deeds (James 2:14-26). Hence, there was always a local church where Jews and Gentiles fellowshipped, and when there were issues, the Elders rose up to resolve them so that there was no disparity in the Body of Christ.

Regarding the “courts of law”, I will let I Corinthians 6 speak.

The historical truths discussed are spiritual weapons that break down strongholds in people’s lives; as Paul writes,

For the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Cor 10:4-6) 

In an interesting experience with my Gideon brothers in Coeur D Alene, this principle so clearly played out. One of them had travelled to India and came back with the “typical American Evangelical” perspective, stories, pictures, etc. My wife and I spent hours explaining but it made no difference. I then felt in my spirit that I was missing something in my historical research. It was then that God opened my understanding through Angus Madison’s research and confirmed the role of the British in India. Sometime later I did meet with my Gideon brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho. I started to explain how the region of India and China were the most affluent in the world till the onset of the British, and their role in destroying the land of India and China, and, the birth of Global Racism based on one’s skin color. I hardly took a minute or two and they all got it!

The word Christian since it is a grossly misused and misunderstood term today. We find it first in the Bible in the book of Acts 11:26 where the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. A key point should be noted here, it was the disciples who were called Christians. There were two types in those who followed Jesus, one were the disciples and the other were called the crowds or multitudes who followed Christ for self-gain. It was quite simple to separate the two groups since the slightest discomfort was sufficient to cause the multitudes to fall back. A distinct example is seen in Matthew chapter five verse one where Christ desiring to teach His disciples sees a multitude following him.

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him. Matthew 5:1

Notice the simple stress of climbing a mountain separated the multitudes from the disciples. Generally multitudes follow Christ for personal gain like a healing, personal problems, etc. However, today this distinction has been lost and we carelessly call the multitudes as Christians. However, God has called us to be disciples and to make disciples of the multitudes that would seek Him. The Mark of a Disciple is clearly seen in Luke 14:25-35; he or she is one who will deny self, take up their cross daily and follow Him.

With warm regards,
Alex

Hi

Pastor Jake and I met Dr. Devanaiyagam and Dr. Devakala last Tuesday (a week back!!!) for a couple of hours. Its interesting how people can find oneness in spirit and heart while we are trying to work out our various and sometimes opposing perspectives. It was like meeting old friends.

We discussed various theories and views related to St. Thomas Tamil Christianity and it is surprising how much empirical data has been packed into the hypothesis from philosophy, iconography, popular religion, linguistics etc. Besides, the one thing I found most impressive was that both of them (and their team members) find access into temples, political forums and Christian groups (across the country) since their presentation of the gospel message draws heavily from local philosophies and religious stories and hence has a contextualised format which immediately hits a chord with the local populace. (Interestingly, the only other person I know who does this is Chris Hale of Aradhna who is loosely connected to the Rethinking Forum!!)

Frankly, for this reason alone, the St. Thomas Tamil Christianity views merit serious attention. The internal consistency and the empirical adequacy (esp with respect to history, linguistics and iconography) of the set of theories of course needs to be investigated further in detail by anyone who desires to provide a honest response.

Both of them reiterated their support for Insider movements as a relevant contextual method but did raise a concern that given the caste based structures in India, the insider movement among Brahmins could be harbouring/preserving the evils of the caste system while sincerely attempting to reach their context for Christ. Also, they felt that Western Christians used to dealing with slavery within social structures do not and indeed could not understand the ramifications of casteism which is purely a local phenomenon. Hence the suggestion that casteism should be responded to with the same approach as the apostles and the Western church dealt with slavery is counterproductive. (This has been Vishal’s suggestion as well and needs to be discussed further by the group).

For its implications for the church existing within the framework of Christendom (and for all interested in theological and missiological perspectives), the idea that Christ is the fulfillment of all religions just as he is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion needs to be studied further. Also, the relevance of the Old Testament today within the above framework. (I thought that there was a germ of an idea that the OT may not be as relevant as the NT for our context today, but I’m not sure). People interested in missional models/church planting and inter-church relationships may also have some queries regarding how/if/whether this presentation of the gospel integrates eventually with the local church today and if its even necessary that it does.

Pastor Jake and I left expressing our desire to return and discuss some more details (after enjoying the warm hospitality and the high tea!). Dr. Devakala also asked if there was some way this group could work together in concert for the sake of our country. I’m surely its possible and obviously, that’s a question that this group needs to respond further to.

Meanwhile, we can focus on understanding each other better. The views being shared across these conversations over emails have surely been useful. And we surely need to also hear more from some of the (so far) silent listeners in this group as well. There is much unspoken wisdom and insight present, I’m sure.

Ajoy

Hi, Alex

Thanks for the mail. I realise that this mail is not addressed to me but I thought I could share some thoughts given the open and heartfelt nature of these discussions. Also, since the issues being discussed here have a bearing on all of us.

(Incidentally, I have not read Mcgravan or Winter  and hence my thoughts are not FOR or AGAINST their perspectives but for a clearer personal theological, ecclesiological and missiological understanding. Big words, which I have borrowed from my friends in theological circles!!).

There dont seem to be any passages in Scripture which necessarily indicate that Jews and Gentiles ALWAYS worshipped together. Especially since the church in Antioch (Acts 11: 19-26, 13: 1), Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23) seemed fully Gentile with the exception of their Jewish and apostolic shepherds. The Galatian churches may also have been predominantly Gentile, if not fully so, given Paul attempts them to get them to see themselves as “descendants of Abraham” (Gal 3:29; 4:28). These passages do not support purely Gentile churches as a prescription necessarily, but surely suggest it as a possible and legitimate option.

Also, the verse Acts 11:26 can serve as a good historical lesson that whether we are “Christians” or not should be left to those who are watching us  in our various contexts and are perhaps outside the church.(You would agree that the term means the “Christ-ones”- a description that was not meant to be complimentary but descriptive of the rather explicit relationship with the controversial Jewish Messiah).The people around us will tell us whether we are associated with Christ or not – either favourably or unfavourably. Then we will know better who is among “the multitude” and who are among “the disciples”. When Christians take up the labelling, then it becomes part of the internal politics of Christendom.

What makes this situation even more interesting is that the so-called “disciples” (including those who went up to the mountain side in Mathew 5) and apostles were missing at the cross! Peter the apostle (who has been discussed much among us) sided with the Judaizers rather than risk social ostracisation. Barnabas also was led astray. John Mark left the missionary journey half-way. Obviously then, discipleship is more than a one-time reaction to a situation -whether a good response or a bad one.

This means unless there is a consistent outward practice of the “works of the flesh” as an active lifestyle (ref  Ga; 5:19-21 -NIV and NASB), there is not sufficient reason to call into question the faith of any person who calls himself/herself a follower of Jesus. Atleast, thats what I can safely gather from these verses.  Especially since among the “works of the flesh” are listed impurity, idolatory, hatred, discord, jealousy, selfish ambition etc – sins that most of us as followers of Jesus slip into from time to time – with or without our knowledge – insiders or outsiders.

Ajoy

Dear Ajoy

Paul – the apostle to the Gentiles – typically began his ministry in a Jewish Synagogue in every city and when he was thrown out he took the Jewish believers with him to the Gentiles. He was persecuted (see the charge against him in Acts 21:27-29) because he saw uniting all races in Christ as the most exciting mystery of God’s mission. Avoiding such persecution (a result of transforming evils of a culture by taking up our cross) seems to be a major impulse behind the Insider Movement. In an earlier email you mentioned that Thomas’ style of mission that threatens culture and leads to martyrdom is not binding … That is to say Christ, Peter, Paul, John, Thomas are not good models. We do not have to take up our cross. Leave it to the Holy Spirit. 

Vishal

Hello Ajoy,

I am happy to hear from you and to know that you met with Dr. Deivanayagam and Dr. Devakala and tried to engage in a dialogue with them.   Their Movement “tamilarsamayam” is an Insider Movement existing outside the established church in India.  They have a vision to lead people to Christ and developed their own theology through research based on both the Bible and Tamil Literature although their views could be challenged by other scholars.  However, I can greatly appreciate their fight and the personal sacrifice they have made to eradicate Casteism from its roots.

Sometime back Alex corresponded with me about People Movement Approach promoted by the US Center for World Mission.  Then on June 17, 2010 he sent a flier and letter stating that he wanted to take this matter to the global church.  He said we were free to circulate his letter and that is what I did.  After I forwarded it to many and several individuals joined in responding to his letter. Dr. Devakala,s experience with the Gurukal meeting also became part of this discussion.  The question about caste in the church and its mission has been now debated by the Christian scholars through e-mails.  So far I have been silent but reading all the information coming in the mail.    

I am so anguished over Casteism like Alex, Vishal, Deivanayagam and many others.   I thought about it and wrote about it in the past.  Caste, caste system and Casteism are distinguishable but not separable in Indian society.  A person is born in a caste and dies in a caste.  He can choose his religion but not the Caste.  Indian society is well organized on caste basis after the Aryans introduced the caste system.  Discrimination on the basis of caste, race and color is the evil present in human society.  This evil will be in the society as long as the people submit themselves to the evil powers.   However, Jesus came to establish his spiritual kingdom on earth “Kingdom of God”.  It is invisible.  The visible church should follow and reflect the values of the Kingdom of God.  But unfortunately the Church as an institution failed in this respect.  The churches in India are the result of the missionary enterprise of the western Christians who followed racial and color distinction and followed the policy of segregation and discrimination in the Churches in the West for a longtime but now  the Christian churches in the West have opened their doors for all people.  It took about 200 years to reach this goal among white nominal Christians.  However, the missionary enterprise started in the West had the goal of expanding the western Christendom in India by proselytism.  Sadly western missionary enterprise started with the missionary paradigm of civilization prior to Christianization without spiritual transformation.   Such an enterprise created a Christian religion with thousands of denominations and divided the Indian people further by doctrinal and worship differences.  This is the social reality we have in India that may not change.  It is here to stay.

The early Christians both the Jews and the Gentiles met together as one body in house churches.  They worshipped and shared meals together.  Their faith in Christ, the personal experience of coming to know him and the ‘Blessed Hope’ brought them together as one people, the Body of Christ.  Christianity was not a religion at that time.  It was only known as the WAY.  (Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).  Later on the WAY was turned into a philosophy and then it became an institution and a culture.  The mission of the western church became an enterprise during colonialism although some stood outside the view of enterprise and served the people of India with great personal sacrifice.

The issue raised by Alex was about McGavran’s view on mono ethnic church and people group movement.  Both views came within the framework and the tradition of the western missionary enterprise.  It is contended by both Alex and Vishal that the implication of mono-ethnic church means segregation of Christians, churches and worships on caste basis that is totally contrary to the gospel.  They are absolutely right.  Jesus broke all the walls (caste, race, class, religion) that separate one human being from another.  Apostle Paul affirmed the fact that in Christ all are one and equal in God’s sight in spite of cultural differences.  All human cultures are defective and there is no such thing as divine culture.  But there are moral and spiritual principles that are absolutes.  Jesus clearly made the distinction between religion and the absolutes and worshippers and followers. (Matt.6: 1-18;  7:21-23; 9:13; 12:7; 15:2-9; 19:16-21; 23: 1-23; Luke 10: 30-36; 18: 9-14; 19: 45-46; John 4: 21-24) 

The command of Jesus was not to proselytize anyone to change his religion.  He rebuked those who did this in his days. (Matt. 23:15)  He commanded his disciples to make disciples.  Christ clearly explained what he meant to be a disciple.  (Matt. 10:37-38; 16:24; Luke 14: 26-27; 14:23; John 8:31; 15:8)  Jesus never asked anyone to worship him but asked many to follow him.  The word disciple means follower.  After Christ, a religion was gradually made out of the life and teachings of Christ.  This started to happen during the days of Paul.  Therefore, Paul had to write several letters to several churches dealing with the issues related to morality and religion.  He explained what it meant to be a follower of Christ.  (1 Corinth. 11:1)  A Christian is a new creation in Christ. (2 Corinth. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)

The Christ view of the Kingdom of God is realized only in the hearts of some Christians.  Majority of Christians are worshippers of Christ belonging to various western denominational churches in India.  The caste structure is maintained by the Christians in India from the Syrian Christians of 4^th century AD to now.   The Catholic missionaries too tolerated the Casteism within the Church.  This trend was followed by the Protestant missionaries although a few voices echoed against it.  The western missionary enterprise started with a defective missionary paradigm.  Many, with few exemptions, came to India to convert the Indians to western Christendom not to the ‘Kingdom of God’ proclaimed by Christ. The western missionary enterprise promised the Dalits justice, freedom from poverty, prosperity etc.  To some extent it did.  Some missionaries genuinely served the people to free them from oppression, poverty, illiteracy, superstitions and sickness.  However, they did not take much effort to break the power of the caste system that had its grip on the lives of the Christian converts.  The converted Christians continued to maintain their caste identity within the Church and have been fighting within themselves on denominational and caste basis.  They have not tried to overcome the stigma attached to them.  By and large Christianity itself has been viewed as a dalit religion by most Indians.  It seems Christianity itself has become captive to dalits’ agenda in India.  The Insider Movement has come in response to such situation in India.

 The educated Hindus did not embrace Christianity as William Carey expected.  Protestant work remained unsuccessful for a longtime from the western point of view.  In this kind of situation the missionaries like Donald McGavran proposed the idea of mono-ethnic church movement with the hope of taking the gospel to all castes in India.  His focus was Church Growth.  He viewed caste as part of the social structure and wanted to use it as a means to evangelize without breaking it.  He failed to realize that the gospel of Christ has to break all the barriers that divide one human being from another and Christ broke all the walls of separation that includes religious, socio-economic, geographic and racial barriers.  Dr. McGavran genuinely came up with bright ideas for the Church Growth in which he emphasized that the converts need not cross the cultural barriers in order to become Christians.   He did not seriously consider the evils of oppression, untouchability and discrimination ingrained in the caste structure, culture and psychological nature of the Indian brain.  McGavran might have felt that it was impossible to break the caste structure but used it as a means to Church Growth.  The western mind is much interested in goal setting, statistics and quantity.  He might have thought that he should convert and baptize them first and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.  I wish McGavran had focused on spiritual growth instead of church growth of the westernized Church in India.  But that might not have appealed to his western supporters who were interested in numbers.  He might not have believed in Casteism and racism.  He was very genuine, faithful and right in his thinking to somehow lead the Hindus to Christ.  But his view of the mono-ethnic church did not represent the gospel of Christ in India.

I can understand the heart of the western missionaries who came to preach the gospel and serve the people of India.  I know the mindset of the western missionaries and their desire to establish churches all over the world.  It is their belief that God in His providence has chosen the western nations for evangelizing the world.  Therefore, they are willing to commit themselves and all their resources for the task of world evangelism.  They feel ownership to it and want to be the sole leaders directly or indirectly.   Since they own it they like to have power and control over it. They like to develop missionary strategies for India and execute them through new indigenous mission groups and groups that were already established.  I greatly admire the sacrifices they have done in this great task.  However, they too have made mistakes ignorantly and unintentionally.  I do not want to write about all the mistakes at present here.  They were eager to lead the people out of darkness to light in large numbers.  Their focus was not making disciples for Christ but converting the other religious people to western Christianity and to make them to worship Christ not necessarily to follow Christ.

I think the Rethinking Forum is trying to correct those mistakes in order to carry on the work of evangelism among all the Hindus including the caste Hindus.  The Insider Movement is a natural, logical response to the situation in the westernized Christian Church in India.  The Church in India is viewed as Dalit Church, carbon copy of the western churches in everything, culturally foreign and controlled by the foreign leadership directly or indirectly.  This Church cannot and will not become an indigenous Church.  This Church will never appeal to the educated caste Hindus.  But the gospel has to reach them as well.  The Insider Movement is trying to become a viable alternative to Christian faith and practice in India.  If the evils of Casteism such as oppression, untouchabilty and discrimination are eradicated by the Insider Movement it can make valuable contribution to the cause of Christ in India.

The Insider Movement (like the movement of Swamy Dayanantha Bharathi)is interested in leading Hindus of all castes to Christ and to demonstrate the power of the gospel of Christ outside the established churches.   I know it is only a movement consisted of devotees from several castes and languages.   I have attended the worship conducted by the Hindu Devotees of Christ and enjoyed meals with them.  The worship was attended by different caste groups. Such Insider Movements can do well without interference and support of the westerners.  Let the Holy Spirit direct and guide the Insider Movement. Some westerners are sincerely interested in understanding and helping such movements.  They want to make it to look like the part of the Christianity for which they are the custodians.  They like to take leadership and want to see such movements succeed.  In doing so, they want to keep the paternalistic attitude toward the people.  When I started my ashram, a western missionary told me that he would like to raise funds for the ashram and make it a center for training indigenous gospel workers.  He said that his institution in US will be like the mother institute and the ashram will be like a daughter institute under the mother institute.  I told him clearly that ashram cannot accept that role but remain as independent.  I suggested that we both can be partners and help each other but not one under another.  He did not agree to it and started his own program in India.  His vision and my vision were different although we both are interested in proclaiming the gospel in India.  Ashram wants to bring people of all castes, religions, denominations together in Christ and share the teachings of Christ with them.  We try to find practical solution to the issue of caste the ashram.

The born Christians who desire to fight against Casteism should do so first within the Church.  I am a Hindu convert.  I left Casteism when I became a Christian.  I washed the feet of other caste people during the Lord’s Supper.  I had lot of friends from other castes when I was a student in the Bible College.  But after I became an employee in the church organization I witnessed caste conflict, fight and politics within the church.  I went through the experience of discrimination, rejection and enmity within the church stemming from the caste feelings.   There is a church in Mukuperi whose members belong to one particular caste.  Other castes people are not admitted into that church.  I spoke with the leader of that church about it.  He told me, “Our church is peaceful without many conflicts.  If it is a multi-ethnic church we will have lot of conflicts in the church”.  Mono-ethnic church idea, although contrary to the gospel, is a useful view for the westernized church in India because the church has become like a social institution. But such a church will not represent the Kingdom of God on earth.  

The experience of the born Christians brought up in the westernized Church is different from the experience of the Hindus who have come to know Christ.  The Hindu converts who join the westernized Christian congregation go through cultural shocks and unnecessary suffering.  They are rejected by their own and not accepted fully by the adopted group because of the cultural differences.  A Brahmin convert to Christ was forced by the Christians to eat meat.  Another Brahmin convert was coerced by the Christians to marry a Dalit meat eater.  Many more such experiences the converts go through in the church.  The converts who join the Insider Movement can avoid going through such experiences.  The Hindu converts can certainly feel at home in an Insider Movement.  However, they have to find a meaning full way to relate with Christians in general and born again Christians in particular.  In addition, Insider Movements need to take efforts to understand the vision of each other and help each other build the Kingdom of Christ in India in the hearts of people.

I believe in one God, one world and one people.  You may not able to eradicate caste as a social group, but you can strive to eradicate caste system and Casteism which is the root cause for oppression, untouchability, discrimination and social injustice. In this fight we should not sound like anti-Brahmins and anti-Insider Movement.  We have no quarrel with them.  While the present Indian Church cleanses itself from Casteism, western materialism and worldliness, the Insider Movement needs to learn to help in its spiritual and moral struggles without completely segregating itself.  Although the existing Indian Church appears to be the product of colonialism some of its children are making significant impact on the Indian society through their service and scholarship.

I suggest that the Hindu devotees or followers of Christ and Christian scholars meet together and have a dialogue with each other on the question of caste, mono-ethnic church, culture, contextualization and Christian fellowship   Together they should come up with statements to the world Church on the question of Christian witness in India.  I do not think that in any near future the members of Insider Movements and the Christian believers can come together in faith and fellowship. (Matt. 9:16,17)  The Christians themselves do not cross the denominational barriers to fellowship with each others.  Therefore, we cannot expect them to become part of any Christian congregation. However, the Insider Movements should not remain as exclusive groups while they have their social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context but try to have meaningful dialogue with the Christians and Hindus.

P.R. Solomon

Karunaiyananthar Ashram

Thiruppanthuruthi-613103

Thanjavur Dist. Tamil Nadu

India

Phone# 9360429679

Dont agree, dear Vishal !!!!!

Partly, because the persecutions and hardships that people in the Insider movements face must be judged not by the Outsiders (pardon the use of the term) but by the Insiders themselves. Besides, the Insiders clearly are under the mandate of their Lord to be a prophetic witness to their own communities. They are more aware than most of us who live in fairly cloistered Christian dominated subcultures most of the time. But they would prefer to take up the cross from within their communities in practical every day decisions and within the “web of relationships”.

If comparisons must be made, then the Jewish religious system in the 1st century which had received scriptural and divine revelation is better compared with the established and visible Christian Church (which has also received divine revelation). To compare them to some Hindu groups does not fit, since the Hindu groups have not received scriptural and divine revelation. To compare them to the Insiders is incorrect, since the Insiders are trying to do the exact opposite of what the Judaizers tried to do – make everyone else look like them culturally and socially.

Isnt it is the Christian Church today which persecutes the “Pauls” of our day who insist that Nadars should be freely permitted to intermarry with other Tamil Christians or that Syrian Christians to marry with Nadar Christians or with any other Christian for that matter. Isnt it the Christian Church which has separate churches for separate castes in India motivated by a purely hierarchical consideration?  If we (who are part of  the visible Christian Church) set our own house in order, it might be one of the first steps in reforming our societies. As they say, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others. If we set our own house in order, the Hindus and the Muslims will learn that the gospel works, firstly in the lives and communities of its most visible professors.

Paul says in Timothy that “everyone who desires to live a godly life will be persecuted”. So there is no escape from persecution for true followers of our Lord. But it is unlikely that all of us will be persecuted the same way nor must we create an artificial standard for persecution. My comments about the apostle Thomas or for that matter instances in Scripture come out of general hermeneutical principle : descriptions are not prescriptions. So while we may learn from our illustrious forbears, it might not be necessary to do exactly the same things as they did since their contexts were different from ours.

I find your chapter “Jesus the Trouble maker” most profound. Have finished reading half of it. Should complete the rest by tomorrow.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.
Ajoy

Dear Brother Solomon

Thank you for the comprehensive mail and your inputs for this discussion. You have pointed out many important matters in our history as the church in India and it would great to have others respond as well. I was glad to meet Dr. Devanaiyagam and Dr. Devakala. A personal meeting often dissolves many unnecessary perceptions and establishes that we share a common humanity and in Christ, a new humanity This is despite the disagreements that we may or may not have as we seek to understand each other better.

One of the fine models for exhibiting mutual solidarity among various groups of believers is in the following verses in the earliest stages of the church:

“During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.” (Acts 11:27-30).

Isnt it inspiring that a freshly born Gentile church in Antioch sends gifts to the church in Judea (predominantly Jewish including Hellenistic Jews) expressing their love for their spiritual kin in the face of impending famine !! A reminder that we can maintain our kinship through practical good deeds with our brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of the nature of our composition. Also a apostolic command from Gal 6:10 :

“Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers”

So I am not in favour ANY group (insiders, outsiders or others) being totally cut off from EVERY other expression of church (though every group is alone capable of deciding its specific response in its specific context).

It may be that like Barnabas and Saul in the example above, there are people who understand both camps who may have to be the bridges. Again this is not meant to be prescription for all times and seasons, but a pattern from Scripture that we can learn from.

Thanks again for writing in.
Ajoy

Ajoy, 

I have much appreciated your last two emails. 

I would like to comment on the idea that believers remain “inside” their people group to avoid persecution, which I think is not only not true, but quite the opposite, sometimes they flee their own family and people group to avoid persecution and martyrdom.  

In the New Testament we have both examples of people being martyred who stayed as insider believers in their culture (e.g. Stephen and James, martyred by the Jews) as well as people martyred who left their culture to thereby reach other cultures better (e.g. Paul and Peter, martyred by the Romans).  The same is happening today. 

A few weeks ago I heard Don McCurry speak in Thailand, and he shared a story from his time in P*kistan.  A Mu*slim friend of his became a believer and was determined not to hide his faith from his family.  So he arranged to be baptized by a highly respected medical doctor (from a nearby hospital) in his home town.  His family was humiliated, and his father almost beat him to death in the town square.  But he said, “You are my family, you are my village, you are my people.  I am choosing to follow Isa al Masih (Jesus the Messiah) but I will not leave my family or my people.  I will stay right here, and if you do not feed me, I will die.”  For several days no one fed him, but then his mother began to bring him food. Within a couple weeks, his father begged him to recant so he could take him back into his home.  When he refused, his father finally relented and brought him home anyway.  His family came to faith within a month and soon after that other families in the village began to follow suit.  His behavior was a better witness to his family than if he had left them to join a Christian group in the capital city.  It also involved more persecution and danger, not less, than if he had left.

In the passage Vishal mentions in Acts 21, Paul was in the temple to go through a purification ceremony with some Jewish believers to prove that the reports that he was teaching “Jews that live among the Gentiles to turn away from Jewish customs”(v. 21) were NOT TRUE (v. 24 “then everybody will know that there is no truth in these reports about you..”). Verse 20 says that there were “thousand of Jews who had believed and all of them were zealous for the Law” (these are insider Jewish believers) but that these same zealous Jewish believers were glad that the Gentile believers only had to abide by four restrictions that would make it possible for them to associate with the Jewish believers (see v.25, as decided in Acts 15). 

So Paul was clearly affirming the freedom of Jewish believers to continue to follow the purity laws etc. of Judaism if they chose to do so, while maintaining that the Gentiles should be free of these laws.  And the Jewish church was agreeing.  The riot started because Paul was accused by non-believing Jews of bringing Gentiles into the temple, but verse 29 makes it clear that he did not do that.  The shouting Jewish mob that was stoning him was not even clear about what he had done wrong (v. 34) but was so angry he had to be carried away by the Roman soldiers. 

 It seems to me that the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers had learned to accept each other’s freedom in Christ to follow the Law (if Jewish) or not (if Gentile).  It was the NON-believing Jews who saw Paul’s ministry to the Gentile insider believers as destroying their Law and their people.  

I am really trying to just read Acts for what it says, and not bring my preset agenda to the passage.  I am not saying we have to copy what they did, but I think it is important to understand what was happening.

Blessings,

Becky

Dear Vishal,

Thank you for your response when you are so busy.  I do have my own copy of your book Truth and Transformation, (my daughter Emily made sure I had a copy since she helped to edit it and is listed in the acknowledgements), and I will read it again more thoroughly. She is due to arrive here in Delhi in two weeks to live with us for six months, which we looking forward to very much.

I hope you believe that I am all for doing whatever we can to take down the evils of society, including caste-based prejudice (as was my father).  I realize some of the things I write makes it appear otherwise. Perhaps this email will clarify.

When I was studying in the Library of Congress in Washington DC, I had the privilege of reading many handwritten letters (preserved on microfilm) between Charles Finney and Arthur Tappan (the businessman who funded the founding of the first racially-integrated and alcohol-free church in New York City, which Finney pastored for a while). Tappan himself sat among the blacks in the church as the blacks and whites tended to sit separately even though they both attended the multi-racial church.  Arthur Tappan, and his brother Lewis, also provided most of the funding to start Oberlin College, the first college in the USA to let in both blacks and black/white women in addition to white males. The college was founded primarily to train people to preach the Gospel, and to preach against slavery and against alcohol.

What was interesting about those letters is that Finney and Tappan were debating this same subject (of how to best do societal change) around 180 years ago. Tappan wanted to put more emphasis on the anti-slavery crusade and he wanted Finney to train anti-slavery preachers that would NOT also preach the Gospel (thereby to win over the Jews and others as well to the anti-slavery cause).  Finney refused, saying that to win people to anger against the moral evil of slavery, without ALSO winning their hearts to the Lord, would only succeed in “rolling a wave of blood across our land.”  

I remember sitting back in my seat in shock at this prophecy of Finney (made in the 1830’s) that was fulfilled thirty years later, with more Americans being killed in the Civil War than ALL the other wars Americans have been involved in added together.  

Finney and the Tappan brothers (Lewis and Arthur) eventually had a falling out because Finney insisted that the preachers he trained preach the Gospel for a few days before moving on to preach against slavery and alcohol.  The Tappans went on to promote abolition through various printed media that they funded, apart from evangelism.  I read through this entire process of the breaking up of their relationship in their correspondence, which the Tappans had saved.

Theodore Weld, one of the most-traveled preachers, also broke with Finney over this issue, because Weld wanted his focus to be anti-slavery and temperance, not evangelism/revival. (The woman who became Weld’s wife, Angelina Grimke, was one of the first female preachers in this movement). Weld eventually came close to rejecting his faith in Christ completely because he was so demoralized by continued resistance even among believers to become avidly anti-slavery and anti-alcohol (which was seen to be destroying as many lives as slavery).  

But Finney had tried repeatedly to warn Weld that only those who were real believers (won to Christ or revived in their faith) would be able to truly recognize and repent of the evils of these things. 

So, it was Finney himself, in his own handwriting, who has persuaded me of the position I now hold: which is that the Gospel must be preached as the foundation, together with a call to transformation, if any success can be expected.  It seems that a revival in the church of America (or India) is needed before believers will put aside the racism in their hearts, a revival that includes both a recommitment to the person of Jesus Christ and a rebuke for hatred/anger or discrimination against those from other races or castes, whether those from the higher castes (the oppressors) or those from the lower castes. 

So you can see that I do NOT hold the Billy Graham or Moody position of staying out of social issues, and salvation being only personal. I believe Finney’s perspective was correct that repentance follows conversion (and must include repentance from societal evils not just personal evils, which then enables believers to make proactive changes in the society at large).  Perhaps if the Tappans and others (William Lloyd Garrison, for example) had followed Finney’s advice, the US could have avoided its bloody civil war. [And perhaps it would still be alcohol-free (the 2nd highest cause of death in the US that is man made, after abortion).]

I have no problem “agreeing to disagree” with you over this subject, or having you challenge positions you disagree with by defining that position (not attributing it to us) and attacking it.  However, I would prefer that, if you are going to represent the supposed positions of my father or myself (or others, like even Finney) that they be as accurate as possible. Therefore, I hope that you will consider this clarifying email helpful to the process.

Give my greetings to Ruth!

Becky

Hello Rick

It’s more like avoiding the issues, direct questions and evidences with responses like, “I stand in the broad stream of academic research” (whatever that is supposed to mean to us Christians), and, “Historical understandings are never absolute and never complete. They are always tentative – sometimes highly so and sometimes hardly at all. Historical knowledge, in technical terms, is never entirely certain” ( I hope none of us have doubts of Jesus’ historic ministry on earth)!

Anyway let me clarify an earlier comment made by you on Sanskrit and Dravidians (extracted from my paper – http://appiusforum.net/paper.pdf):

The first evidence of Sanskrit is attested by an inscription dating around A.D.150 in the Brahmi script ^2,3. It records the repair of a dam originally built by Chandragupta Maurya, and also contains a panegyric in verse which can be regarded as the first literary composition in Sanskrit. It is at Girnar in Kathiawar and was inscribed by Rudradamana, the Saka Satrap of Ujjayini, on the same rock on which the Fourteen Rock Edicts of Asoka were also found. It is significant that Rudradamana employed Sanskrit in a region where about four hundred years before him Asoka had used only Prakrit.

The period 1st c BC to 1st c AD is extremely significant in the history of India. The Sakas (Scythians) were one of the three main groups who supplanted the Greeks in the North West. The others were the Pahalavas (Parthians) and Kushans (Yeuh-Chih). The North West was divided into several petty Greek Kingdoms, which easily fell victim to the great wave of Scythians, which took place in the middle of the first century B.C. The Indo-Scythian Empire of the Sakas was conquered by the advancing Indo-Parthians, upon the coins of which appear names6 such as Gondophares, Orthagnes, etc. The date of Gondophares6 is firmly established by the Takht-i Bahi inscription of the year 103, which is also dated to the twenty-sixth year of Gondophares’ reign. The first date must be reckoned according to the “era of Azes” (57 B.C.) and therfore corresponds to 46 A.D., while the accession year of Gondophares is consequently 20 A.D. Tradition ^7,8 records that Thomas set out for India immediately after the Crucifixion, i.e. 30 A.D., thus the appearance of Gondophares in the Acts of Thomas is therefore chronologically acceptable6. Thus during Gondophares’ rule the apostle Thomas brought the first knowledge of Christianity to India ^6,7,8,9. Christianity comes to northern India through the Apostle Thomas into the Pahalava Empire during the reign of Gondophorus when the Sakas were under the dominion of the Pahalavas. The Gospel spread throughout the Empire and later expressed in the Sanskrit literature like the Gita where the development of Sanskrit is evidenced by the inscription of Rudradamana, the Saka Satrap of Ujjayini in 150 AD and the Dwaraka (in Gujarat) legends of Krishna; also it is hard to miss the similarity in the names, Christ and Krishna.

Another interesting fact is during the reign of the Kushan king Kanishka (~1st c A.D.), who was an ardent supporter of Buddhism, a new form of Buddhism called Mahayana (the original form is called Hinayana) developed with the new concept of compassionate saints (bodhisattvas) helping to save others which spread in the North. The Kushan Empire was adjacent to the Pahalava/Saka Empire where Christianity was introduced by the Apostle Thomas; hence the Christian thought certainly influenced Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism seems a syncretism between Hinayana Buddhism and Christianity.

The Hinayana scriptures are in Pali, while the Mahayana writings developed in the Kushan Dynasty are in Sanskrit. This is significant since the Kushans had adopted the local Bactrian language for their kingdom and took it all around their area of influence, including Northern India. The usage of Sanskrit instead of Bactrian is logically explained by the fact that Sanskrit and Christianity developed in the adjacent kingdom of the Pahalava-Saka Empire, and, influence and discussion gave rise to the development of Mahayana Buddhism and writings in Sanskrit since the Christian thought was embedded with the language. Also in any Sanskrit literature the Christian influence often can be seen since they were all written after the 2nd c AD.  

Sanskrit which first developed in the Saka Empire around 150 AD then spread slowly across India since the Christian thought was embedded with the language. The stone pillar inscription ^11,12 of Samudra Gupta (AD 330 to 380) written in Sanskrit and a late Brahmi script called the Gupta script was incised on an Asokan pillar at Allahabad. Composed by Harisena, a commander-in-chief of the king it describes elaborately the moral, intellectual and military achievements of this king; this inscription dates around 350 AD.

Candra Gupta II (AD 380 to 415) subjugated the Saka territories, and Sanskrit, which developed in the Pahalava-Saka Empire gained eminence in the Gupta Empire as evidenced by the Allahabad inscription of Samudra Gupta, mentioned earlier. During his reign, art, architecture and sculpture flourished and the cultural development of ancient India reached its climax. However, this change is certainly due to the Pahalava-Saka language, literature, art and culture now part of the Gupta Empire, and, the Christian thought was the catalyst.

Another interesting fact is that the Allahabad inscription of Samudra Gupta mentions King Vishnugopa of Kanchi (Pallavas 4th to 9th c AD) who was defeated by Samudra Gupta and then liberated about the middle of the 4th c AD. The southern Pallavas are often linked with the North Western Pahalavas, though this is not conclusive, the spread of the Gupta language and culture South is evident through epigraphy and iconography.

The spread of Sanskrit South is first evidenced by the Talagunda stone pillar inscription of Kadamba Kakusthavarman ¹³ in the Shimoga District, Karnataka dated between 455 and 470 AD. It is written in late southern Brahmi inscribed in the reign of Santivarman (450 to 470 AD). It is a posthumous record of Kakusthavarman.

Sanskrit then spreads in the South evidenced by the inscriptions in early Grantha, dating from the 5th to 6th c. AD on copper plates and stone monuments from the kingdom of the Pallavas near Chennai (Madras). The Grantha alphabet, which belongs to the writing system of southern India, was developed in the 5th c. AD to mainly write Sanskrit. From the fifth century A.D. Sanskrit is seen to be the dominant language in the inscriptions, which indicates that Sanskrit was replacing the dialects.

As shown there is firm evidence for the Apostle Thomas in North India, and his martyrdom in the South is well accepted; also South India had excellent trade relations with the Roman Empire during the 1st c AD, which leads to cultural and religious exchanges. Thus early Indian Christianity developed both in the North and the South; the northern movement is often referred to as Vaishnavism and southern movement, Saivism. These Christian movements intersect around the 4th c AD and early Indian Christianity then developed as a mature religion of the Hindus.

Since the Christian thought was embedded with the language, the Dravidian South developed the Grantha script which belongs to the southern group of scripts. This and other evidences outlined by Dr Devakala highlight the keenness of the Dravidians to propagate early Indian Christianity.

Alex

http://appiusforum.net/

Dear Dr. Devakala,

It is abundantly clear to me that we are not communicating very well but are talking past each other. I have answered your email below a number of times, yet you think I have not. I have written to you points for discussion, yet you must not have recognized them as such, just as you think I have not recognized your points below. I find it difficult at this point to continue participating in this email interaction. I am trying to conclude my doctoral dissertation and would be happy to send that to you for your evaluation and interaction when it is completed (it is on themes related to these discussions).

Again, I pray someday we each move to where there is more commonality between us and a possibility for mutually helpful interaction.

In grace,

Rick Hivner

Dear Friends,  The issues raised in the exchange from all participants are live ones, even to me as a layman.  Every key participant has made known one’s position pretty fully and clearly.  To press on each other beyond this point is not dialoguing but debating, even if not for score points. I think, it is time to leave this discourse aside. For me, it is not terminating it, but to proceed thankfully that I have received new grist to grind on in grace and hope in the awareness of the shortcomings of our faith in the culture of India. Wishing you well in the completion of your dissertation, Rick.  God be with you all.  Louis Sundaramani Simon

Dear Friends, I am making haste to correct possible misinterpretation of my hurried brief note of yesterday.  I merely wished to see suspension of the drift of Gurukul-linked exchange on caste as embedded in Indian culture. What everyone is doing about it is important for us to share.  Further, input from research studies of Deivanayagam, Devakala, Alex. Vishal Mangalwadi and others, many of whose work I am happily introduced for the first time, is extremely worthwhile for us to continue to share.  Honestly, I did not know something like the University Institute existed in New Delhi.   Perhaps my Southern blinder!  Interesting to know of the strong evangelical thrust through this scholarly institute.  Seen as a part of outsiders strategies for insiders movements (I cringe at that epithet, hearing it for the first time) and other missionary efforts (largely membership driven efforts, so alien to Indian thinking in general), I will continue to be skeptical of the modern-day evangelical thrust, even if it does not add any more convulsive note to the patient work of making known Christian presence in India.  So, let us continue…   Yours in faith,   Louis Sundaramani Simon

dr alex and all:

sorry, but i have not been following the discussion fully.

however, on the particular point of dr alex regarding the time of gondphorus-kanishka-thomas-asvaghosha period, some might find the attached of interest.

again, this is only in response to dr alex’s email of 9.16.10 centering on the gondphorus|kushan dynasty|kanishka|mahayana moment|gandhara valley|st thomas in north india traditon.

i invite critique and comments.

sincerely,

thom wolf

also, for those of us who have not met, attached is my resume.

see further at www.universityinstitute.in .

 [See in Paper for the article on Buddhism–db]

Dear Friends, I am making haste to correct possible misinterpretation of my hurried brief note of yesterday.  I merely wished to see suspension of the drift of Gurukul-linked exchange on caste as embedded in Indian culture. What everyone is doing about it is important for us to share.  Further, input from research studies of Deivanayagam, Devakala, Alex. Vishal Mangalwadi and others, many of whose work I am happily introduced for the first time, is extremely worthwhile for us to continue to share.  Honestly, I did not know something like the University Institute existed in New Delhi.   Perhaps my Southern blinder!  Interesting to know of the strong evangelical thrust through this scholarly institute.  Seen as a part of outsiders strategies for insiders movements (I cringe at that epithet, hearing it for the first time) and other missionary efforts (largely membership driven efforts, so alien to Indian thinking in general), I will continue to be skeptical of the modern-day evangelical thrust, even if it does not add any more convulsive note to the patient work of making known Christian presence in India.  So, let us continue…   Yours in faith,   Louis Sundaramani Simon

Thank you Dr. Wolf for sharing your research very appropriately at this time. I rejoice since future generations will have solid basis, and enabled by the Holy Spirit, will refuse to “stand in the broad stream of academic research” to rewrite history with His Story and the Acts of His Apostles.

                And

Without fear be ready to give answers for their Faith to the fanatical forces as seen in the Indian Express article dated Oct 25^th 1999 titled, “Tell the Pope how Hindu he is” (http://appiusforum.net/pope_hindu.html)!  

Let’s all work together as Paul writes,

For the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6 RSV) 

Blessings.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

Dear bro.Rick Hivner,

Thank you for your reply dated 17-9-2010 to my mails dated 18-8-2010 and 11-9-2010.

We expected your answers for the following seven questions which we have given in our mail dated 22-7-2010 and in our reminder dated 9-8-2010.

1.       Is caste a genetic factor?

2.       Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.       Is casteism an age-old concept of India ?

4.      Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.      Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

7.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against

     the  constitution  of  India ?

For our above mails, you have responded on 11-8-2010, but you haven’t answered our seven questions. Instead of delivering answers to the seven questions, you have thrown criticisms narrowing down to say that our statements are dogmatic and our research findings as presuppositions.

Hence we have sent mail on 18-8-2010 under the title ‘Principles of Anti – Christ Vs Principles of Christ’. We did not receive any response from you till 11^th September, 2010 and we reminded you vide the title ‘Expecting your kind reply’ on 11-9-2010. You have responded to this reminder on 17-9-2010, but we were all disheartened  seeing you not answering  our seven questions, and you have later given us a bigger  surprise  with your following statement,

“I have answered your email below a number of times…”

The said statement obviously reveals that you are not willing to come out of your system that justifies and maintains racism and casteism, stumbling blocks of ‘Divine Unity in Christ’,  which are the principles of Anti – Christ.

In this circumstance you have written that,

“I am trying to conclude my doctoral dissertation and would be happy to send that to you for your evaluation and interaction when it is completed (it is on themes related to these discussions).”

We are much grateful for your consideration to send your doctoral dissertation to us for evaluation. However, it is clear that, without coming for a discussion to analyze the prime issues (7 questions), the stumbling blocks of ‘Divine Unity in Christ’ in various perspectives, evaluating your doctoral dissertation will place you in a difficult situation for your system of thought. It is not an issue between just two individuals but between two different systems, which are entirely different and in fact contradictory, and in this circumstance we cannot have a good interaction.

Since you have extended your kind invitation to us to evaluate your doctoral dissertation, then it becomes our responsibility and obligation to explain the historical development of two different systems. If you are willing to dislodge your system of thought from your doctoral dissertation, and feel that our historical explanation will be useful, you may by all means incorporate it in your doctoral dissertation and correspondingly we shall be much happy to evaluate your valid doctoral dissertation, which will be beneficial to all of us.

We will be glad to write the historical development of two different systems in the light of ‘redemption’ of our Savior Jesus Christ, in our coming mails.

In Christ,

Sis.D. Devakala.

Dear Brother Rick

I have genuinely appreciated your spirit in one of your last emails, where you urged that we handle this controversy with grace and civility. You are right. Therefore, I apologize for some of the harsh language that I have used in some of my previous emails.

This email is to humbly request you to please reconsider your decision to not respond to sister Devakala. If you are really so busy that you cannot take the time to answer her, then please ask one of your colleagues to answer her on your behalf. This is because your refusal to answer her probing questions reinforces the unhappy impression of “American Arrogance.”  Let me explain:

1. You went to Chennai and said some things about caste which raised serious questions in Dr. Devakala’s mind. She tried to voice her objections but the mike was snatched from her hands by an American.
2. She overlooked that insult and wrote out her questions to you and you kept dodging them for a long time.
3. Finally you said to her that you cannot talk to her because she is not a scholar: that she will need to reframe her positions as “tentative” in line with postmodern historiography. In other words,  she will need to say, “From all the available data it seems that Jesus may have been crucified for our sins. He was probably buried and may have risen the third day.”
4. When she presented her academic credentials and many of us said that she is a scholar that deserves full respect, then you flipped and said that you cannot talk to her because you are not a scholar (i.e. a Sanskritist).
5. When it was pointed out to you that her seven questions do not require any knowledge of Sanskrit, you began to say that you cannot answer her because you are focusing on your Ph. D. dissertation.

I hope I am completely wrong, but if I may be honest, it seems to me that you have been dodging her questions for months because you feel that you have no obligation to answer anything to low-caste followers of Christ.

Do American missionaries have the right to go to India and speak on this sensitive issue of caste and demand that Indians hear them but not ask any questions?  This discussion has been going on for several months now. I do not know why other “Insiders” have not explained the rationale for their strategy. They may have good reasons . . . but I am afraid that their silence (unless justified) also comes across as sheer arrogance . . . I understand their silence to mean: “we don’t care for you low-caste believers.” 

You may be surprised to know that as a result of these emails, I have myself just become a victim of a high handed expulsion-without-trial by some of my American friends in one group where I served as a member of the Steering Committee. Two Americans pushed the group in such a way that they did not ask me one question or give me one minute to explain anything. I was expelled because I am challenging Pasadena Missiology.

You are right that we need grace as we work through this controversy  . . . so please do honor sister Devakala as she humbles herself before you and begs you again and again to clarify your position.

Thank you for listening.

Vishal

Sep. 21^st, 2010.

????

John Dayal

New delhi

Sep. 21^st.

Thanks Thom for this well written document that gives some key insights. Its taken me time to finally get around to reading it but I really enjoyed it and appreciate the solid thought you put into it and taking the time to write something that was so well researched.

Tim Svoboda

Oct. 2^nd. 2010.

Tim

Based on your comments below, I assume now that you are able to see clearly the evidence of Early Indian Christianity, you will help YWAM FM Pune include the new research in their teachings & strategy, drop the ‘People Movement Approach’ and move away from their ‘Hivner Syndrome’.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

Dear Richard

Praise the Lord that Baliraja’s myth was useful in leading some OBCs to the Lord. However, if you ask people like Mohan Philip they will tell you that plenty of OBCs are coming to the Lord without any evangelist using any myth.

The OBCs are turning to the Lord because many of them have understood that being a Hindu means remaining an untouchable Shudra – 4^th class citizen in Hindu hierarchy. That position is acceptable to some if it helps them get a Government scholarship or job, otherwise it is not worth remaining Hindu.

In early 1990s, I sat in several Kushwaha Panchayats where Buddhist options was discussed. Like other OBCs the Kushwahas were attracted to Buddhism because of Ambedkar. But they were cautious, because privately Kanshiram himself spoke against Buddhism (and against all religions). Once Mayawati (Dalit) and Mulayam Singh (OBC) feud became permanent, the dream of Bahujan raj was shattered, and Mayawati teamed up with Brahmins, it made no sense for OBCs to follow the Dalits into Buddhism. Therefore, Christianity – especially a politically bold Christianity that Sunil embodied – became attractive to OBCs who were disappointed with BSPs politics. The myth of Baliraja had nothing to do with people like Dinesh or Jairam ji Jai coming to Christ.

It is good to explore redemptive stories and myths but it is far more important to understand that Christianity won the pagan world because Jesus and his apostles unleashed the power of truth in a culture where religions were based on myth. Greek rationalism degenerated into skepticism and them mysticism centuries before Christ. Therefore Greco-Roman religions (like Hinduism) had nothing to do with philosophy or quest for truth. They were based on myths and stories. Christianity claimed to be truth. Just look through the epistles to see what Paul keeps saying about myths and stories.

Following the Enlightenment the West flirted with Rationalism again. Once again its rationalism has degenerated into skepticism and mysticism. Its hope and quest for finding truth is dead. Following Joseph Campbell, the West is now desperate for stories. Campbell is now required reading in every non-Christian university training writers – especially for Hollywood and Radio. Every preacher for 2,000 years has told stories every Sunday – so why has story become so important to American missions now? It is only because they are naively following their secular culture. I will urge you to take the time to listen to what Os Guinness said about Truth in Cape Town and then listen to my lecture “Could America Collapse Like a House of Cards?” on www.RevelationMovement.com .

It is important that we understand why Christianity is losing America . . . soon I hope to start a weekly series discussing this issue. Pessimistic Premillinnial Dispensationlism was the main reason for the decline of Christianity from 1910 – 1960. “Finishing the task” mentality coupled with People Group missiology took a heavy toll following Lausanne 1. Post Cape Town two American follies that will hurt global Christianity the most are Orality and Storying. Since Jesus every preacher has communicated the Gospel orally, so what is new now? The new orality = illiteracy as the preference for postmodern missions. Storying is turning witnessing (truth telling) into story-telling.  Etymologically “Baliraja” can mean the king of strength (baliwan) or the king who offered sacrifice. If you read his story, he offers no sacrifice. After he is defeated, it is his wife who sacrifices herself in a Jowhar (suicide to save her honor – a sort of Sati – which is deemed to be a great sacrifice.) Sunil’s exegesis of Phule’s baliraja as a king who sacrificed himself is building one myth upon another. Could such myth-making lead OBCs to Christ – yes, it can, because many of them have made up their minds to quit Hinduism and to not follow Ambedkar and Udit Raj. They will convert even if you tell them the story of Jack and Jill. But if you think that it is your story telling is turning them to Christ then you will only delude yourself.

Since many OBCs are now open to Christ, it is very important to build the new church and new India upon the foundation of truth. Can stories help in this process? Yes, they can and should be used as parables and bridges to explain the Gospel. The question Paul’s epistles confront us with is this: should anyone’s faith rest on cleverly invented stories – even if they happen to be from his own culture?

Before too long, I hope to write more extensively on the menace of Storying movement as well as on the costly folly of misinterpreting “nations” as people-groups. Right now I need to get ready to leave for Guatemala in four hours.

Vishal

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Dear Vishal,

I have witnessed personally (OBC) people who have come to Christ by understanding the mythical story of Baliraja. I think in the story of Baliraja is a redemptive analogy, which needs to be explored. We have not even scratched the surface. There are many such redemptive analogies all over India, which need to be understood.

I think it is important we puts our minds together prayerfully to theologise. The evangelical thought  in India is very weak in theologising.

At the same time we need to remember all theologising is a human task. This will keep us humble. The western church has done its home work. However as Robin Boyd said, “the Latin captivity of the Church in India”. Isn’t this a reality?

Let all people groups come to Christ. God is at work, movements will begin and flourish. If God is not in them they will die.

Your friend,

Richard Howell Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Dear Richard

Thanks for your gracious response. Thanks also for speaking up for OBCs. Thakurs are likely to be the next people-group (and they are a people-group in McGavran sense, though not a nation.)

As the Lord of history, God is using a movement begun by Kanshiram – a movement that has nothing to do with Phule’s Baliraja. I had predicted this move in 1987!

But as the experience in Allahabad shows, mistaking a hatred-driven socio-political movement as a move of the Holy Spirit creates its own problems. The numbers make interesting story, but they do not necessarily mean it is God’s work.

Vishal

October 26, 2010

Dear Vishal,

Thanks for your response.

I believe God is shaking his church and the traditional categories are not sufficient to capture God.

I view  whole OBC movement as a movement of the Holy Spirit. The best way to understand it is in fulfilment categories plus more. Jesus not only fulfils but brings in much more that is new.

I think the way forward is to walk along patiently and be the salt and light of reconciliation. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Your friend,

Richard

October 26, 2010

Dear Tim

Thanks for sending the following link to the Lausanne vimeo on OBCs. Dinesh Kumar is an old friend of mine and from my father’s side I come from “an OBC caste” – i.e. a Jati or a “people group” as Dr. McGavaran used that term. In the Hindi Bible “go and make disciples of all nations” was translated as “go and make disciples of all jatis.” That is what started McGavran with his people-group missiology. In the sense of “jati”, the OBCs are not a “people group” – there are several thousand jatis that were lumped together in one list as  Other Backward Castes (OBCs) by Justice Mandal Commission in the 1980s and that list (schedule) was adopted by Prime Minister VP Singh for Reservations in 1991. The OBC, thus, is a political classification that developed a political identity because of an anti-Reservation movement launched by the upper castes in early 1990s.

It is very true that the OBCs are opening up to Christ as never before and given their numerical strength and political clout the upper caste Hindus are in no position to persecute them. Therefore, a Christ-movement among OBC castes in North India could become a tipping point movement for evangelizing India. That is one reason why Ivan and Silvia Kostka launched the monthly magazine FORWARD Press. We are hoping that by January 2011, we can launch a vigorous book publishing program – 25 of my own titles have been planned. These will be evangelistic, apologetic and pre-evangelistic books and booklets. We need some capital resources for this project and your prayers and participation – especially in distribution is invited.

Having endorsed the basic point of Richard’s presentation at Lausanne, I must say that thinking of OBCs as one “people group” is at best confused thinking with harmful consequences. For example, my friend Sunil Sardar (who is applying Rick Hivner’s missiology to OBCs) and deserves the credit for leading Dinesh Kumar to the Lord, has argued that this people-group of 700 million Indians needs a Hindi Bible because the present Hindi Bible uses “Brahminical” terms for God etc. The erroneous ‘people-group thinking’ has so permeated American and global missiology that Sunil’s harmful case is getting significant traction. There are lots of problems with this thinking – let me mention just a few:

• To begin with the 700 million OBCs are divided in hundreds of language groups and a few thousand people-groups who do not all read Hindi, nor do they inter-marry or inter-dine. They have no common social/cultural authority structure. OBC is a political classification specifically to designate educationally and socially backward castes (Jatis). More importantly,
• I am not sure if anyone is asking the question if Bible translation has to be concerned with “people groups” or “linguistic groups.” In the Bible Translation movement the concept of “heart language” has become so important that they no longer realize that people-groups do not just need the Bible in their heart language – the Bible also shapes the heart language of people-groups. For example, because of the Malaysian Bhasa translation of the Bible  “Allah” has become the term for God in the heart language of Hindu, Chinese, Sikh Christians in Malaysia. As it did for Germanic and other European tribes, the Bible is creating a “Malaysian” national consciousness. Just as the Bible made Germany or Holland a “nation,” it is making Malaysia a nation – which is a “people group” in a more significant sense than “OBC” is a people-group. The argument that because Allah is a “Muslim” term and since the Muslims have oppressed the Hindus, therefore, Malaysian Hindu seekers must have a different (non-Islamic) translation of the Bible, because they are a distinct “people group” or “nation” is an argument that needs careful debate over the meaning of the terms nation and people-group. The core issue that Dr. Devakala has raised in objecting to Rick Hivner’s teaching – and it applies to Sunil Sardar’s teaching just as well – is that of the unity of the body of Christ. Just as the Insider Movement uses the people-group idea to segregate the body of Christ, so does Sunil’s idea of having distinct Bible’s for “heart languages.” Should the OBC Christians love Brahmin followers of Christ enough to use some of their term (“Permeshwar”) for God? The problem is that this confusion over the meaning of terms “nation” and “people-group” is breeding a spirituality of hate within the North Indian church.
• I suspect that as an American/South Indian you were not able to detect the spirituality of hatred towards Brahmins in Dinesh Kumar’s presentation at Lausanne in the vimeo below. But Richard ought to have known better. I am afraid Sunil is cultivating that hatred amongst OBCs and Richard is too much of a gentleman to relate to Dinesh  as Jesus related to his disciples (“Get thee behind me . . . “ he said to Peter.) if the Gospel has to have different results in India than Hinduism or “Christian” revival in Rwanda, then our leaders have to have more courage and maturity than Richard conveyed in promoting Dinesh’s conversion motivated  by hatred without helping him to love Brahmins. (A few years ago in a meeting in New Delhi where Richard and I were present and washed each other’s feet, Shekhar Kalyanpuri – a Brahmin convert – offered to wash Dinesh’s feet. Dinesh got mad and created a public fuss over Shekhar’s initiative, simply because he is a Brahmin background believer. While we felt that Shekhar was being sincere, Dinesh was upset at a Brahmin taking the lead to wash the feet of backward castes in a Christian event.) This is not a rejection of Dinesh – but from his presentation it is clear to me that Sunil and Richard have not talked to him that to be a follower of Christ would require him to love Brahmins.

• Phule did present Baliraja’s kingdom as the kingdom of Christ – but he saw British colonialism as the kingdom of Christ (Phule was not a premillianlist, nor were more British and American missionaries in the 19^th century. They saw the spread of Christian civilization as the spread of [postmillinial] kingdom of Christ). In keeping with the postmodern missiology, where a witness has become a storyteller, Sunil’s Truthseekers movement often comes across to me as mythmaker’s movement. Clearly, Richard has not read even Phule’s presentation of the kingdom of Baliraja. He has bought Sunil’s misinterpretation. In his presentation Richard does try to separate myth and truth and I hope to write more to make that distinction sharper. This is important for as Os Guinness tried to say in Cape Town, if neo-evangelicalism does not make a sharp distinction between myth and truth, it will end up with the same fate as theological liberalism. In this connection you may want to watch my video “will America collapse like a house of cards?” in www.RevelationMovement.com . It will explain a bit more of what Os Guinness tried to say in Cape Town . . . I suspect that post cape town his message will be overshadowed by silly postmodern ideas of Orality and Storying. Storying has become such as huge hurricane that I am not surprised to see Richard not drawing a clearer distinction between truth and not myth – although Richard was better on this point than Sunil usually is.
• As a result of my earlier emails, I have lost a lot of friends. I was expelled from one committee and emails were sent to Korea and Indonesia to prevent me from speaking there. As a result of this email, I am likely to lose more friends who are doing good work with OBCs. Be that as it may, I have resolved that speaking clearly on these issues is more important than trying to win friends – another time I will explain why —The Indian church has to grow up enough to have honest discussions. OBCs are beginning to hate Hinduism and Brahmins, I welcome them, but they need deliverance from their hate as much as from Hinduism.

Vishal

October 26, 2010

This video was filmed at the present Lausanne Congress that presented Richard Howell and Dinesh Kumar speaking on Caste and Movements to Christ from the OBC’s. you can view it at http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/resources/detail/11338

Tim Svoboda

Dear Loren

Back sometime around 1998there was a meeting in Chennai with Grame of FMC Pune on the errors of the “People Movement Approach”; the Deivanayagams were also at the meeting. We had a very spirited discussion and Grame handled it well. We went around in circles for a while until I asked Grame to articulate his understanding of Hinduism, which he did – a typical aryanized perspective. Then the Deivanayagams and I clearly pointed out the errors of his understanding. Grame then went back to Pune and gave YWAM Pune an update. My understanding, based on the feedback/reaction was that YWAM Pune’s focus was the spirited dialogue and not the issue. In addition, I remember a key question I posed at the meeting – Let us say that there is a people movement amongst Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), how would YWAM handle it? I remember that YWAM Pune was only upset over this question but no response!

However, I was baffled by your email dated 7/3/2010 where you stated, “This letter is highly offensive and you certainly never took this to YWAM FM”!

So Loren, please clarify what happened and more importantly what’s happening now.

Regards,

Alex

October 10, 2010

Is there any one to help me kindly to remove from the mailing list of this Forum?  I tried to stop this mail to come to my email account, still it comes.  I will be grateful if anybody in this forum to help me to remove my name from the list.  Thanks.  God bless you.

Whoever be the coordinator or included my name in this list, please help me.  I become tired of getting mails.  I am not reading any of the mails and simply send them to Junk mail, still they are coming.

Dayanand Bharati.

Feb. 2, 2011. Gurukulam.

@@@

 Dear Dr Solomon,

Greetings.  I’m disappointed to see Alex Harris’ message to the World Church.  Please do not publish this tract.  It could do more harm than good.  McGavran himself was opposed to caste, and believed in conversion to Christ (redemption) as the first step toward abolition of caste.  If others have misused the so-called people group approach, it is better to deal directly (face to face) with the persons and institutions concerned.  

Thank you.

Yours in Christ,

Roger Hedlund
 

Dear Brother Solomon,

I am not competent to comment on certain assertions in this paper re the history of Hinduism and caste system. No doubt, the British used the caste system to their advantage. But to say that caste system “did not take root till the onset of the British” seems exaggerated. These debates I will leave to historians. And for our present purposes, these may not be so relevant. The fact is caste dynamics are strong in our context where we are called to preach the gospel and establish churches.

The charge made against the Church Growth concept of homogenous unit principle is nothing new.

The basic problem, in my opinion, is that what was meant to be a principle of mission strategy is made into an ideal – the way church ought to be. We cannot deny that h.u.p. has solidified caste feelings. This was not the intention of Dr McGavran. He was only thinking in terms of mission strategy.

All of us, I hope, will agree that a caste-based church (or a church based on any type of cultural exclusivism) is essentially idolatrous and falls far short of the inclusive community of the NT. It is tragic that some who applied Church Growth strategies were too eager to “exploit” caste dynamics for the sake of mission. Such a pragmatic approach to mission is a basic problem with Church Growth theology in general. However, it is not fair to accuse Church Growth of intentionally promoting casteism.

From my own ministry I have come to the conclusion that strategies based on caste or other principles may be provisionally necessary, but the goal has to be intentionally to establish multi-ethnic or inclusive communities. This is an application of “all things to all men” of the NT. Paul would bring himself “down” to the level of sinful structures in society in order to win them and to break those very structures. Similarly, I think it is justifiable that an approach, for example, to Brahmins must initially at least be on terms that would be acceptable to Brahmins. But if there is a prior commitment to establishing a Brahmin church that perpetuates untouchability and other evils, we have betrayed the gospel of Christ that has reconciliation and justice at its centre.

So, in short, recognize caste as a factor to be considered in forming a strategy, but from the beginning preach the gospel that destroys caste.

Mohan Chacko

Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Dehra Dun, India

Dear Dr. Hedlund,   Thank you for your message addressed to Dr. Solomon.  I concur with you.  Online messages have a way of landing in the wrong hands which could result in serious repercussions for God’s community of believers.   So good to see your name in my mailbox again.   I’ve lost track of your ministry in the recent years.  Are you still in India?  I recall with pleasure meeting you at Sat Dal in the late 1980’s and discussing issues of mutual interests.   Thank you for your contribution to God’s mission in India.   Blessings,   Melchi   Melchizedek M. Ponniah, Ph.D. Department of Communication Andrews University Berrien Springs, MI 49103 (269) 471-3162

We must affirm caste as unique cultural and in some cases geographic communities that we should celebrate and not deny.  A brahmin cannot but remain a brahmin, so does a nadar. We affirm the need for caste-based marriages as first choice as God’s means for nurturing Godly families. We also affirm based on God’s revelation in nature and His word that in a deeper, complementary bio-cultural reality `He created them male and female’ and even that were told dissolves in Eternity. However, Dalit communities that find their traditional identifiers a reminder of their oppressive past, must be free to change their names.   Just some thoughts on a debate that starts with the wrong assumptions about caste and dumps the baby with the bath water. In this liberated belief about caste, race and one’s identity happy and content to belong to the Nadar community – have to be careful to die to a certain kind of pride when it raises its head.

Chakravarthy

Thanks for your thoughts, Chakravarthyji. There is a story behind this which is a meeting just on Monday night with Alex Harris here at USCWM where he simply did not want to listen at all and posed as a great scholar. It was quite sad and his presentation could be so much better is he would have only listened a little bit and made some adjustments. I can’t think anyone will take him very seriously even though many will agree with his anti-caste stance. But his theories are quite absurd so best to ignore, and the caste questions can be dealt with in response to more sensible people. Dalits are free to change their names, but will only really be free when they can celebrate their community identity rather than run from it, and in Christ that should happen. If the underlying issue/emotion is “we can’t celebrate our community identity so we won’t let you celebrate yours either,” we are certainly not in the realm of the kingdom of God.   Rick

Rajeshji,

The stature of dalits in our country and that of the African-American in the US have some similarities in past social experience though dissimilar in contexts and history. When certain castes were destined only to doing the most menial of tasks such as clean my great grandfather’s dry open toilets i do not think it is fair or just to ask them to retain a name that has historically meant a shameful existence defined by the more powerful communities. It is similar to the situation where the Chinese who toiled on the railroads going West in the US could not own land, had to stay in designated areas, nor get married to the person of their choice because those in power decided so Or that Blacks were to be property to be bought and sold as slaves. If due to my destined vocation my family is labelled untouchables (permanently ritually impure with all its consequent implications) and do not have access to the common village well and have to drink in separate cups and sit on the ground I think they have a right to change their names and their destinies. Thanks to the modern democratic nation states, the framer of the Indian constitution was a dalit, we have a speaker that is a dalit and presidents that were dalit. Today I can enter pretty much any temple as a Hindu from any community. What is incredible  is that Hinduism with its supposedly rigid social rules determining caste  has in a mere 60 years allowed and encouraged so much positive change in society. The `Christian’ west took a lot longer to give up slavery and or racial apartheid. They all justified it from the Book!   

It is interesting that the nadars also legally changed their names from shanars which probably had a shameful connotation. Even today other communities in the deep South will use Shanar as a derogative term to call Nadars. so 150 years back the community leaders felt it necessary to move the British ruled courts to bring about a change in their name and in some way a symbolic act of stating that we will shape who we are and what we will be. That freedom to change is God given and is a birthright and this is embedded in the American constitution as M Luther’s tellingly uses in his I have a dream speech. 

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”  

In America Negroes have moved on to being called Blacks to the current African-American! the Right to self determination. 

The Kingdom of God is as much about breaking human structures and chains of injustice as about turning the other cheek in sacrificing one’s right in obedience to God. There is a time for everything.   

His Kingdom is here and it will advance justice and love towards its destined convergence to its fullness when Christ returns.

God bless and good night

Chakravarthy

Dear bro. Rick Hivner,

Thank you so much for initiating such a good and worthwhile response .

My heart felt appreciation for a mail of this nature to explain your position to us.

 I thank God for giving us this good opportunity to understand each other. Our common goal as missionaries is to bring India to Christ. If we put our minds together and draw up a strategy, we can do more to evangelize very effectively in India. Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

It will be good if I clear the air of some outstanding issues before we move on to the stage to work on the common goal.

You have written that,

“But if my silence has caused distress or furthered misunderstanding, I am truly sorry for that”.

Thank you so much for putting an end to the silence and sharing your feelings and opinions with us.

What  really transpired?

“If anyone was given the impression that there would be public debate and an opportunity for lengthy refutations of presentations, this was certainly never indicated to me. Thus my feeling at the seminar was that your effort to refute what I presented was inappropriate, since the floor was opened for questions, not for attempts at refutation.”

Kindly allow me to explain the situation for my counter presentation.

The need for a  counter presentation:

During Q&A time, Sadhu Chellappa raised a question on casteism. You replied saying that caste is a genetic factor which was contrary to reality and hence I had no other choice but to refute this statement. Besides, you have also written that,

“Since I was not reading a carefully prepared paper at Gurukul, it is possible that I said something I do not really believe, and I hope you will have the grace to accept that and drop this unhappy phrase from further discussion.”

And regarding the microphone issue, you have written that,

“I hope this was not the case, if so my apologies that we had differing perceptions about that gathering.”

Yes brother, since our common goal is to bring India to Christ, let us focus on the strategies that will bring India to Christ. We need to draw up these strategies together in order to  build  the Kingdom of God.

Admitting the facts:

Thank you for admitting the fact that the origin of casteism is unknown…

“This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from.  This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper.  There is a general scholarly consensus that the origins of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out…”

To understand the origin of casteism, we need to analyze the classical literatures of India which are in Tamil and Sanskrit.These are  the only two classical languages of India. 

Between these two classical languages, Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the common people, but a literary language of the scholars alone. Hence we cannot see the natural developments taking place throughout the ages in Sanskrit, as we see it in natural languages. So, the origin of casteism cannot be traced in Sanskrit literature.

The literature in Tamil, a language of the common people as well as the scholars, can be classified in three different stages, in correlation with the caste system.

They are

2. The Literature before the formation of the caste system i.e., Ancient Sangam literature (Classical Tamil  Literature)  [Is there any reference about Brahmins and their occupation in Sangam literature?—db]

2.     The Literature after the formation of the caste system i.e., Medieval literature and

3.    The Literature after the establishment of the caste system i.e., Later literature.

It should be noted here that the referred classifications in correlation with caste system, couldn’t not be seen in Sanskrit as clearly as in Tamil. The natural developments are seen only in spoken languages from time immemorial.

In the Ancient Sangam literature there is no reference for the caste stratification but occupational variations, which occur not only in India but also in the world society. Many confuse occupational variations with casteism since they are not aware of the intricacies of casteism in India.

To understand the culture of the Ancient Tamils and the Indians, before the formation of the caste system, careful study on Sangam literature i.e., Classical Tamil Literature is highly indispensable.

Reference for the practice of the caste system in the society after the formation of the caste stratification, is explicated in the Medieval and Later literature.

Only after the period of Aryavardha, i.e. after 7^th c.A.D, the caste stratification (Law of Manu) was devised by the Aryans. From 9^th c.A.D. caste stratification was evolved  into a caste system. It was Adi Sankara  who incorporated the principles of casteism with Saivism and Vaishnavism, through Advaita Philosophy, and had given religious sanction to the caste stratification which in turn evolved as a caste system.

Now we can see two different systems as follows:

System No.1. – ‘Hinduism’

Aryan Brahminism ( caste system) now known as ‘Hinduism’ / ‘Hindutva’- System that upholds casteism, was devised in Aryavardha;.

Hindutva leaders define the term ‘Hinduism’ as follows:

                        ‘Hindusim is not a religion;  but a way of life.  It has nothing to do with the concept of  God.’                       

The Supreme Court of India also confirmed it.

Mr.L.K.Advani, leader of the Hindutva Movement said that,

‘Hinduism’ is different from ‘Hindu Religion’. We are not religionists. I am ready to debate with anyone on this issue’. His speech-dated 25.05.2003 had been published in the News papers.

The term ‘Hinduism’ refers to the principles of law of Manu. [Pl. give reference—db]

It should be noted here that before 1794 AD, we do not come across the terms ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindu religion’.

System No.2. – ‘Hindu Religion’:

Hindu Religion – Tamilar Samayam, originated in Tamil land.

Saivism and Vaishnavism, the religions of the Bhakthi Movement, emerged and evolved in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language are known as ‘Hindu Religion’ after 1794 AD.

Saivism and Vaishnavism were emerged and evolved in Tamil land due to the mission of St.Thomas, who worked and martyred in Tamil land and Christianity that developed in Tamil land, in Tamil culture and in Tamil language from 1^stc.A.D. is now known as ‘Tamilar Samayam’.

The following are the five fundamental doctrines of the religions of  Saivism and Vaishnavism, developed in the post-Christ era.                       

1.      Doctrine of Trinity

2.      Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation)

3.      Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice

4.      Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and

5.       Doctrine of Salvation by Faith

St. Thomas Tamil Christianity is explained in different aspects in Indian literature and they are as follows:

1.      Historical aspect

2.      Mythical aspect

3.      Literary aspect                        

4.      Theological and Philosophical aspect and

5.    Iconographic aspect

To comprehend the two different systems, let us elucidate the difference between the terms ‘Hindu Religion’ and ‘Hinduism’ as follows:

A Tank – Weed:

‘Hindu Religion’ of the Tamils, natives of India, is a beautiful tank with plenty of crystal clear water .

‘Hinduism’ of the Aryans, group of foreign invaders and traders, is a mass or weed that has clouded and defrayed the beauty of the tank.

‘Hindu Religion’ can be explained as a system that upholds equality, brotherhood and unity, the principles of Christ.

‘Hinduism’ is a system i.e. casteism that upholds discrimination, against the principle of Christ.

Crystal clear water i.e. ‘Hindu religion’ (system of unity) can be unveiled if the mass i.e., ‘Hinduism’ (system of discrimination) that dominated and defrayed the beauty of the tank, is removed.

Aryans:

The groups of foreign invaders who came in various periods, without any religion of their own, are Persians, Greeks, Sakas, Kushanas and Huns, were denoted by a common term ‘Aryan’  by the Indian Dravidians. The different periods of their invasion of India are given below:

7. Persians –   6th c.B.C.
8. Greeks   –   4th c.B.C.
9. Sakas     – 2nd c.B.C.
10. Kushans  – 1st c.A.D 
11. Huns       – 4th c.A.D. and
12. Romans   – 4^th c.B.C. They were not invaders but they came for trade purpose and were also included in the term ‘Aryan’ since they also came without any religion of their own.

Until 7th c.A.D. the invading groups were not united together. They were not united and lost political domination.They were also waging war against each other.

During the period of the great emperor Harshavardha, all of them lost their political power. They  later united together on the basis of their light or pale colour, in order to regain the political power, The invading groups joined together and formed a United Front at Mount Abu of Rajasthan, They plotted against the emperor Harshavardha and killed him.  Because of their united effort, they were able to capture the political power from the Indian Dravidians in North India and they formed ‘Aryavardha’, the Kingdom of the Aryans.

Once the Aryans captured political power, they devised the principles of casteism and wrote the Law of Manu. In 9^th c.A.D. caste stratification got religious sanction. Let us now see  the origin of casteism as follows:

[It should be noted here that we could not see reference for the Rajputs before 7^th c. A.D.]

ORIGIN OF CASTEISM

 FOUR STAGES FOR SLAVERY:

 First stage –  Ethnic Groups

 Society living as ethnic groups all over the world.

Second stage – Political Power:

Amongst the ethnic groups political power emerges – Petty Rulers. 

Third Stage:  – Control over other ethnic group:

When one ethnic group defeated and won the other ethnic group it started controlling the defeated ethnic group.

Fourth Stage: – Slavery:

The conquering ethnic group starts enslaving the vanqished ethnic group and rules over them. When the defeated ethnic group regains  political power, it  starts enslaving the other ethnic group.  Thus slavery is perpectuated.

These Four stages occur all over the world through the ages.

POLITICAL POWER ALONE IS THE ROOT CAUSE FOR SLAVERY.

OFFSHOOT OF  SLAVERY IS RACISM

Fifth Stage : Racism

When a ruling ethnic group wants to permanently maintain slavery over an other ethnic group once defeated by them,they will formulate new philosophy to justify enslavement. In this manner Racism emerges as a philosophy. Biological factors, genes, skin pigmentation, colour differentiation and similar factors… are focused and described as various criteria to justify racism.

POLITICAL POWER AND PHILOSOPHY JUSTIFYING ENSLAVEMENT ARE ROOT CAUSES FOR RACISM.

It should be noted that Political power and a philosophy justifying enslavement are based on external factors.  It has  nothing to do with internal religious beliefs.

OFFSHOOT OF  RACISM IS CASTEISM :

Sixth Stage: Casteism:

  If the ruling ethnic group is a minority and the enslaved ethnic group is majority, it is natural for the ruling minority to have a fear about the majority group that they would unite together and dethrown the minority at any opportune time. Therefore the ruling minority group is forced to keep the majority weak by fragmenting them into so many divisions and making the divisions to hate and degrade each other.  In India, this has been achieved by introducing a graded group of system called caste system.

For the majority to be fragmented into so many divisions and making them to hate, degrade and fight against each other, the religious beliefs of the majority have been utilized. For this, the minority has twisted and misinterpreted the religious beliefs of the majority according to their selfish interests.

It would be of interest to note that this can be done only in respect of a nation where the ruling minority has no religion of its own  and the majority ruled by them have their own religions.  If the ruling minority has a religion of its own, it would not opt to follow the religions of the majority and manipulate it according to the interest of the ruling minority.

THUS,

(1) POLITICAL POWER,

(2)     PHILOSOPHIES JUSTIFYING ENSLAVEMENT  AND   

(3)     RELIGIOUS SANCTION  BY TWISTED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE MAINTAINING   CASTEISM.

·     Root cause for Slavery              –             Political power

·     Root cause for Racism               –            Political Power + Philosophy

                                                                    justifying enslavement

·     · Root cause for Casteism   –              Political Power + Philosophy

                                                                           justifying enslavement + Religious

                                                      sanction by manipulated religious beliefs.

OUR GOAL :

You have written that,

“I am not confident that any meaningful interaction can happen in this kind of email interaction …..”

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Yes, we cannot explain everything through email.  Since our goal is to bring India to Christ, kindly form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the different perspectives, comprehend and build strategies to evangelize very effectively in India. Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Expecting your kind reply.

Once again I thank you so much for initiating a good relationship between all of us in the Lord Jesus Christ by your kind and touching response.

In Christ,

Sis. Devakala Deivanayagam.

After reading Dr. Devakala Deivanayagam’s response to Rick’s mail, I have decided not to post my response which I wrote since last few weeks on the topic discussed in this Forum.  I am not a scholar to enter any discussion with other scholars like Dr. Devakala.  But I enjoy reading scholarly works.  My limited reading of several books by scholars like P. V. Kane, Chaturvedi Badrinath. S.A.A. Rizvi , Tapan Raychaudhuri,, Vijay Nath, Ramchandra Guha , S.N. Balagangadhara,, Arvind Sharma , Ansar Hussain Khan, Daud Ali,   S Ghate, Anantanand Rambachan , Pavan K Varma, Daya Krishna, Dipankar Gupta, Christophe Jaffrelot , William Dalrymple , Francis X. Clooney, Gavin Flood, Madeleine Biardeau, Gunther D. Sontheimer, H. L. Richard, Jan Gonda, Richard King, Patrick Olivelle, C.J. Fuller , Paul  Deussen, Susan Bayly , Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty , Ronald B. Inden, Julius J. Lipner, David Ludden , Giovanni Verardi , R.De Smet , Richard Fox Young , Ralph T.H. Griffith, Hans  Staffner, R.C.Zaehener , Maurice Phillips , N.T. Wright , Klaus K. Klostermaier, Edwin Bryant to mention only few is not convincing me to agree with Dr. Devakala’s conclusions.  There is no point of responding taking point by point, as I know that we will never agree with our responses. So the best way to keep peace is ‘Let us agree to disagree’ and part cordially. 

I request Dr. Ramaswami (Solomon) to remove my name from the mailing list.  Thanks. God bless you.

Dayanand Bharati, Gurukulam, July 12, 2010

Hello brother Bharati,

Casteism and Racism (based on one’s skin color) are deadly poisons in the World Society today, especially in the church; hence, we cannot as Christians (disciples of Jesus Christ) ignore or avoid it. We need to have a very clear understanding of it and make absolutely sure that it is not entangled in our mission strategies.

Hence this is very crucial discussion.

It is very important to understand the development of the Indian Caste System and how Racism (based on one’s skin color) was birthed from it. I have enclosed my article on the same. I see two thoughts expressed in your email. First you state that you are not a scholar, but secondly you list numerous books you have read (though a subset of your reading), that have convinced you to disagree with the facts laid out by Dr Devakala. As a promoter of the ‘People Movement Approach’, it is very important that you clearly outline what facts have been presented in these books and others you have read that have convinced you otherwise on Casteism.

So, can we agree to disagree on Casteism? I say no, that is not till all the facts are clearly laid out and discussed since this is too crucial an issue to ignore or avoid.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

The Development of Casteism and Racism in

the World Society

Let’s start with a historical world perspective using Angus Madison economic research into the regions of India, China, UK and USA. The vertical axis is GDP % of World Total.

The above graph is self-evident; it should be noted that the x-axis is not to scale. The Caste System was invented sometime early during the Rajput period (650-1200 AD) with the Vedic ancestors setting themselves up as the priests or Brahmins and the Rajputs as the warriors or Kshatriyas.  The Rajputs were no warriors. Khurana [K.L. Khurana, Political and Cultural History of India, 1992, page 362] points out the salient features of the Rajput period,

1. India remained free from foreign attacks during the Rajput period except for a mild invasion of Sindh by Arabs. This invasion also proved to be ineffective due to the sudden death of Muhammad bin Qasim, the leader of the Arabs. The absence of foreign raids rendered the people lazy and uncaring of military preparations. The feeling of patriotism was getting weak and it affected the national unity. Moreover, it created a sense of superiority and pride among

Indians that they were omnipotent.

2. India had no relations with the other countries of the world. It made the Indian civilization and culture to stagnate. Relations with China and the West were snapped due to political changes in Central Asia. Having been cut off from intercourse with progressive countries India could not forge ahead.

3. It is stated by foreign travelers like Ibn-Batuta that prostitution was not considered as an evil.  There were several shortcomings in religion. People were habitual of drinking. Morality, chastity and religious contemplation had bidden adieu, and intoxication and luxury were the order of the day. The monasteries and dwelling places of monks and nuns had become the centers of immorality and luxury. Casteism and Racism in the World Society July 2010

4. The entire northern India was divided into small principalities. These always remained at daggers drawn with one another. The political unity of India received a great setback during this period. These small kingdoms were getting weaker all the more day by day due to their mutual conflicts. They failed to patch up their difference even at the time of foreign attacks.

5. The presence of Charans and Bhats (bards) was a new feature of the Rajput period. They were appointed at the courts to recite poems in praise of their masters. They also used to sing the heroic deeds of the ancestors of Rajputs. They used to accompany the army to the battlefield.  Their duty was only to sing the heroic deeds and rouse the feelings of courage and bravery in the soldiers. They often used to act as messengers. The Vedic Ancestors were no priests either. In ancient India, prior to the Christian era, there were two types of philosophers – Brachmanes and Sarmanes, also called in literature as Brahmanas and Samanas, who were theists and agnostics respectively. Buddha is often referred to as samana Gautama. Also amongst the Brahmanas, there were some who lived an austere life while others though living an austere life for a while, transitioned to regular family life with comforts.

Many scholars today ignorantly link the Brahmanes (or Brahmanas) with the Vedic ancestors of the modern day Brahmins and the Tevijja Sutta is typically quoted as evidence. However, lets investigate the Tevijja Sutta. First in verse 2 we see that these Brahmanas were wealthy.

Now at that time many very distinguished and wealthy Brahmans were staying at Manasakata; to wit, Kanki the Brahman, Tarukkha the Brahman, Pokkharasadi the Brahman, Janussoni the Brahman, Todeyya the Brahman, and other very distinguished and wealthy Brahmans.

Then we see in verse 10 that these Brahmanas taught various paths of salvation to Brahman

‘Concerning the true path and the false, Gotama. Various Brahmans, Gotama, teach various paths. The Addhariya Brahmans, the Tittiriya Brahmans, the Chandoka Brahmans [the Chandava Brahmans], the Bavharija Brahmans. Are all those saving paths? Are they all paths which will lead him, who acts according to them, into a state of union with Brahma?

‘Just, Gotama, as near a village or a town there are many and various paths, yet they all meet together in the village — just in that way are all the various paths taught by various Brahmans –the Addhariya Brahmans, the Tittiriya Brahmans, the Chandoka, Brahmans, the Bavharija Brahmans. Are all these saving paths? Are they all paths which will lead him, who acts according to them, into a state of union with Brahma?’

Brahman is defined by the Brahma Sutras (1.1.2) as the Omniscient, Omnipotent, all merciful Being from whom proceeds the origin of all things. To a Brahmana, Brahman is God. Also, the Jews divided their scriptures into three books, often called the TaNaK: Torah, Books of Moses; N’vi-im, Prophets; K’tuvim, Writings)

Regarding the three Vedas, there is nothing in the Tevijja Sutta to indicate that it refers to the Rig, Yajur and Sama, rather the opposite seems apparent. On the contrary in verse 25 of the the Tevijja Sutta Buddha clearly states that the practice of those calling on Indra, Soma or Varuna are non-Brahmanic qualities.

‘In just the same way, Vasettha, do the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, — omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brahman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men non-Brahmans — say thus: “Indra we call upon, Soma we call upon, Varuna we call upon, Isana we call upon, Pajapati we call upon, Brahma we call upon!”

Verily, Vasettha, that those Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, but omitting the practice of those qualities which really make a man a Brahman, and adopting the practice of those qualities which really make men non-Brahmans — that they, by reason of their invoking and praying and hoping and praising, should, after death and when the body is dissolved, become united with Brahma verily such a condition of things can in no wise be!’

Certain Vedic deities merged into Sun or Surya worship [A.L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India, Rupa & Co, 1994, page 315] and the evidence of the type of worship practiced by these Sun worshippers is well evident in the Sun Temples today with its explicit pornographic sculptures. Apart from this, Monism entered India after the 8th c AD as a philosophy called Advaita developed by Adi Sankara. Advaita claims that this truth is concealed by the ignorance of illusion. Advaita teaches that there is no becoming either of a thing by itself or out of some other thing. It teaches that there is no individual self or soul (Jiva ), only the Atman (all-soul). Individuals may be temporarily delineated from ‘allsoul’ just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space. When the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space.

Advaita affected India in several ways. It destroyed the theistic faith of the Hindus by leading to Pantheism – many paths, individual worships and polytheism. Advaita also taught that the process of reaching the ‘all-soul’ is achieved by Reincarnation or Cycle of Birth, which is the cyclic return of a soul to live another life in a new body.  Monism brings a false sense of unity and hope by the deception that no matter what path is chosen, ultimately we will all end up in the same place. However this false sense of unity is soon disturbed by the social disparity which becomes apparent, and this is where the cycle of birth is utilized. It is then taught that the one enjoying the higher status is due to his/her karma in the previous birth, and if one would presently follow dharma, i.e. Manu Dharma in this birth, then he/she could also enjoy the higher status in their next birth. 

Another important fact during the Rajput period is brought out in the account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws and astrology of India about AD 1030 by Alberuni (edited by Dr. Edward C. Sachau). He states that,

“The Indian scribes are careless, and do not take pains to produce correct and well-collated copies. In consequence, the highest results of the author’s mental development are lost by their negligence, and his book becomes already in the first or second copy so full of faults, that the text appears as something entirely new, which neither a scholar nor one familiar with the subject,whether Hindu or Muslim, could any longer understand. It will sufficiently illustrate the matter if we

tell the reader that we have sometimes written down a word from the mouth of Hindus, taking the greatest pains to fix its pronunciation, and that afterwards when we repeated it to them, they had great difficulty in recognizing it.”

This is a clear opposite to Hiuen Tsiang’s time in the 7th c AD, when this young Chinese Buddhist scholar came to India on a mission to find authentic sacred books which he accomplished. This is an important fact since all the ancient writings of Indian thought were corrupted and our ancient history distorted to elevate the so called Aryans and degrade the inhabitants of the land, the Dravidians. Thus the land of India came under the control of the above Brahmins and Kshatriyas during the Rajput period. The top three Varnas in the Caste System – Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas constitute about 12% of India’s population. However, in spite of all this, the GDP of the land of India was still very good by World standards, but, China was slowly gaining. The onset of the Moslems did not help any; however, it was not till the 1800s we see a horrendous decline. What could have caused it? Racism in the World Society July 2010

Racism, based on one’s skin color or Varna, as a well-developed theory in the world society is a fairly recent phenomenon. If racism was prevalent in Shakespeare’s day, he would not have written his play Othello which portrays a black man marrying a white woman in the 17th century! The Encyclopedia Britannica states that, The 18th century was predominantly environmentalist in its outlook; the science of that day tended to attribute social behavior either to climatic and geographical environment or to sociocultural factors. Racism as a widely accepted “scientific” theory of behavior did not appear until the 19th century, which was the age of racism par excellence. Although Charles Darwin himself was not a racist, his theory of biological evolution was extended to social evolution, giving birth to the theory of social Darwinism. Mankind was regarded as having achieved various levels of evolution, culminating in the white-European civilization. These stages of evolution were thought to be related to the innate genetic capabilities of the various peoples of the world. By the second half of the 19th century, racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists, and various forms of it were popularized through the writings of Joseph-Arthur, comte de Gobineau. Houston Stuart Chamberlian, Rudyard Kipling, Alfred Rosenberg, and Adolf Hitler.

A question naturally rises as to why racism arose in the world society in the 19th century, though it has been prevalent in India from about the 8th century that is from the time of Adi Sankara. The answer is found in the fact that in 1794 William Jones started publishing his translation of Manu Dharma which was in Sanskrit into English. The British Dictionary of National Biography states,

As a great Jurist Jones understood that the power of England in India must rest on good administration, and that the first requisite was to obtain a thorough mastery of the existing systems of law in India, and to have them codified and explained. In short, in his own words, ‘he purposed to be the Justinian of India’ (TEIGNMOUTH, ii. 88). With this idea in his mind, he decided to prepare a complete digest of Hindu and Muhammadan law, as observed in India: and to assist him in the colossal labor he collected round him learned native pundits and Muhammadan lawyers. He did not live long enough to complete this task, but he was enabled to publish the first stages in his masterly rendering of the ‘Institutes of Hindu Law, or the Ordinances of Menu (Manu), 1794………The British came to India for trade; however, they deceptively took control by setting Indian against Indian, assisted by the Vedic ancestors, the Brahmins. This completely destroyed India’s moral fibre and ruined its economy. The Brahmins worked with the British to take control of India. They were quick to portray Manu Dharma (the law of the Caste System based on one’s skin color or varna) as the Hindu law, and through the translation of William Jones this poison entered the society of the world. As stated earlier racism was accepted as fact by a vast majority by the second half of the 19th century and many European scholars under its influence started identifying with the Brahmins. A.A. McDonnell in his book titled ‘India‘s Past‘ (Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1927) writes, “This work summarizes India’s intellectual history, which in its various aspects has been the subject of my studies for slightly more than half a century (1875 to 1926). It sets forth in nine chapters the mental development of the most easterly branch of Aryan civilization since it entered India by land till it came in contact by sea with the most westerly branch of the same civilization after a separation of at least 3,000 years. The four centuries that have since elapsed (1498 to 1926) are here touched upon only as showing the most recent distribution of the Indian vernaculars and the rise of their literature, as well as the process by which the development of the purely indigenous period gradually became known to the new-comers from the west….These two civilizations, starting from a common source, have after a separation of at least 3,000 years again become united during the last four centuries, representing together a quarter of the total of the earth’s inhabitants. During these four centuries the new-comers from the west have gained acquaintance with and recovered the history of India’s past mental development. At this, as set forth in the following pages, will, I trust, contribute something to clearer mutual understanding by two civilizations which in their origin were one and the same“.

Now that the Rajputs were out of power, and the Moslems probably were not interested in their offerings, the Brahmins now found a new customer – the British. The traits of the British were well known especially to men like Gandhi from South Africa. The year following after the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre in 1919 (http://appiusforum.net/jallianwallah.html), Mahatma Gandhi launched his first Indian Satyagraha (“clinging to the truth”) campaign; he was well aware of the atrocities of the British against the Boers. The following is an extract from The Concentration Camps, 1899-1902, by Hennie Barnard

England laid her hands on the mineral riches of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (Transvaal) under the false pretense of protecting the rights of the foreigners who swarmed to the Transvaal gold fields. On the battlefield England failed to get the better of the Boers, and decided to stoop to a full-scale war against the Boer women and children, employing a holocaust to force the burghers to surrender. Under the command of Kitchener, Milner and Roberts, more than homesteads and farms belonging to Boer people were plundered and burned down. Animals belonging to the Boers were killed in the cruelest ways possible while the women, whose men were on the battlefield, had to watch helplessly. The motive behind this action was the destruction of the farms in order to prevent the fighting burghers from obtaining food, and to demoralize the Boers by leaving their women and children homeless on the open veld. However, England

misjudged the steel of the Boer people. Despite their desperate circumstances, the women and children managed to survive fairly well in the open and their men continued their fight against the invader. More severe measures had to be taken. The English hoarded the Boer women and children into open cattle trucks or drove them on foot to concentration camps. To the world England pretended to act very humanely by caring for the fighting Boers’ women and children in “refugee camps”. An English school textbook published in 1914 in Johannesburg, but printed in England, Historical Geography: South Africa, by JR Fisher, makes the following claim: “During the later stages of the war, the relations, women and children, of those Boers still in the field, were fed and cared for at the expense of Great Britain, a method of procedure which, though humane, postponed the end of the war, at the expense of many valuable lives and much money.” This statement is contradicted by various sources. The Cape Argus of 21 June 1900 clearly states that the destitution of these women and children was the result of the English’s plundering of farms: “Within 10 miles we (the English) burned not less than six farm homesteads. Between 30 and 40 homesteads were burned and totally destroyed between Bloemfontein and Boshoff. Many others were also burned down. With their houses destroyed, the women and children were left in the bitter South African winter in the open.” The British history text book says nothing about this.

Please visit http://appiusforum.net/hellkamp.html for the complete horrendous details with more pictures. Their only crime was that they stood between England and the gold of Transvaal

If not for Gandhi’s Satyagraha, Indians would have been massacred in the thousands. However, it was the disgust of the world to greed and war after WW II that liberated India in 1947. So while we can classify the Nazis as ravaging beasts, we must classify the British as deadly poisonous snakes well hidden in the grass. They have been labeled as the biggest drug trafficker (http://appiusforum.net/guardian_article.html) of all time (please see Time Asia article also – http://appiusforum.net/time_asia.html).

The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998 CD edition captures this dark history, The first major national efforts to control the distribution of narcotic and other dangerous drugs were the efforts of the Chinese in the 19th century. Commerce in poppy (opium) and coca leaf (cocaine) developed on an organized basis during the 1700s. The Manchus of China attempted to discourage opium importation and use, but the English East India Company, which maintained an official monopoly over British trade in China, was engaged in the profitable export of opium from India to China. This monopoly of the China trade was eventually abolished in 1839-42, and friction increased between the British and the Chinese over the importation of opium. Foreign merchants, including those from France and the United States, were bringing in ever-increasing quantities of opium. Finally, the Manchu government required all foreign merchants to surrender their stocks of opium for destruction. The British objected, and the Opium War (1839-42) between the Chinese and the British followed. The Chinese lost and were forced into a series of treaties with England and other countries that took advantage of the British victory. In 1858 the importation of opium into China was legalized by the Treaty of Tientsin, which fixed a tariff rate for opium importation.

Further difficulties followed. An illegal opium trade carried on by smugglers in south China encouraged gangsterism and piracy, and the activity eventually became linked with powerful secret societies in the south of China. 

An experience a few years ago with some brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho prompted me on the research above. One of them had travelled to India on a mission’s journey and came back with the “typical American Evangelical” perspective, stories, pictures, etc. My wife and I spent hours explaining but

it made no difference. I then felt in my spirit that I was missing something in my historical research. It was then that God opened my understanding through Angus Madison’s research and confirmed the role of the British in India.

Sometime later I did meet with my brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho. I started to explain how the region of India and China were the most affluent in the world till the onset of the British, and their role in destroying the land of India and China, and, the birth of Global Racism based on one’s skin color. I hardly took a minute or two and they all got it! In closing, my thoughts are,

· Our objective is to make disciples not bring in the multitudes. (There were two types who followed Christ–one was His disciples and the other the crowds or multitudes (http://appiusforum.net/christian.html)

· In the past the biggest separation was between Jew and Gentile, and, Christ has broken down the wall of partition (Ephesians 2). Hence, a Church has to be multi-ethnic.

· Any strategy MUST be defined on the right historical perspective since otherwise it will either fail or introduce leaven into the church.

· The right historical perspective also enables us as Paul writes, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all

disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled” (2 Cor 10:4-6).

With warm regards,

Alex

Vanakam Swamiji
I thank you for your reply.  When I received a mail from Dr. Alex he asked me to share with others if I want.  I was familiar with the writings of Dr. McGavran.  It appeard that Alex expected me to look at the issue from a new perspective which I did and still doing.  As Thiruvalluvar said Epporul yar yar vai katpinum apporul meiporul kanpatharivu.  when I see conflicts of ideas expressed I am excited to read and understand the different perspectives.  These are my principles as I involve myself in any academic discussion.
What one believes is real to him. One must be true to his conviction. Honest people will honestly disagree. One must keep his mind open for new understanding. I started to write my response, but did not complete it My computer was attacked by a virus that affected my work in the computer.  I could not open any program. Dr. Hedlund asked me to convey his greetings to you.  I do not plan to share anymore mail that come to me on this issue.  I have better things to do and practical things to do. We plan to come to Bangalore in August.  We are waiting for the visa from Indian consulate.
Wish you well
with regards
Ramasamy

Dear All:

I am sorry if in any way I say anything out of turn. I am not even in the scene as an academic, I’m only a small-time amateur dabbler in the field of history of Christianity and India. I dearly love the Lord and his people, and am happy we can communicate in a constructive manner. Since Dr. Alex Harris and Dr. Devakala separately forwarded this conversation to me I was contemplating talking to her on the phone today when I happened upon this response, and as a result I just thought it would be better to just respond to it.

Dr. Hivner, I fully understand the position you have taken in this debate so far, and if you feel that the material that Dr. Devakala and Dr. Harris brought into the debate or bemused by the method of open refutation or disputation, I do fully affirm that feeling. I use the word “bewildering” advisedly because I reacted in exactly the same way when I was first confronted with it over 10 years ago. Dr. Deivanayagam and Dr. Devakala have been immersed in this research for about 3 decades now, and Dr. Harris too, as far as I know, has been into this for almost 20 years. 

The outcome of the patient research, publication and training undertaken by the Deivanayagams has, in the past decade or so, found increasing acceptance in academic circles in Tamil Nadu, where the scholars specialising in their chosen field – Saivism and Ancient Tamil Literature, are based. This is not to say that it is not controversial, because their works are, as far as I know, counter to the existing trends in scholarship, whether in the secular university system, and in theological circles, both “Hindu” and Christian. I can say that it is finding more and more takers not because I am a scholar working in these fields but was a participant in a large colloquium organised by them in Chennai a couple of years ago where there were large numbers of scholars, religious heads, students of the related subjects, and Christian pastors and theologians of almost all sections – including Catholic – in fact, the event was co-hosted by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese in thier own premises. 

I have a fair knowledge of spoken Tamil, even the slightly technical language used in the debates and so was able to glean in the four-day programme, sufficent information to understand that the heads of departments and professors of Tamil/History of the oldest and most prestigious universities – Madras and Madurai, and scholars and professors from Loyola and TTS, Madurai, were present, to listen, participate and respond. I can vouch for the fact that there was a very good and healthy debate throughout and the atmosphere conducive to debate, barring on one occasion, which became tense due to one participant using strong language in his talk which was objected to by a few people from the floor. This was defused by a humble, meaningful and even-handed response by Dr. Deivanayagam who in my opinion is a real man of God. 

For me, as a lay participant auditing the meeting, there was a lot of learning and it was heartening to see what was very much opposed in earlier years had now gained currency and was slowly almost becoming mainstream. Independent research by unconnected researchers showed results which corroborated/complemented a number of the points being raised by the Deivanayagams.

What I wanted point out through this is that these methods – debate in an open forum, instant response/rebuttal, etc., is very much a method which has been in vogue in Indian culture since ancient times.  Formal presentation, publication of journal articles, peer review, etc, also do happen, and especially in formal academic institutions both secular and (Christian) theological.

However, in keeping with our oral tradition, these formally accepted methods are probably less influential in typically Indian-style places of learning. As Saivism, Vaishnavism, Veerashivism/Lingayatism, etc continue to be strong streams of faith and teaching in India and the Deivanayagams engage with them perhaps much more than they engage the formal systems, it is natural that they adopt methods which are conducive to dialogue with these schools. In fact, it was this method – or a modified version of it – which was adopted at the large event I referred to earlier, and everyone concerned was quite comfortable with the format.

May I humbly suggest that a large part of this issue is because of this different methodology/ cultural approach? 

Coming to the Gurukul event around which this discussion is taking place, and being well-trained and experienced as a debater in this manner, Dr. Devakala’s taking issue with you is the floor in keeping with this practice, which may have been startling for you.  But this approach is, I dare say, not very alien to discourse in the circles within which she mostly works.

This is not to take any sides on the subject, though my personal position is open to their opinions, and in broad agreement, though I do need to study their material more closely, and intend to do when I have an opportunity. I may add that even as a child of about 14, I often used to feel that the kind of “Christianity” we experienced in India alienated me from my cultural roots and I used to long for a more “rooted” faith and spiritual practice. I also wondered how it was that even though a direct disciple of Jesus had lived, served and been martyred on our soil, so little of his witness survived here. I believe the work of the Deivanayagams does something to answer this question, and that their work has already begun to show a huge impact here. 

I apologise most heartily in advance if anyone feels hurt by either the form or content of my communication, which, I humbly offer, and which I hope will perhaps bring in some more clarity. And if anyone disagrees with the content of what I offer, I will not offer any defence as I feel I have already taken liberties by putting in my two cents’ worth into this erudite debate, and will like Job cover my mouth and remain silent.

Most humbly,

Cynthia Stephen

Cynthia Stephen
Independent Writer and Researcher

And may you be blessed with the foolishness to think that you can make a difference in the world, so that you will do things which others tell you cannot be done
“Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they’re a mouthy lot and they don’t line up and salute very easily.”  Margaret Atwood : Canadian Literary Icon

Dear Dr. Devakala,

I am afraid your reply confirms to me the points I opened my last email with. I really do not see that there is any way forward for us to carry on a meaningful dialogue due to vastly varying perceptions and presuppositions. Let me amplify this with two points.

First is just the general understanding of history and how we approach history. R. E. Frykenberg, a historian of India who is a follower of Christ, has written this about history:

“Historical understandings are never absolute and never complete. They are always tentative – sometimes highly so and sometimes hardly at all. Historical knowledge, in technical terms, is never entirely certain. It is never entirely free from question. This always being so, in some measure, the task of the historian is to maximize plausibility.”

I do not see any evidence of this attitude and approach in your writings, which seem to me to be ideologically driven. All of your historical points below would need to be rewritten as tentative explorations before I could even imagine engaging them in discussion and research.

Second, you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research. There are many different currents in that stream and plenty of disagreements, but there is a broad perspective from which the academic tradition carries on its work. You are clearly and intentionally outside that stream, and do not even bother to interact with it. For me to in any way interact with your position I would need to see that you have deeply grappled with this mainstream position. (I hinted at this in my last email by my suggestion that you respond to Caste and Christianity by Duncan Forrester.) Your total dismissal of Sanskrit in your email below is not a valid way to respond to the academic world. I am a very small bit player (not even that really) in this academic consensus so it is not for me to represent that against your position, and I cannot assume such a role.

So it seems to me the only way forward here is to agree to disagree and trust God to do his work in us, and perhaps someday in His grace our differences will be overcome.

May God lead and guide you,

In grace,

Rick Hivner

Dear Dr. Rick Hivner,

I was taken aback by the reference to your presentation at Gurukul on June 26 where you were purported to have said that caste is a genetic factor.  On the face of it, it sounded utterly preposterous.  I allowed the benefit of the doubt to linger until it was clarified forthrightly. This appears to have happened in your response to Dr. Devakala (the date is missing).  I do not speak for Dr. Devakala. 

I am very marginal to the serious exchanges that have occurred and might continue.  Yet, as a long time movement orientated Christian Indian layman wherever I happened to be, I have exercised my mind faithfully about the need for the melding of the Christian presence in India and the Indian culture. 

The use of the adjective “genetic” to denote what is ostensibly an ingrained caste mentality of Indians of all shades triggered my attention to the brewing discussion.  My mind playfully raced with the absurdity of man-made genetics (a contradiction) and a more likely speculation on the eugenics of the caste system!  Well, we are not engaged in an undergraduate classroom exercise.  I am glad you are distancing yourself from the acute meaning of what you have referred to as an “unhappy” phrase. You have preceded it by saying that if you had said anything resembling that “caste is genetic” at Gurukul, you were hoping [the participants would understand] that “it was qualified in many and various ways and was in the context of the exceeding complexity of the topic”. 

After seeing your response to Dr. Devakala and reading the two articles you have mentioned (Religious Movements in Hindu social contexts… and the Community Dynamics in India…), I see the inadvertence. I have not been boxed into any theological ground to stand on, just as well.  I have resolutely remained a layman, well, a layperson.  I see the seriousness of the focus of your extensive scholarship with your specified mission on hand. As for refutation, it would be inappropriate, rather crass, for reconciling differences in the perceptions of committed lives.

With due appreciation and concern, I would like to raise a string of questions on the issue for further mulling by all of us evincing interest: In the present influx of rapid change (more than appearing to be so) that is uprooting just about everything in India from the 20^th century on to this day, why would you and other like-minded faithful and scholars like to leave caste (gothra, jati and such) essentially unchanged? How do we (leaving aside the ad hominem reference to de Nobili, K.S. Singh, MM., Newbegin, Reddy et al) square the underpinnings of the mentality of that system to Christ, his life and teachings in our guts? If at all, what inner virtues would you discern in the underpinnings of the caste system, even if you denounce it otherwise, that would be valid for all Indians (without distinction) as they are struggling with the torrent of change to lead to a greater human future for all?   Is the caste system still an all-encompassing nub of the culture of India that the ‘strategy’ for spreading the Gospel could also/only be tethered to that nub?  Could not the ‘strategy’ (in itself self-serving), even if not meant to uphold the original (asal, authentic) sin of the Indian culture, be seen as countering the near renaissance currents of modern India, beginning the Indian National Movement to the inauguration of the Constitution of the Republic of India?  Great many Christian Indian leaders were part of the modern Indian mind that squarely relegated the caste system (varnashrama dharma system!) to being a case of  “communalism”.  The asal (authentic) Indian contempt the phrase carries was so designed to reflect what was grossly exceptional to Indian life.  At best, it was/is a verbal enabler (a euphemism, more aptly, idakkar adakkal in Tamil) to stay focused on the inconvenient truth about us and to trash away what was most oppressive and awkward in our culture.  How can the phrases ‘community’ and ‘communitarian’ (with all the alien sociological assumptions, as though the Christian presence in India is not alien enough) be super-imposed on ‘communal’ and ‘communalism’ without distorting the truth?  What is the ethical rationale, Christian or secular, to what appears to be just recasting a uniquely egregious condition, for the Christian communitarian communities to subsist within the confines of that conditioning?  Communalism is an unvarnished truth that is staring at us unblinking asking for liberation from our sordid conditioning, not victory of the things as they have always been (Satyameve Jayate, an essentially dodging abstraction).  Dr. Alexander Harris has drawn attention to this serious problem.   The strategic consideration of the communalism Christian Indian communities would make our message all the more suspect of insincerity and unauthenticity.  I have said enough.

As an aside, the emerging Tamil scholarship in literature, religious traditions, bakthi movement and history offer much to reflect and re-evaluate great many assumptions about Indian culture and history (The spurious BJP attempt to rewrite history is not one of them). Tamil scholarship, in particular Tamil Christian scholarship,  is boldly emerging,  providing new insights that have long remained ignored, suppressed, or ploughed over.   Dr. Devakala, and Dr. Deivanayagam (her father) may be considered as the cutting edge of this debunking and regenerating surge in Tamil Nadu.  Their risks are immense.  All may not appear to be dandy at the first instance.   By the force of their original research, articulation and risks of a committed life, they are joining step by step into the mainstream of scholarship, of peer review and validation.  Their scholarship cannot be ignored; it has to be factored in if we are in search of liberating truths about us. By the way, similar awakening in other major language communities (!) need to be identified and collated.  If your are familiar with any such efforts, please share that information. 

At least this much I need to share with you as I have invited myself into the exchange.   I am happy to become  marginally familiar with your life of scholarship pertaining to India.  Thanks.

In different lights, may His name, Christ the only name, be glorified.

Sincerely,

Louis Sundaramani Simon.

I might as well add a piece here below that would give a glimpse of the movement I am part of. I also have another essay on “Indian Culture—a Christian Indian perspective”.   It is really not ready yet for releasing.

The Christian Ashram Movement of India (CAM of India)—A Brief

*The Christian Ashram Movement of India is singularly focused on Christian faith and Indian culture—what does the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ in Indian culture or the idea of Christian presence mean to ordinary Christian Indians?  With that fused focus, the Movement will explore, clarify and affirm our Christian Indian identity.

* It is a grassroots’ movement of the ordinary faithful in and out of India that faithfully lead their daily lives in the awareness of God’s love for all His children in India and everywhere.

* Ashram is the pre-eminent spiritual channel of the Indian mind and remains open to all faiths.

* The CAM of India is primarily, a lay-initiated self-reflective movement to deepen and broaden what has remained a quietly passionate, conscious, but scattered awareness of the spiritual and cultural significance of ashram as a natural environment for prayer, meditation, worship and service of the Christian faith.  St. Thomas who germinated the Christian faith in our soil can be rightly seen as the first Christian ashramite, as he became Indian to Indians as other disciples became Greek to Greeks, Roman to Romans, or Ethiopian to Ethiopians.

* Of the many features of the ashram, the CAM of India takes its cue from ashram’s primary meaning, that is, siramam or shram, meaning, a strenuous effort.  Such an effort is within the reach of every Christian Indian to engage in personally and culturally transforming spiritual exercise in India and elsewhere. It is not limited to deep spiritual seekers or the ideal of renunciation, as it is a faith-induced cultural effort in the daily life of the ordinary faithful.

* It upholds the value of human dignity as intrinsic to every human being as a child of God. The secular extension of the value is embedded in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. That makes the value a potent objective of the movement for personal and cultural transformation.

      *The CAM of India will work together with all secular and non-secular efforts in upholding the fundamental value of human dignity as the inclusive bond that interfuses the unity and integrity of India. A nation-wide constituency that would consciously work for this vision is greatly needed.

      *The CAM of India is inclusive of all Christian efforts, irrespective of the

denominational differences, within the scope of the above understanding. The lay leadership of the movement, coming as it does from different denominations, makes the fervent appeal to all of them to consciously infuse in our worship forms of prayer, liturgy, music and singing the elevating tones, texture, and phrases of the richness of the Indian culture. Several churches have begun doing this. Thank God.  Our cultural offering will resoundingly join the universal chorus of all nations in praising God.  It will prove as a blessing to our immediate neighbours as well.

     * Its cultural focus will help make known new research discoveries on the nativism of the Christian Indian roots.  It would also enable Christian Indians shed their meekly held relegated slot as a minority, to emerge and function as a rightful component in the changing spectrum of Indian  culture.

    *The sounding of the incarnate Word, strummed across India by many, will keep it resonating.  By being involved wherever you are in that spirit, you will glow as a Christian ashramite by choice.  

     *As a grass-roots’ movement, the CAM of India leaves aside the need for organisational setups, membership drive, or fund-raising.  Faith and prayer will sustain the movement. Spontaneous mushrooming of the clusters of the movement will, by their very nature, freely determine the foci and the nature of their functioning across India. Please get involved.

             Please initiate conversation on the Christian Ashram website, WWW.christian-ashram.net.    (By L. Sundaramani Simon, a sojourner in the ashram movement. lsimon7248@yahoo.com)

Dear friends in Christ:

I have been keenly following the discussion that has been going on by email, on the issues of how and why we need to address/look at casteisms in India so that we are able to bring a clear critical understanding of our society, its organisation, and the task of bringing the Truth to light under the adverse circumstances caused by these casteist tendencies. 

The history of social change in our culture is impossible to understand without understanding the critical role played by religion. While there is no doubt that the issue of caste is one of the central factors in our society, the anti-caste struggles that have taken place – right from the days of the later Bhakti poets – starting from the first half ot the first millennium to  the 13th C reformer Basaveshwara and on to the people’s poets including Ravidas, Kabir and Tuka – are a clear indication that there was an unbroken history of struggle against religious orthodoxy and hierarchy which the Brahminical religion honed to a high form of political/cultural/social/economic dominance. 

However, colonialism, and the perceived need of the colonisers for legal texts which codified the “law of the Land” enabled the crafty Brahmins of the day to present the Manudharmashastra  as the las of the Land. This was based on the totally wrong understanding by the colonisers that India was one unified religio-cultural whole and the Brahmins constituted the priestly class of the whole population barring the Muslims. This ignored the diversity of faiths, philosophies and worship systems which existed in India   This pernicious text, which institutionalised caste and gender-based discriminatory legal and social practices, excluded the women and the lower castess from learning, restricted their mobility, and prescribed totally inequitable punishments for infractions and crimes, based on the caste , gender and social status of the perpetrator – became the basis for the colonial laws which then began to be administered through religious leaders  in the colonial courts , which in turn became the basis for the existing legal system in India which has still to throw off its colonial shackles.  

However, the Constitution of india, which for all its drawbacks, has been the hope for those who believe in human Rights, religious freedom, equality and justice, as it has given us all these freedoms and in theory, protects us from discrimination on any basis. It even recognises the impediments faced by the women, children, and margnialised populations, and prescribes various amelioratives and correctives to protect thier rights and promote thier equtable development. But the impacts of these have been very much limited, one may even say thwarted,  by the intransigent attitudesof the 15% of the savarna (caste) population who dominate, and hold the decision-making powers, of every institution of the country – political, economic, social, religious, and academic.  The church and many parachurches – are no exception to this situation. That is why even though the marginalised – adivasis, tribals, and Dalits – are present in the church in overwhelming majority, these sections do not have much to do with the leadership and decision-making processes in these insitutions, including in many para-churches and theological institutions.    

That this is indeed the case is exemplified by the fact that even though there has been a legal challenge to the discrimination against Dalits Christians and Muslims in the law for the past 0ver 60 years, the church at large has not seen fit to strongly back the just demands of the Dalit Christians who have been forced to make thier own fronts to struggle for this right. On the contrary, there are huge outcries  by bishops and church administrators whenever there are any attempts to abridge in anyway the managements of “minority” educational institutions – which are basically islands of privilege and wealth in the country. There are  even  sections of the church which glory in the history of Brahminism and privilege, and parachurches which are noted for thier parochial attitude to staffing, leadership and funding.

Therefore, we have a situation where on the one hand the percentage of Christians does not go above 3-4 % overall in the country for 6 decades; on the other one perceives a rising interest in the gospel among large sections of society; especially those who have traditonally not been part of “missions strategies” – the OBCs, who constitute about 65% of our population, but are not part of the elite 15% who rule the roost in India.

To make matters worse, there are some strategies which have been adopted in recent years which, while attempting to address this situation, have not been critically analysed with reference to the logical and ethical impact they may have. Hence, on the one hand, there has been a rise in the perception that large numbers of people are leaving thier traditional faiths and choosing to become Christians due to aggressive conversion drives by dollar-driven groups, and caused an anti-Christian backlash with persecution of certain sections of the Christian population, selectively, by Hindutva’s adherents. 

On the other hand, widespread criticism of the role of the church,its leadership and its institutions,  and the practice of caste within it – on which, indeed, the question of denial of constitutional rights to the Dalits actually has been seen to hinge in the courts of law – remain unaddressed. This is precisely because there are vested interests both inside and outside the church who do not want to address this important, even crucial, political question because it cuts to the core of our existence as a faith community. 

Under the circumstance, the ecclesiastical establishment of almost all denominations, theologial training institutions,missions organisations, and other sections of the mainstream Christian society have tried to get along without addressing the elephant in the living room – the huge discriminations of caste, gender and region which exist within these institutions. While much scholarship is used to promote “biblical” models of church and family leadership, hierarchy,and perpetuate hegemonic practices and beliefs, There is every effort to deprecate those who take positions which question these “givens”.  Still, we who stand on the margins, outside the walls – the women, the Dalits, sections of the OBCs, the youth and poor tribals and adivasis – take comfort from our sure knowledge that Christ has a preferential option for us,and stands with us in our efforts to be a voice crying out in the wilderness of ideas, of liturgical practice, and sexist and casteist practice among us. 

We therefore call upon whoever will, to come, reason this out, with a “listening heart”. We are asking why the conondrum of an increased interest in the gospel among the masses and growth in the churches has not resulted in an outbreak of peace, justice and righteoussness, of improved relationships in our familes, homes, churches, institutions and an end to unethical practices in our schools, hospitals, parachurches, missions.

Too long have we played along with the power blocs in our ecclesiastical and theological and missions establishments.  Too long have we worked out strategies which have yielded short term results without perceiving that they are doomed to failure because they do not address the heart of the matter – the worship of hierarchy, of caste and gender, and have compromised with, even promoted, these aberrations which stand in oppostion to the essence of the gospel.   

We need to sit across the table and understand the philosophical and historical basis of this critique. Hence I call upon our elders – such as Roger Hedlund, and others who like him have spent thier entire lives working on these issues – promote such a dialogue and to work towards a community which will have Christ-like values to distinguish its members, and of whom the world will say: “Look at these people – how they love one another and others!”  ; of whom it will be said “By thier fruits (which will last) we shall know them”.

Humbly, in His Name:

Cynthia  

 Dear bro. Rick Hivner,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

With the following prayer of Jesus Christ kindly allow me to write this mail.

My prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

The divine Grace of God blessed us to be the missionaries to carry His unsurpassed precious teaching to all over the world.

As missionaries, while enjoying the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ, as Christ is in the Father, it is our responsibility to make others to realize and receive the same experience, so that all of us will be one in Christ. 

Our Discussion:

We have been discussing a critical issue on casteism for the past few months.

Does casteism build up ‘Divine Unity? or

A stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

As missionaries, it becomes our responsibility to carefully analyze the stumbling blocks of this ‘Divine Unity’. Discussing the critical issue on casteism in a forum of great scholars and dedicated missionaries is indeed an opportunity and we are simply indebted and thankful to God.

One’s actions are based on one’s thoughts;

One’s thoughts are based on one’s principles;

One’s principles are based on one’s beliefs; and

One’s beliefs are based on one’s religion.

Casteism that has gained religious sanction becomes the fundamental principle of a society that thinks and acts according to this system of thought.

Two systems of thought:

In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that

“you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research………………

I like to mention here that my father Dr.M.Deivanayagam and myself have secured doctorate on Hindu Religion i.e., St.Thomas Tamil Christianity from Madras University. My father has been spending more than 40 years in this academic field, and established his new findings in the academic arena.

In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that

I am a very small bit player (not even that really) in this academic consensus so it is not for me to represent that against your position, and I cannot assume such a role.”

Thank you so much for modestly accepting the reality. The issue that we are discussing is not an issue between just two individuals, but an issue between two different systems.

1.    System that upholds casteism and

2.    System that is striving to uproot casteism.

Hence, instead of a discussion between just two individuals, and as you have said earlier, that you are standing in the broad stream of academic research, discussion among a team of scholars will be very effective. Discussion on this core issue is highly indispensable.

In your reply, you have mentioned the name Duncan Forrester, author of the book titled  Caste and Christianity. Likewise our Bro. Dayanand Bharati has also referred the names of many scholars. I am much thankful to both of you for graciously pointing out the names of many scholars.  Since this crucial issue on casteism should be analyzed in depth in different perspectives , I have finished my last email dated 10-7-2010 with the following demand:

“..kindly form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the different perspectives, comprehend and build strategies to evangelize very effectively in India.”

Established the new findings in the stream of academic research – video recordings:

In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that

“I do not see any evidence of this attitude and approach in your writings…”,

I like to recall my email-dated 25.06.2010 I have clearly furnished the issues, which we have been discussing, has already been established in the broad stream of academic research in 7 stages. For your easy reference, I am tabling a few stages extracted from the earlier mail.

2nd stage:

Proved that Hindu religion is the offshoot of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity, in the stream of academic research – Debate and Video recordings:

 Dr.M.Deivanayagam in 1985 in his Ph.D. thesis titled ‘Comparative study of Bible, Thirukkural and Saiva Siddhantha Sastras Fourteen’ established that ‘Saivism and Vaishnavism’ known as Hindu Religion, are the denominations of St. Thomas Tamil Christianity. Christianity that developed in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language from 1st c.A.D. is now labeled as ‘Thamizhar Samayam’ (Religion of the Tamils). Saiva Siddhantha Sastras are the Theological exposition of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity.

  The International Research Institute on Saiva Siddhantha in Dharumai Aadheenam in Tamilnadu organized a Two Day debate on the 5th and 6  th December 1986 and invited Dr. M. Deivanayagam, author of the thesis, that had created a great excitement.  The said facts were academically presented to the scholars of Saiva Siddhantha from various universities and heads of the Dharumai Adheena Mutt, Thiruppananthal Mutt, under the chairmanship of Kundrakkudi Adheena Mutt. 

Prof. Dr. T.B. Siththalingiah, Head of the Department of Saiva Siddhantha of Kamarajar University, summarized the two days discussions in the following words:

  “A good Research Seminar took place here for the past two days. Dr. M. Deivanayagam has clearly answered all the questions raised by the scholars. When new findings are delivered, we are yet to attain the maturity to accept them immediately. As Dr. M. Deivanayagam said, it was the beginning of an effort to analyze, understand and accept the new findings.   As such, this beginning was done well”

At the end of the seminar, the Head of  Dharumai Aadheena Mutt  honored Dr. Deivanayagam. This programme was video recorded.

3rd stage:                      

Why the challenges could not be met?

 Racial and Caste discriminating principles were devised by the Aryans in 7th c.A.D when they captured political power in India collectively. These discriminating principles were incorporated into ‘Saivism and Vaishnavism’,  denominations of St. Thomas Tamil Christianity in the 9thc.A.D. Thus Christianity that spread in India from the 1st c.A.D. got corrupted and diluted.  Principles of racism and casteism were given religious sanction in the 9thc.A.D. by Adi Sankara and Sankara Mutts were established in the four directions of India to maintain and propagate these principles. Racial and caste discriminating principles are now known as ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’.

Challenges posed by Dr.M.Deivanayagam through letters and books, to the Sankara Mutts and Brahminical forces of Hindutva Movements that corrupted and diluted St.Thomas Tamil Christianity, did not stand up to the challenge, because they were not able to deny the foundational facts that Saivism and Vaishnavism, known as ‘Hindu religion’ is the offshoot of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity and racial and caste discriminating principles, known as ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ that were incorporated into ‘Saivism and Vaishnavism’, were the principles of the Aryans.

4th stage:  

The above  mentioned findings established in the International Conference – New York:

 Our ‘Dravidian Spiritual Movement’ and ‘Institute of Asian Studies’ had jointly organized the ‘First International Conference on Early Christianity in India from the arrival of St.Thomas to Vasco- da-gama’, from 13th  to 16th  August 2005 at Concordia college,  New York.  In the conference the above-mentioned facts were presented and established on the International floor, and the facts were well received by the scholars.

 5th stage:  

‘First International Conference on ‘Thamizhar Samayam’ :

  The above facts have been established and elucidated in the ‘First International Conference on ‘Thamizhar Samayam’, held jointly by our ‘International Movement on the Soulology of the Tamils’ and the ‘Archdiocese of Madras – Mylapore’, from 14th  – 17th  August 2008.

6h stage – 

One Fold One Shepherd:

 Established the new findings on ‘Soulology’ in various universities (broad stream of academic research) and video recordings:

            “Science without religion is Lame;

          Religion without Science is Blind”

Says Einstein.  Systematic and scientific study on ‘Soul’ (different from ‘Spirit / Life’) is termed as ‘Soulology’. ‘Soulology’, the crown of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity, that brings unity and brotherhood in society, is decoded and disclosed.

Papers on ‘Soulology’ presented by Dr.M.Deivanayagam, in the ‘First International Conference on ‘Thamizhar Samayam’ were published under the title  ‘Religion and Soulology of the Tamils that unite the religions of the world’ (‘Vulaga Samayangalhai Onrinaikkum Thamizhar Samayamum Thamizhar Aanmaviyalum’ – in Tamil). This book on ‘Soulology’ was well received by the scholars.

The Director in charge of Central Institute of Classical Tamil, run by Government of India, having realized the significance of this book, that puts an end to Religious and Communal conflicts and brings brotherhood and unity in the society, ordered 500 copies and distributed them to the scholars of various universities. He also invited Dr.M.Deivanagam to speak on ‘Soulology’, in various universities. Hence he delivered lectures in Tamil University – Thanjavur, Venkateswara University – Andhra, Kamarajar University – Madurai  and Vooris College –Vellore. There was very good response among the scholars of these universities. The lectures and the question / answer sessions were completely video recorded.

Intentionally outside that stream???

In your email dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

“You are clearly and intentionally outside that stream, and do not even bother to interact with it”.

If I was clearly and intentionally outside the stream, surely I would not have requested you to form a committee. Brother, if you carefully read my emails you would obviously understand that I am the one who have been initiating to form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the core issue in different perspectives. It is very clear that forming a committee will be effective in analyzing and understanding the issue, instead of imposing the opinion of the individuals.

Issue on Casteism:

In your email dated 5-7-2010, you have written that

“This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from. This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper. There is a general scholarly consensus that the origin of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out…”

Yes, you have already graciously admitted the fact that the origin of casteism is unknown…

Hence in my reply I sent to you on 10-7-2010, I have written that,

To understand the origin of casteism, we need to analyze the classical literatures of India, which are in Tamil, and Sanskrit. These are the only two classical languages of India.

Between these two classical languages, Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the common people, but a literary language of the scholars alone. Hence we cannot see the natural developments taking place throughout the ages in Sanskrit, as we see in natural languages. So, the origin of casteism cannot be traced in Sanskrit literature.

The literature in Tamil, a language of the common people as well as the scholars, can be classified in three different stages, in correlation with the caste system.

They are

1.  The Literature before the formation of the caste system i.e., Ancient Sangam literature (Classical Tamil Literature)

2.  The Literature after the formation of the caste system i.e., Medieval literature and

3.      The Literature after the establishment of the caste system i.e., Later literature.

In Ancient Sangam literature there is no reference for the caste stratification but occupational variations, which occur not only in India but also in the world society. Many confuse occupational variations with casteism since they are not aware of the intricacies of casteism in India.

 To understand the culture of the Ancient Tamils and the Indians, before the formation of the caste system, careful study on Sangam literature i.e., Classical Tamil Literature is highly indispensable.

Hence, without having in-depth knowledge of Tamil, especially that of Sangam literature, one cannot understand the culture of the Ancient Tamils and the Indians and the origin of the caste system.

Misunderstanding the origin of Sanskrit:

It should be noted here that the Dravidians, original inhabitants of India, form 85 percent of the Indian population whereas the Aryans form below 15 percent of the Indian population.

According to the caste system of the Aryans, Dravidians were labeled as Sudras and Panchamas.

During the reign of the British, Sir William Jones, Supreme Court judge based in Calcutta at that time, translated the Law of Manu from Sanskrit to English in 1794 AD for judicial purposes. He misconceived that the ‘Law of Manu’, the law book of Aryavardha of the Aryans, which was against the Dravidians, was the common law book for all the Indians.

Being a scholar in Latin and Greek when seeing Latin and Greek words in Sanskrit, he erroneously concluded that Sanskrit was the oldest language of the world and the mother of Latin and Greek. He was not aware of the Tamils in the south and their literature and never visited this part of Tamil land.

After Sir.William Jones translated ‘Law of Manu’, Max Muller translated the Religious Literature of India, which were in Sanskrit. He speciously believed that there was a race known as ‘Aryan race’. In fact there is no such a race as Aryan race. ‘Aryans’ the name referred to the group of foreign invaders who came to India in various periods. The groups of foreign invaders who came in various periods, without any religion of their own, were Persians (6^th c.BC), Greeks (4^th c.BC), Sakas(2nd c.BC), Kushanas(1^st c.AD),  Huns(4^th c.AD) and the Romans (4^th c.BC),  who came for trade purpose, were denoted by a common term ‘Aryan’ by the Indian Dravidians.

On the basis of their white complexion they joined together and captured the political power from the Dravidians and formed ‘Aryavardha’ in 7^th c.AD and devised the ‘Law of Manu’.

Since Max Muller misconstrued that there is a separate race called Aryans and Sanskrit is the worlds most ancient language, he promoted Sanskrit as the supreme language of the world, and the Aryan race alone is the worlds and thus promoted racism. He never visited India and was not aware of the Tamils and their literature.

At that time Indus Valley civilization was not deciphered and both of them were not aware of the antiquity and the greatness of Tamil language, and the great spiritual heritage of the Tamils.

Between the two classical languages of India Sanskrit was greatly admired by Sir. William Jones and Max Muller. It is depressing to note that both were not aware of the antiquity and greatness of Tamil, which is the other classical language of India. Hence the antiquity, greatness and the spiritual heritage of Tamil and the Tamils are hidden. That’s why the culture of the Dravidians who form 85 percent of the Indian population is concealed.

Sanskrit:

In your mail dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

“Your total dismissal of Sanskrit in your email below is not a valid way to respond to the academic world.”

I don’t understand why you have come to this conclusion.

Regarding Sanskrit I have written that,

Between these two classical languages [Tamil and Sanskrit], Sanskrit was never a spoken language of the common people, but a literary language of the scholars alone. Hence we cannot see the natural developments taking place throughout the ages in Sanskrit, as we see in natural languages. So, the origin of casteism cannot be traced in Sanskrit literature.

This doesn’t mean that Sanskrit was totally dismissed by me. To make it clear let me place the following questions for your kind analysis.

·    Can we find evidence for Sanskrit as a spoken language of the ‘common people’ anywhere, any time in India?

·    Can we find epigraphical evidence for the occurrence of Sanskrit in the pre – Christ era as we find for Tamil?

·    Can we find Numismatic evidence for the occurrence of Sanskrit in the pre – Christ era as we find for Tamil?

First occurrence of Sanskrit inscription is from 150 AD only.

Dr. Alexander Harris has done an in-depth study on the development of Sanskrit language and has published his research paper titled ‘Christianity and Origin of Sanskrit’, and presented it in the International Conference on Early Christianity in India, New York, August 2005 (http://www.appiusforum.net/paper.pdf). (You can discuss further with him.)

In fact Sanskrit is not a language of the Aryans. It was formed by St.Thomas Christians. St.Thomas Christians proclaimed gospel in Tamil in Tamil land. For the people who do not speak or understand Tamil, they formed Sanskrit on the basis of the then existing languages of India viz., Tamil, Pali, Ardhamagathi, Persian, Greek, Aramaic and Latin. At that time we had no link language in India.  Hence it became the need of St.Thomas Christians to form a language for sharing the gospel. Fundamental doctrines of Early Sanskrit literature are the 1.Doctrine of Trinity 2. Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation) 3. Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice  4. Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and 5. Doctrine of Salvation by Faith, which are the doctrines of Christianity.

Vedavyasa had compiled and classified the nomadic worship songs of the Aryans as Rig,Yajur,Sama and Atharva Veda. He is not an Aryan but Dravidian /Tamilian (the term ‘Dravidian’ is the twisted form of the term ‘Tamilian’). He belongs to Vedantic concept i.e. St.Thomas Christianity. He compiled and classified the Vedas in order to proclaim Vedantic concept i.e., St.Thomas Christianity to the Indians.

Development of Soulology:

During the arrival of St.Thomas in India there were no theistic religions but only theistic worships. Worship is different from religion. Religion requires scripture, literature, theology, philosophy etc., where as worship doesn’t need these requirements. During his arrival in India there were atheistic and agnostic religions such as Jainism and Buddhism. In this context it won’t be appropriate to present the gospel on the basis of faith. Accordingly St.Thomas Christians had to present the gospel scientifically. Hence we find development of ‘Soulology’ in India in only in Tamil language.

Three major divisions:

Your kind response sent to me on 16.7.2010 has three major divisions.

1.    Academic field                  – scientific and logic analysis

2.    Religious field                   –  based on faith and beliefs

3.    Personal Experience                       – based on one’s experience but cannot be

                                                                       explained to others evidently.

We are discussing about dynamic evangelism.

Evangelism is purely based on one’s experience in the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ, which doesn’t come under academic field.

Can our experience be systematically and logically explained?

Can we find systematic and grammatical explanation for our personal experiences in the languages of the world?

Grammatical explanation for personal experience – (‘Agap porulh’):

Careful analysis on this subject reveals that it is systematically and that too grammatically explained in Tamil alone. Separate grammar had been developed in Tamil for the systematic and logic explanation for personal experience in Tamil, which is known as ‘Porulh Ilakkanam’ that means a grammar for our personal experience., where as all the other languages of the world have four rudiments among the following five.

1).  That which is written is known as ‘Yezhuththu’ (Script or a letter)

         2). That which is joined together by written letters is known as  ‘Sol’ (Word).

3). Each word contains ‘Porulh’ especially about ‘Agap porulh’ and ‘Purap     ’                        

     Porulh, i.e., ‘Subjective sense’ and Objective Sense’).

         4). Joining the words together is a sentence, known as ‘Yappu’ (‘prosody’).

5). Every sentence or Yappu must have a proper array of the above elements

which is described as ‘Ani’ (‘a rhetorical embellishment’)

Tamil alone has grammatical explanation for all the above said five rudiments. Apart from Tamil, no other language has systematic grammatical explanation for ‘Porulh’ i.e., theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of the people.

In Tamil, theme or subject matter that pertains to the lifestyle of human beings (‘porulh’) had been grammatically classified as

(1) Subjective Sense that relates to the theme of human love / divine love (‘Agap porulh’)

(2)   Objective Sense that relates to the theme of war, bravery etc., (‘Purap porulh’)

Individual soul experiencing supreme bliss by experiencing Supreme Soul is explained beautifully in Tamil.

Living being with sixth sense – ‘Uyarthinai’ :

Living beings are classified in Tamil into 6 categories on the basis of ‘senses’. Human being alone has ‘sixth sense’ and root cause for sixth sense is known as ‘Soul’ which is entirely different from Spirit / Life.

Tamil grammar divides all beings, animate and inanimate into two categories namely ‘Uyarthinai’ and ‘Agrinai’. Interestingly the distinguishing factor used here is the soul. Those who endowed with souls (human only) belong to ‘Vuyarthinai’ (higher category) and the rest fall in the ‘Agrinai’ (lower category). This kind of distinction is unique to Tamil culture and Tamil language. This kind of classification is not seen in any of the languages of the world.

The study on ‘Soul’ – ‘Soulology’ :

All the living beings from one sense to five senses have only two entities i.e., Body and Life, but only human beings have the third entity called ‘Soul’ which differentiates human beings from other creatures. The study of this specific entity i.e., ‘soul’ is known as ‘Soulology’. So far, in the world, at large,

            1). The study that pertains to material body is known as ‘Science’.

         2). The study that pertains to life is known as ‘Philosophy’ and

         3). The study that pertains to God is known as ‘Theology’.

All these three dimensions will not be meaningful unless and until a study on ‘Soul’, the root cause for the sixth sense and for the formation of the said thoughts, is developed. This study has not grown in any other languages of the world except in Tamil. Indeed it is important to note that in Tamil alone the study on Soul is developed sharply and systematically in grammatical form and that too in the form of aphorism.

Experience of ‘Divine Unity’ is magnificently explained in Tamil literature and Grammar.

Without having a in-depth knowledge in Tamil and Tamil literature one cannot understand the systematic explanation for personal experience of both human and Divine love, elucidated in Tamil literature and grammar.

Nutshell of our discussions:

Whole discussion is based on your talk on casteism.

1.      In your lecture in the seminar at Gurukul one of the key points you have explained was about casteism in India.  You said that,

a.      · Casteism is a part of the Indian culture,

b.      · While evangelizing one should not disturb it.

2.      Sadhu Chellappa raised a question on casteism.  In your reply you said that caste is a genetic factor.

3.      I encountered and said that casteism is not of the Indian culture but of the Aryans and before I finish, the microphone was taken out of my hand upon your instruction.

4.      Dr. Alexander Harris raised these issues regarding casteism and the microphone in your organization.

5.      Since he didn’t receive any response, he raised it on the International floor.

6.      Mr. Jason Fry started giving explanation regarding microphone issue and said that everything was video graphed.

7.      I raised questions on the basis of his statement and asked for a copy of the video. But he didn’t reply. Why?

8.      I sent a mail to you explaining that the issue we are discussing is not an issue between just two Individuals, but an issue between two different systems, one upholding casteism and the other uprooting casteism and placed 3 questions before you, regarding casteism and the microphone.

9.      Your reply expressed apology for the microphone issue, thought pattern in line with casteism and admitting the fact that the origin of casteism is unknown. In your mail dated 5-7-2010 you have written that, “ I am not confident that any meaningful interaction can happen in this kind of email interaction…”

10.  So, I requested you to form a committee to know the origin of casteism and to analyze the two systems, one elucidating the origin of casteism through Classical Tamil Literature and the other through Sanskrit literature.

11.  You have not come forward to form a committee to scrutinize this crucial issue but remarked that I am not up to mark to discuss academically.

12.  Since you are claiming that you are standing in the broad stream of academic research, let me place the following seven questions to you for your kind analysis.

1.      Is caste a genetic factor?

2.      Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.      Is casteism an age-old concept of India?

4.      Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.   Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

6.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against the constitution of India?

For the above seven questions

discussion between two systems is indispensable:

1.      In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

                     “…you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research” Accordingly, kindly appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of your system of thought and we’ll be happy to appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of our system of thought. Since the issue on casteism is a crucial issue of the Indians, wish to have discussion in India, particularly in Gurukul, the same premises where the discussion started.

2. Since the two systems are based on Tamil and Sanskrit, and the technical terms are in both Tamil and Sanskrit, the papers and discussions will be presented in the respective languages with translation in English.

3. Let the discussions be based on our research papers to be presented and analyzed in depth.

4. Let us have this discussion powerfully and fruitfully by answering the issues and questions raised by the academicians of your system and vice versa.

5. We may meet the expenses of our academicians and you may meet the expenses of your academicians and we are happy to meet the rent for Gurukul.

6. Let us completely video the whole programme for further analysis.

7. Let us carefully analyze this issue in different perspectives and find out which system of these two will be appropriate and effective for bringing India to Christ.

8. Let us find out the solution for making others to realize and receive the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ as we are blessed with this same experience .

In case you are not willing to take part in this discussion with the dedicated scholarly missionary team representing your system, it will make everyone to think whether you are striving to bring India to Christ unequivocally.

Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Kindly allow me to finish this mail again with the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My  prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

May the divine Grace of God blesses and strengthens us to carry out

His unsurpassed precious teaching all over the world.

Expecting your kind reply.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

Dear Brother Dorairaj,

Thanks for the fitting reply and tribute to the personnel involved. Thanks for the power of God which brings salvation as in Romans 1:16 to multitudes through contextualized evangelism.

When we say evangelism, “Evangelism with no boundaries for caste and color.”  The proclamation of Gospel with compromising on caste is not Gospel. Good news of Jesus from Asia – from the birth place of civilizations comes in civilized manner with no reference to accepting Him while living in Caste Crutches & promoting or accepting the same. Hence, we have to aware that the promotion or supporting of caste is not the of doctrine of Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, who brought the doctrine of caste discrimination in the Christian World in India? Either Christian Institutions or Churches?   

Best regards,

Chandrasekeran

Dear Dr. Kala,
Dr. G. J. Pandithrai has written on page 4 about Adventists doctrine on Avathara.  Did he mean the Sevent-day Adventists or Adventists………

Solomon.

Dear Dr. Solomon,

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You have raised a doubt from bro.Pandithurai ‘s mail dated 24-7-2010 .

You have asked, “Did he mean the Sevent-day Adventists or Adventists………” found on page No.4 of bro.Pandithurai’s mail.

Being a Seventh day Adventist, and the founder of ‘Karunaiyananthar Ashram’ (Tanjore) that was established with the prime motive of understanding Indian culture and Indian theology and to present the message of salvation to the Indians in Indian culture, the doubt you have raised is important in this context.

The doubt has been raised in the midst of our discussion on casteism and the dynamic methods of evangelism.

Though it seems a separate matter, in fact it is closely connected with our discussion in presenting the gospel to the elite group.

In his mail bro.Pandithurai explained well about their ministry and reproduced some part of my pamphlet titled ‘Why God took an Avatar?’.  In it, it goes on to explain the concept of God taking the form of a man to redeem us, through Saivite and Vaishnavite songs, in which this word occurs. In fact the word should be ‘Advaitists’ and not ‘Adventists’. 

• Clear understanding between Advaitists, Saivites and Vaishnavites will help us to comprehend Hindu religion and
• Obviously help us to do evangelism dynamically in India. 
• Hence I am sending this mail not to you alone but to all who observe / involve in this ongoing discussion.

Advaitists don’t believe in God and according to Advaita concept everything is maya or illusion including sin. Each one of them claims that ‘I am God’ which is totally contrary to the concept of God, whereas Saivism and Vaishnavism accept that all people are born with a sinful nature and God alone can redeem human beings. Here again, to repeat, from the earlier explanation, the word should be ‘Advaitists’ and not ‘Adventists’.

At this juncture I like to write about our mission among the Vaishnavites who vehemently oppose the concept of Advaita.

I am glad to share with you the reaction of a Vaishnavite professor in Mylapore while distributing the tract mentioned above. I like to recall my email-dated 25.06.2010 in which I have hinted the effects of sharing the message of salvation, explained in the above said tract, distributed with Sis.Bhuvana and another sister, the staff members of Dr.Alexander Harris.

Dr.Alexander  Harris,  when doing a challenging ministry among the Brahmins of Mylapore, asked me to write a pamphlet for the Hindu intellectuals. On the basis of Saivite and Vaishnavite (Hindu) literature, I wrote a pamphlet titled “Why God took an Avatar?’.  Then he asked me to distribute it to the same Mylapore area, which is densely populated with the Brahmins.  Two of his staff members [Bhuvana and another sister] came along with me to distribute that tract from door to door.  In one of the houses, a middle aged woman came and asked me,

“Are you giving this tract to us? My father is a Great Vaishnavite Professor. Can you meet him and answer his questions?”

Immediately with great pleasure I agreed and started discussing with him who was 83 years old, and by birth, so called ‘Aiyangar’, who is in the summit of caste stratification, devised by the Aryans. He raised so many questions and I explained things to him on the basis of Vaishnavite literature. After the discussion when we were about to come out of his house, suddenly he fell down at my feet. I was shocked. He said the following:

 “For many years I have been teaching Vaishnavism, but today you have opened my eyes.’

At this juncture I like to point out how the new research findings of Dr. M.Deivanayagam on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity i.e., Saivism and Vaishnavism (‘Hindu religion’) are very powerful and useful tools to make the Hindus to realize the Truth.  Many of his students, especially scholars and missionaries are incorporating these new research findings in their ministry for powerful evangelism among Hindus, in diverse methods. Bro. Pandithurai’s mail shows how beautifully missions are developed when incorporating these new research findings on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity with their mission. I am glad to share that Dr. J.D. Baskaradoss and myself are the two among many of his students who are applying these new research findings in our mission. Bro. M. Sundar Yesuvadian, author of the book titled “India is a Christian Nation”, stayed with us for some years and understood this new research on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity and incorporated it with his mission. Mr.Ragavan Suppiah, Organizer of our Movement – for Malaysia, is doing mission effectively among Hindus and Atheists on the basis of these research findings.

I am glad to recollect the good experience of distributing the tract written by Dr.Alexander Harris titled ‘Brahmins awake’, along with him and a team of God’s children in Mylapore, as was explained by bro.Pandithurai. Ministry of Dr.Alexander Harris in Mylapore was the good answer to B.V.Kamath’s question whether anyone could do mission in a brahmin ward like Mylapore.

God is using his children in different ways and blessing all of us to share the gospel multi dimensionally.

Thus the new research findings of Dr. M.Deivanayagam on St.Thomas Tamil Christianity i.e., Saivism and Vaishnavism (‘Hindu religion’) are very instrumental when sharing the gospel with the Hindus. Understanding his new research findings on

·         St.Thomas Tamil Christianity,

·         Origin of casteism, 

·         Corruption and dilution of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity and

·         Restoration of St.Thomas Tamil Christianity

are useful for dynamic evangelism in India. Hence through classes and courses he is training the evangelists and scholars. Through seminars and conferences, he is making others realize and receive the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ.

Thank you.

In Christ,

D.Devakala.

All religious thought can be classified into two distinct mutually exclusive classes – Monotheism and Monism.

The school of Monotheism teaches that there is One God, the creator of all things including man. However, man having sinned is separated from God, and, God provides a unique Way of Salvation to man for restore his/her relationship back to God.

The school of Monism teaches that there is only one reality or thing or substance; everything else is ‘maya’ or illusion. If we call this ‘one thing’ God, then man becomes God since there cannot be God and man (two things or dualism). So in the school of monism, we become God! The cycle of birth or reincarnation is the process/vehicle through which man unites into God.

Thus in the school of Monism, man declares that ‘I am God’, just as Lucifer (as recorded by Isaiah) said in his heart I will be like the most High! In the ‘Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religious and the Occult’, by George A Mather and Larry A Nichols, the authors indicate that cults typically operate by personal transformation,

PERSONAL TRANSFORMATION. Whichever path an individual chooses, several goals are on the horizon. The first is “personal transformation.” This entails undergoing a person mystical or psychic experience that will usually result in a paradigm shift from an “old world” belief system to a realization of “New Age” or “Aquarian” beliefs. The first step in this transformational process is to embrace a monistic worldview. Again, this does not come through cognition of propositional truths or creedal formulations, but rather, through mystical experience.

The goal is to embrace a monistic school of thought and this is achieved through seemingly harmless mystical practices. Monism teaches that the mind awakes or dreaming moves though maya (illusion) and only nonduality is the final truth. A key underlying practice is to ‘tap’ into that reality or god within oneself especially by meditation.

As indicated earlier, Monism entered India after the 8th c AD as a philosophy called Advaita developed by Adi Sankara. Advaita affected India in several ways. It destroyed the theistic faith of the Hindus by leading to Pantheism – many paths, individual worships and polytheism. Advaita also taught that the process of reaching the ‘all-soul’ is achieved by Reincarnation or Cycle of Birth, which is the cyclic return of a soul to live another life in a new body.

This entangled in the Caste System which further enslaved and oppressed the Hindus. Monism brings a false sense of unity and hope by the deception that no matter what path is chosen, ultimately we will all end up in the same place. However this false sense of unity is soon disturbed by the social disparity which becomes apparent, and this is where the cycle of birth is utilized. It is then taught that the one enjoying the higher status is due to his/her karma in the previous birth, and if one would presently follow dharma, i.e. Varnashrama Dharma (the law of the ones skin color) in this birth, then he/she could also enjoy the higher status in their next birth. Amusing! Over the years, the caste system was in this manner deceptively maintained by the philosophies of monism and cycle of birth.

Today in America, the philosophy of Monism and Reincarnation is the underlying foundation of many cults or groups – Kabbalah, Masons, Divine Light Movement, etc. The followers within these groups do not even realize this and are often deceived by high sounding words and mystical actions. As indicated earlier, they are unaware that the goal of their cult or group is to embrace a monistic school of thought though seemingly harmless mystical practices. Also, global racism based on one’s skin color entered the world society when William Jones translated Varnashrama Dharma, the law of the Caste system from Sanskrit to English about 200 years ago. Hence, it is important to ask if it is being used within these cults or groups today for the same purpose?

Monism is an atheistic philosophy which will divide society, and many are deceived thinking that it is a “scientific” justification for rejecting God and His authority as Creator. Monism leads to a series of beliefs about the past and future in explaining facts that are observable in the present. It is a religion since it can be defined as a concept or system of belief that is held to with ardor and faith. Thus ultimately monism is a religious view concerning life. Monism quite naturally leads to Pantheism, which teaches that all religious paths lead to the same ultimate end, since there is (according to monism) only one ultimate reality and everything else is illusion. This has led many to think that these paths are like rivers that finally lead to the same ocean. This is error since all religions are not the same, and, when two paths contradict each other, both cannot be right.

Many have deceptively tried to prove that all religions are the same especially by pointing out the Christian Gospel similarities in Hinduism, for example the Bagavad Gita. False claims are made that the Gita was written in the pre-Christian era and hence all religions teach the same thing. However, this is not true. The Gita is written in good classical Sanskrit, and epigraphic evidence clearly shows that the Gita could not have been written before the 2nd c AD, and under the influence of early Indian Christianity. Hence in world missions, the right historical perspective of the religious development in India is very crucial today rather than concern over the broad stream of academic research.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

So Alex, do we simply not recognize the ‘religious thought’ behind various forms of ‘polytheism’, animism, nature worship etc where there is no assumption of a universal One that under-girds everything else? And what about the mix of multilevel pantheism and bhakti that we find in ISKCON etc?

The broad categorisation of religious thought into Monotheism and monism seems to be too sweeping and not in keeping with the various religious experiences and thoughts that people have pursued across the centuries.

Ajoy

Hello Ajoy,

Years ago around 1997in Mylapore I was discussing the significance of Sanskrit in Hinduism with Rick at his home; abruptly he asked me to leave his house. Apart from the fact that if he had taken time to listen it would have mitigated his confusion today, these types of ‘symptoms’ displayed by him in the past lay ground for Vishal’s question today.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

Hi, Alex
Hope the Lord would provide an opportunity for you to meet with Rick and discuss the 1997 incident with the benefit of hindsight and the wisdom that it brings. Its obvious that ideologically your positions continue to be opposite or atleast running parallel to each other. However, under the ever active grace of God, your hearts might be nearer than it initially appears to be!
As a non- academician, I’m grateful for the various views that are being brought to this table. Esp to Dr. Devakala, Vishal, Rick and you. Despite the differences, its a gathering that is rare (and I think precious) in its formation.
Thanks
Ajoy

REMINDER

Dear bro.Rick Hivner,

Greetings in Jesus’ name.

I am sending this mail as a kind reminder for our discussion, obviously explained in my last mail dated 22-7-2010. Since it has been quite a while (18 days), I trust you would be taking efforts for a healthy fruitful discussion and would send a valid reply to me.

Let me reproduce the concluding part of my last email dated 22-7-2010 for your kind attention

12.  Since you are claiming that you are standing in the broad stream of academic research, let me place the following seven questions to you for your kind analysis.

1.      Is caste a genetic factor?

2.      Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.      Is casteism an age-old concept of India?

4.      Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.   Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

6.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against the constitution of India?

For the above seven questions

discussion between two systems is indispensable:

1.      In your reply dated 16-7-2010 you have written that,

                      “…you will recognize that I stand in the broad stream of academic research” Accordingly, kindly appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of your system of thought and we’ll be happy to appoint missionaries who have secured Ph.D., on behalf of our system of thought. Since the issue on casteism is a crucial issue of the Indians, wish to have discussion in India, particularly in Gurukul, the same premises where the discussion started.

2. Since the two systems are based on Tamil and Sanskrit, and the technical terms are in both Tamil and Sanskrit, the papers and discussions will be presented in the respective languages with translation in English.

3. Let the discussions be based on our research papers to be presented and analyzed in depth.

4. Let us have this discussion powerfully and fruitfully by answering the issues and questions raised by the academicians of your system and vice versa.

5. We may meet the expenses of our academicians and you may meet the expenses of your academicians and we are happy to meet the rent for Gurukul.

6. Let us completely video the whole programme for further analysis.

7. Let us carefully analyze this issue in different perspectives and find out which system of these two will be appropriate and effective for bringing India to Christ.

8. Let us find out the solution for making others to realize and receive the experience of the ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ as we are blessed with this same experience .

In case you are not willing to take part in this discussion with the dedicated scholarly missionary team representing your system, it will make everyone to think whether you are striving to bring India to Christ unequivocally.

Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Kindly allow me to finish this mail again with the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My  prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

May the divine Grace of God blesses and strengthens us to carry out

His unsurpassed precious teaching all over the world.

Expecting your kind reply.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

Dear Dr. Devakala

I am so grateful that you are forcing this debate.

We Indians are guilty of not loving our neighbors as ourselves, of treating some people (including fellow-believers) as untouchable and polluting. Likewise, for centuries the American Church was guilty of racial segregation. In recent decades some Americans have promoted their sin in India in the name of planting “mono-ethnic” or “homogeneous” churches. Rick Hivner’s advocacy of Homogeneous House Churches is nothing more than a camouflage for caste-based “racial” segregation. Therefore, it is right for Indian Christians to stand up against all white Americans and their Brahmin followers who continue to export racial segregation into India, justifying their sin with pseudo scholarship and academic mumbo-jumbo . . . However, it is even more important that we set our own house in order — because while most American churches have taken care of their problem, many Indian Christians continue to look down upon their neighbors as the image-bearers of God.

Vishal

Dear bro.Vishal,

Thank you for your mail.

While discussing the issue on casteism in the International floor, with a great burden for the Indians you have written that,

“We Indians are guilty of not loving our neighbors as ourselves, of treating some people (including fellow-believers) as untouchable and polluting…..

However, it is even more important that we set our own house in order —“

Yes, we Indian missionaries should make rational analysis of ourselves and make corrections where necessary.  Whether it be Indian or foreign missionaries, or  whoever promotes casteism, to them we have this responsibility to enlighten them with facts and figures. Your spirit, wanting  amends from the Indian missionaries, who have more responsibility than the foreign missionaries, regarding the barriers of ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ in India , is  appreciated by everyone.

Thank you.

In Christ,

D.Devakala.

Dear Dr. Devakala,

I am sorry that you have been waiting for a reply from me. I have considered your emails carefully and also the email that I wrote to you last time, and I do not see any way that I can alter what I wrote in my last email. I really do not see that there is any way forward for us to carry on a meaningful dialogue due to vastly varying perceptions and presuppositions, as I wrote last time.

My first point was about history, and I suggested that all history is tentative yet I see no evidence of your holding this position. I said that “All of your historical points below would need to be rewritten as tentative explorations before I could even imagine engaging them in discussion and research.” Your response said nothing about this, in fact contained yet more dogmatic statements like Sanskrit being a language developed by St. Thomas Christians.

My second point to you was that I cannot assume the role of representing mainstream scholarship in debate with you. I am not a Sanskritist, and I do not even know a Sanskritist. I tried to suggest to you an avenue of approach, which was your interacting with “Caste and Christianity” by Duncan Forrester. This also you did not address.

So I can only say again what I said in my last email, “So it seems to me the only way forward here is to agree to disagree and trust God to do his work in us, and perhaps someday in His grace our differences will be overcome.”

May God lead and guide you,

In grace,

Rick Hivner

Dear Vishal

You might not remember me but we have had a few conversations and also travelled from Chennai to Mumbai together. Your books have stimulated much thought and your remain an inspiration to many of us in India through your various projects (like the book of the millennium) and  writings.

You have posed a stacked wager where its a heads-I win-tails-you lose position for Rick. I’m not sure if his sincerity needs to be (or can be) proven, especially over emails. Besides, this is a double edged sword and cuts in all directions. All of our motives in this discussion can be suspect and we will be hard pressed to prove our sincerity. In fact, any attempt to prove sincerity itself can be dismissed as an over eager attempt to protect one’s reputation.

Its best to keep this discussion revolving around content, sources, opinions and its validity and let God judge the motives. Unless of course duplicity and ill motives are obvious and evident to us, in which case we can stop being part of the discussions.

I have met believers from the ‘bhakta’ movements who prefer to be “insiders” within their Hindu contexts and they have not expressed any grand intention of creating the perfect church in India. Nor do they have reservations in generally fellowshipping with believers of other backgrounds, though they may not be excited about doing it within the regular church format.

All that they ask for is the social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context.  In my opinion, efforts to totalise and homogenise the spiritual and social behaviour of believers from various religious backgrounds will eventually snuff out the beauty that diversity brings – regardless of whether these efforts come from the East or the West.

The above thoughts may not be directly related to the theories of Indian Christianity being discussed and disputed through this group. Hopefully, they add to them in some way, however remotely.

With regards
Ajoy

Silence Dr. Devakala – Promote Racial Segregation

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Dear Brother Ajoy

Who can forget you or your wonderful wife? Thank you for your hard work for the king, kind words about me and those in the Insider Movement. I have no doubt that many of them are sincere . . . but does that make them right?

I am quite happy to accept your admonition, “Its best to keep this discussion revolving around content, sources, opinions and its validity and let God judge the motives.” Let’s do that.

The Mike is being Snatched from Sister Devakala Again!

Some of us weren’t  there in Gurukul seminar, so we do not know all the circumstances under which the microphone was snatched from sister Devakala. Now however, we are watching how a low-caste scholar is being silenced again.

Dr. Devakala is being asked to get her thesis certified by “mainstream” “Sanskritists” (i.e. from Brahmin scholars) before she can speak.  Why shouldn’t Insider Scholars get their thesis certified by low-caste scholars?

What If Apostle Thomas was martyred in Chennai?

Assuming (tentatively, of course) that Thomas did come to India and that he did establish the church in Kerala . . . And

Assuming (tentatively) that he also came to what is now Tamil Nadu and that his ministry was effective enough to provoke Brahmins to kill him . . . Would you not expect, his ministry to have left some (or plenty) of influence in Tamil culture?

Would this impact be seen best in Tamil language or in Sanskrit? Wouldn’t those who killed him also minimize his influence in Sanskrit literature?

If so, how can Sanskritists sit on judgment on Dr. Devakala and her father?

Why would “mainstream” historians bother looking at the data Dr. Devakala is presenting? Admittedly, her view is a minority opinion . . . but is that a good reason to silence her?

Whatever may have been the circumstances of snatching the micro-phone from her in Gurukul . . . shouldn’t Christian scholars accord courtesy of listening to 30 years of painstaking original research? Especially, if it challenges a missiology that is promoting racial segregation in India? Or, will the Insider Movement listen only to the murderers of Apostle Thomas?

I Suspect That Rick Hivner is Partially Right

I suspect that the data Dr. Devakala has looked at is incomplete. And I would not be surprised if some of her conclusions are partially or wholly wrong. However, will you stand and watch as people snatch the mike from her on the ground that “all history is tentative?” That means that Jesus was crucified and buried only tentatively.

Someone who has done original research and arrived at radically innovative conclusions has every right to champion her/his thesis with enthusiasm and deep conviction. To dismiss her convictions on the ground that she has not yet obtained a certificate of approval from the descendents of Thomas’ murderers is at best prejudiced.

Should Indian Christians stand and watch American missiologists snatch the mike a second time from a genuine Indian Scholar . . . just because she happens to be a low-caste woman, whose views challenge mainstream scholarship?

The Moral Issue

St. Thomas Christians in Kerala have looked down upon lower castes for 2,000 years. American Church practiced racial segregation for centuries. Now white American missionaries are asking their upper caste followers in India to establish racially segregated churches. Do you really want to promote this evil non-sense as the “beauty of Indian culture?”  If diversity is really beautiful, why not listen to a law-caste Tamil scholar? Or is it only caste-based segregation . . . and silencing of low-caste scholars . . . that appear beautiful?

You write, “All that they [Insiders] ask for is the social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context.” Well, that is exactly what the priest and the Levite wanted in the parable of the Good Samaritan . . . their own space . . . distance from the oppressed.  That is what the Church in Kerala has wanted for 2,000 years. That is what led Dr. Ambedkar to reject Dr. McGavran’s gospel . . . as no Gospel for the oppressed.

Dr. Devakala deserves to be honored for standing up to the intellectual hegemony of Pasadena missiology. If Pasadena missiologists believe that their convictions are biblical and their scholarship is sound then they ought to be willing to debate them . . . instead of silencing critics either by snatching their mikes or with hypocritical humility.

Thank you for moving the debate further.

Your brother

Vishal

Dear Vishal,

Thanks for the mail. Gratified that you remember details of meetings long ago. Its good to be in touch with you again.

Since I was one of the organisers of the Rethinking Forum presentation which Dr. Devakala attended, I can assure you that there was no organised attempt to silence her from presenting her views. I remember though that during the Q&A, her query (which was actually a presentation of her views) took an inordinately long time and the person who was coordinating the mike handling took the mike away after a few mins. This, as you would be very familiar with, is common in a typical open forum setting. Dr. Devakala, however, (as mentioned in one of her earlier emails), was of the idea that this would be an open discussion in which every view would be provided equal time. I realise that this was an organisational gaffe and a result of lack of clear communication on the organisers’ part. However, I took time to meet with Dr. Devakala and Dr. Devanaiyagam after the meeting and thank them for their attendance (since they were leaving immediately afterwards). I think Jason, who was handling the mike, did the same.

And in line with the belief that diversity must be preserved, my pastor and I have been planning to visit Dr. Devakala for the past 3 weeks but I have been unable to because of a seriously bad back condition. Perhaps next week, I will visit Dr. Devakala when its convenient for her to ensure that we get to know more from her that what has been discussed over emails so far. My hope is that the discussion can be mainstreamed so that both the academic strengths and weaknesses of the position can be understood and evaluated. And every position and missiological effort has its own strengths and weaknesses – as the history of Indian mission and indeed worldwide mission has demonstrated. So dialogue and discussion are inevitable and desirable.

There are queries that you have raised that might need a more academic response than I’m capable of. So others in the group might want to offer their views.

Once again, grateful for your response and glad that you remember.
Thanks
Ajoy

Hello Ajoy

Yes the Lord did provide an opportunity a few weeks ago for Rick and I to meet at USCWM, Pasadena, CA. Unfortunately the benefit of hindsight and the wisdom did not play out – Rick walked out of the meeting. That is why I was clear in my statement earlier – these types of ‘symptoms’ displayed by him in the past lay ground for Vishal’s question today.

Irrespective, let’s focus on our objective – to win the lost and see them as disciples of Jesus Christ. In this objective there are many hindrances and strongholds, and, to break those one needs to have the right historical perspective. As Paul writes,

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.  And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. (2 Cor 10:4-6 KJV).

Hence, the current discussion – early Indian Christianity, Saivism, Vaishnavism, Sanskrit, Advaita, etc. are of utmost importance. Also historically, the greatest segregation was the separation of Jew and Gentile, and Christ has made both one by breaking down the middle wall of partition between us (Ephesians 2:14). Hence, let us not violate the Law of Christ by bringing segregation into His Body.

Regards,

Alex

Thanks Alex.

I’m currently reading a book co-authored by Marcus Borg (of the Jesus Seminar – by no means orthodox in his Christian beliefs) and N T Wright (the former Bishop of Durham, broadly representing orthodox Christianity). Despite their huge differences, they have been able to coauthor a book and leave it for the general public to decide, especially since there is often more than one (possibly legitimate) historical perspective.

Historical reconstructions are tedious business and often inevitably subject to leaps of faith, judgment etc. But both authors demonstrate that it is possible to disagree and present opposing views in the same book (!), as long as there is no intentional caricaturing or tarnishing of the other’s position. This discussion need not lead to the writing of a book, but as long as we understand clearly, what the other position is, then we may offer our judgments. My impression is that currently we are dealing with caricatures and not with actual positions. And this might apply to both sides of the discussion.

Your quote of Paul from Eph 2 is in order. We are all one in Christ. (To clarify, I daresay that everyone in this groups believes in the Scriptural teachings on oneness and unity in Christ and that no one  in this group justifies or sanctions the hierarchical or oppressive forms of the Caste System).

However, I submit that the same Paul (Galations) fought for ensuring that the Gentiles don’t have to adopt Jewish cultural practices (despite their being united with the Jews in Christ) and he did not want the Judaisers to dictate to the Gentiles how they must express their fledgling faith in Christ. He recognised that circumcision was only the head of the cultural Jewish camel which would eventually move into and abrogate the Gentile tent.

To illustrate, when Paul says that there is no male or female in Christ (Gal 3:20), it surely does not mean that male and female distinctions are abrogated. So why do we think that ALL distinctions, including cultural, between Jews and Gentiles were abrogated? Indeed, in Christ, these distinctions, if inherently good, whether created or subcreated by humans, can be preserved and redeemed and transformed to become part of the multilayered and manifold tapestry of the church. This is hard work and takes significant time since all fundamental change has to be from within and cannot be coerced extrinsically.

So, cant we let those following Christ from Hindu backgrounds work out their faith in Christ in their context instead of insisting that they must become exactly like those following Christ from Christian backgrounds? Isnt there a possibility that their embeddedness in their context can bring about change eventually from within?

Through my limited experience with them, I dont think that any one among the Bhaktas actually believe that they are superior to others in any way. I dont even think that there are only one kind of Bhaktas or that all Bhaktas are Brahmins or that all Brahmins think alike.(My last landlords, were religious Brahmins, who had lived in Kolkatta for many years were very inclusive in their worldview and exceptionally kind and courteous and favourable towards us – not at all like the caricatures that we usually are presented with). Do we, who are part of the organised Christian church actually think that we can do what the Bhaktas are doing? Can we actually replace them in their context? Surely, any fundamental change needs significant time? These are some questions that I have which prompts me to be open to further discussion.

For some reason, Dr. Ebe Sunderraj has not been part of this discussion. I have taken the liberty of including him in this discussion since he had graciously presided over the meeting in Chennai.

Thanks and regards
Ajoy

Dear Ajoy

I am so glad that you are planning to visit Dr. Devakala and her dad. Thank you. Given the sincerity of your heart, my guess is that you will find this to be much more profitable than a mere Public Relations exercise. I wish I could join you myself.

Given the current state of historiography in America (. . . I was supposed to attend the last big gathering of historians in San Diego in January – – – this event which draws several thousand has been completely taken over by Lesbians, Gays, bisexuals, Transgender and other Queers. Christian historians seems to have had only one seminar in a basement on a medieval monk!. . . ) it is not difficult for a historian to present a tentative thesis to fellow historians that Thomas may have been killed for stealing a chicken . . . since “Hinduisms” are inherently tolerant.

That may be far-fetched . . . but I have no doubt whatsoever that you can get a Ph.D. from Pasadena by writing a thesis that Thomas could have saved his life by becoming an Insider. . . because your thesis would be quite true. Thomas would have avoided martyrdom by becoming an Insider. His problem was that he was commissioned to carry a Gospel that turns the world upside down. . . that is a threat to a sinful status quo. That is also Dr. Devakala’s problem.

The most likely reason for Thomas’ martyrdom was that he had converted enough “Hindus” to be perceived as a serious threat by Chennai’s religious establishment. If that was the case, that is, if his ministry was really effective, then it is very likely that his followers as well as his opponents preserved some of his teachings in ancient Tamil. That is what is being researched by Dr. Devakala and her father. It is a pioneering research . . . but even if many of their interpretations are exaggerated or wrong, it is a genuine research in indigenous Christianity, its impact and the challenge it poses and promise it makes to Indian culture. This is why she deserved to be heard much more than American missiologists who have lost America and are corrupting the Indian Church by injecting racial segregation into it.     

I believe your explanation of why Jason took the mike from Dr. Devakala. It makes sense. However, I do not understand, why Rick (or someone else in the Insider Movement) will not answer her questions now. She seems to be willing to forget the Gurukul episode. She may have made the mistake of presenting her thesis, instead of asking questions. But now she is asking questions, based on what Rick said. If Rick is confident of what he believes and teaches, why do you think he is refusing to answer her questions? If he is not interested in listening to her thesis, he can at least summarize his own thesis and answer questions that it raises in the minds of a genuine Indian scholar . . . even if she happens to be a low-caste woman.

May I add own questions to hers?

• Caste-based Untouchability or discrimination, Racial segregation and Apartheid are parts of significant segments of Indian, American, and South African cultures, do you really think they constitute the beauty of cultural diversity?
• The Scriptures say “My house will be a house of prayer for all people” – is a “church” a church if it is designed to exclude some castes . . . because your caste wants to keep its own space (unpolluted by others)? Or is the concept of “house church” being hijacked to plant racially segregated churches that are designated as “Homogeneous” or “Mono-ethnic” churches? Do these academic terms mean anything more than racial segregation?
• Is the command, “love your (low-caste) neighbor as yourself” binding on Bhaktas?

Yours – for a transforming Gospel.

Vishal

Attached is my latest piece for FORWARD Press – a bilingual monthly from New Delhi

Dear Ajoy

I am taking the time to respond to your email to Alex, because I really appreciate your spirit. I think your sincerity is exemplary.

The Scriptures that you are using are the ones that Dr. McGavaran and Dr. Ralph Winter used to promote their concept of establishing mono-ethnic churches. The problem is with the verses that they did not discuss.

Like them you write, “ I submit that the same Paul (Galatians) fought for ensuring that the Gentiles don’t have to adopt Jewish cultural practices (despite their being united with the Jews in Christ) and he did not want the Judaisers to dictate to the Gentiles how they must express their fledgling faith in Christ. He recognised that circumcision was only the head of the cultural Jewish camel which would eventually move into and abrogate the Gentile tent.”

More relevant question is: why did Paul call Peter “hypocrite” in the same passage in Galatians?

The answer is . . . Because Peter decided to keep his space . . . retain his Jewish culture . . . stay away from Gentile believers when it comes to eating and fellowshipping together.

In my book “Truth and Transformation: A Manifestos for Ailing Nations” I take a fresh look at how Jesus had tried to deliver Peter from his culture, long before Peter’s vision of the sheet with unclean animals (Acts 10). You can get a copy of the book from Ivan Kostka. Here may I mention that Paul put up a determined fight against Peter’s culture because of his understanding of God’s mission:

• Ephesians 1:9-10 “having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, ¹⁰ that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.

• Colossians 1: 19-20 “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, ²⁰ and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Jewish culture . . . just like Brahmin culture . . . was to keep one’s distance from non-Jews. Paul’s taught that God’s mission was to unite Jews and Gentiles into one body, one bride, or one temple . . . even though there is plenty of diversity within that one body.

Why has Pasadena missiology missed this simple and obvious point about the teaching of the New Testament?

One reason is a selective reading of the Bible. A classic illustration of this problem is in John Stott’s opening essay in Dr. Winter’s “Perspective.” John Stott’s exposition of Missions was presented in one of the Urbana’s Conferences. He expounds Missions from God’s promise to Abraham – to give him the promised land, to make him a great nation and to bless all the nations through his descendents. What Stott fails to see is that the land God promised to Abraham was already occupied by nations, much stronger than his descendents. Therefore, when they went to take possession of their land, God’s promise turned out to be a very bloody promise.

That aspect of God’s promise and mission (totally ignored by John Stott) was best articulated in Psalm 2: “Ask of me and I will give the nations as your inheritance . . . you will rule them with an iron scepter . . . you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” This aspect of God’s mission is diametrically opposed to western multi-culturalism that is echoed (perhaps unconsciously) in your email to Alex. The unpleasant fact is that the New Testament uses that imagery and motif throughout. See, for example, Revelation 2: 26-27: “To him who overcomes . . . I will give authority over the nations – He will rule them with an iron scepter; [he will not preserve sinful separatist aspects of Jewish or brahiminical culture but] he will dash them to pieces like pottery – just as I have received authority from my father.”

If you go through 780 pages of Pasadena “Perspective” you will find that it has only 8 short discussions of the issue of “authority” . . . that makes it impossible for Pasadena missiology to understand the Great Commission, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore, go into all the world and make disciples of all nations.” This authority includes the authority to shatter sinful aspects of various cultures like pottery. That is why the Lamb of God has a sharp double-edged sword. That is what the Lamb is doing now (in the book of Revelation).

I hope to expound these themes in a series of articles because Western missiology is a product of western sociology and it has seriously misled the rest of the Christian world. I have not read the details of Dr. Devakala’s arguments and I may not agree with many of her arguments. . . however, I am glad that she has had the courage to stand up to Pasadena Missiology, because the Indian Church – especially your church in Kerla – has enough sin of caste and untouchability. It is absolutely important that the Tamil Church takes a firm stand against allowing the cultural evil of caste-prejudices to be written into the DNA of the Tamil Church.

Christ is out not simply to redeem all cultures but also to shatter them to pieces like pottery. . . there are plenty of Scriptures that say that and I leave it to you to examine them with the sincerity that you have displayed.

The question is: If racial (or caste-based) segregation is really evil, then why is that our sincere American bretheren are so anxious to inject it into the Indian Church. As a result of my long reflections . . . that I will present in a series of articles . . . I have come to the conclusion that the best explanation is that American sociology has profoundly affected evangelical missiology of the last 40-50 years. The problem begins with Dr. McGavran’s mistaken definition of nation . . . more on it another time . . . Centuries of racial segregation has made it hard for our American brothers and sisters to see what is so obvious to some of us. . . that God’s mission to unite all things in Christ, not to keep them in separate churches. If an Indian village has 100 families and 20 castes that do not intermarry or interdine, the Insider Movement will ask you to organize 20 distinct churches in that village . . . i.e. baptize the evil of casteism. Did Christ die to help us embrace this evil or to shatter it and set the oppressed free?

It is nothing but hypocrisy to say that we are against all forms of racism, but we believe in organizing separate churches for separate castes.

Thank you for keeping this debate going.

Vishal

Hi, Vishal Thanks for taking time to write and raising key issues to ponder over. I must confess that I feel that some of this is heady stuff and some of the sources you quote I have not even read or heard about! So I hope to spend some days checking out some of the details as close to the primary sources as possible. From a biblical exposition point of view, the book of Galatians specifically mentions that Peter withdrew from the Gentiles when the Judaisers visited due to his fear of them (Gal 2:12). This obviously is a wrong reason for exclusion and a betrayal of the cause of Christ. I’m not sure however if fear can be attributed as the only motive for all “insiders” – whether Hindu, Muslim or Christian. It is possible that many “insiders” have good methodological and context-specific reasons for their position. I will need some time to study the relationship between Ps 2 and Rev 2. I’m happy to do that as part of my own spiritual journey and appreciate your inputs on the same. Could you pls give me Ivan’s contact details so I can get your book? While I check out some of the sources you have mentioned, it would be useful to have the others in the team respond and provide insights etc from the rather rich and varied experience that we have as a group. Thanks and regards Ajoy

Dear Vishal, Thanks for your mails and for taking the time out to respond. This is a response to the earlier mail that you sent and I have tried to respond faithfully as I understand the situation and the issues involved.
I will provide some response to your other mail which also raises some weighty issues. My responses are below ( in blue, and it has nothing to do with how I am feeling!!! ) just below your thoughts. Sorry about the clutter, though. The article on Tantric Hinduism is interesting. I hope to study it further and might get back to you separately with some queries for understanding it better. Thanks. Ajoy
— On Tue, 8/17/10, VISHAL MANGALWADI <vishal@vishalmangalwadi.com> wrote:

Dear Ajoy

I am so glad that you are planning to visit Dr. Devakala and her dad. Thank you. Given the sincerity of your heart, my guess is that you will find this to be much more profitable than a mere Public Relations exercise. I wish I could join you myself.

Given the current state of historiography in America (. . . I was supposed to attend the last big gathering of historians in San Diego in January – – – this event which draws several thousand has been completely taken over by Lesbians, Gays, bisexuals, Transgender and other Queers. Christian historians seems to have had only one seminar in a basement on a medieval monk!. . . ) it is not difficult for a historian to present a tentative thesis to fellow historians that Thomas may have been killed for stealing a chicken . . . since “Hinduisms” are inherently tolerant.

Ajoy: Completely agree. To pass of figments of imagination as historical positions is surely possible with the “killing of history” that is all pervasive.

Also since there is good evidence that “hinduisms” are not inherently tolerant -either philosophically or socially (which includes invasions, razing down of buddhist temples etc). This would apply to “christianities” too, I suppose.

That may be far-fetched . . . but I have no doubt whatsoever that you can get a Ph.D. from Pasadena by writing a thesis that Thomas could have saved his life by becoming an Insider. . . because your thesis would be quite true. Thomas would have avoided martyrdom by becoming an Insider. His problem was that he was commissioned to carry a Gospel that turns the world upside down. . . that is a threat to a sinful status quo. That is also Dr. Devakala’s problem.

Ajoy: Surely a possibility. However, insider movements are not as “comfortable” as imagined, especially when the “insiders” are inside militant Hindu or Islamic contexts. Also, the “insider movement” is a methodological issue at its core (though I do think that it has a huge redemptive component). Methods are developed by believers due to varying contexts. Thomas methods are not necessarily inspired. Even if they were, they do not necessarily provide us an iron clad template for all generations, I suppose.

The most likely reason for Thomas’ martyrdom was that he had converted enough “Hindus” to be perceived as a serious threat by Chennai’s religious establishment. If that was the case, that is, if his ministry was really effective, then it is very likely that his followers as well as his opponents preserved some of his teachings in ancient Tamil. That is what is being researched by Dr. Devakala and her father. It is a pioneering research . . . but even if many of their interpretations are exaggerated or wrong, it is a genuine research in indigenous Christianity, its impact and the challenge it poses and promise it makes to Indian culture. This is why she deserved to be heard much more than American missiologists who have lost America and are corrupting the Indian Church by injecting racial segregation into it.

Ajoy: Completely agree that Dr. Devakala and her views must be heard by one and all (Dr. Devakala is available next Monday for the meeting which has been fixed). I’ve already had a few friends who have listened to her and Dr. Devanaiyagam’s views and thesis who have encouraged me to meet with them over the last few years. However, my serious limitations with Tamil language has been a discouragement. I also think that Tamil speaking believers should be more involved with examining the thesis and mainstreaming it as one of the possibilities if they find sufficient historical data and theory that can be reconstructed.

Also agree that the Western presentation of the gospel has come to us tainted with their social practices, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is as inevitable (though not desirable) as the Hellenisation and resultant abstractions that have slipped into Christian theology with platonic and aristotellian categories overriding the primitive Hebraic categories of much of Scriptural revelation.

Or it is as inevitable as the Roman government structures which have slipped into our church governments due to the early Latinization of the church which eventually brought about the division between the clergy and laity.

Interestingly, the Syrian Christians in India with their (not well substantiated) claim to their forefathers being converted by St Thomas 2000 years and their fairly consistent and rigid practice of oppressive casteism are a good illustration that it does not require the West for the gospel to be brought to us with an injection of an prejudiced and oppressive spirit! We have home-grown these evils for a long time ourselves!

I believe your explanation of why Jason took the mike from Dr. Devakala. It makes sense. However, I do not understand, why Rick (or someone else in the Insider Movement) will not answer her questions now. She seems to be willing to forget the Gurukul episode. She may have made the mistake of presenting her thesis, instead of asking questions. But now she is asking questions, based on what Rick said. If Rick is confident of what he believes and teaches, why do you think he is refusing to answer her questions? If he is not interested in listening to her thesis, he can at least summarize his own thesis and answer questions that it raises in the minds of a genuine Indian scholar . . . even if she happens to be a low-caste woman.

Ajoy: This is clearly a question that Rick must answer. Perhaps he has reasons. However, its good that the rest of us discuss this. We may or may not reach agreement but hopefully we retain healthy channels of communication for the future if additional data/evidence become available at some point in the future.

May I add own questions to hers?

(i) Caste-based Untouchability or discrimination, Racial segregation and Apartheid are parts of significant segments of Indian, American, and South African cultures, do you really think they constitute the beauty of cultural diversity? (Ajoy: No, they represent the ugliness that can result when diversity is corrupted. The fact that people have different skin colour is obvious. The idea that it should be used to discriminate and divide one from another and oppress the socially weaker is a corruption of the beauty that diversity brings and hence should be called ugliness).

(ii) The Scriptures say “My house will be a house of prayer for all people” – is a “church” a church if it is designed to exclude some castes . . . because your caste wants to keep its own space (unpolluted by others)?

(Ajoy: If the exclusion is to be “unpolluted” (socially) then it is a perversion of the gospel. If the exclusion is for methodolgical or contexual reasons, I submit that it is a plausible position to hold for followers of Christ).

Again, most churches end up being exclusive economically, atleast. The local church that I am part of in Chennai is attended mostly by middle class or the upper middle class. We dont intentionally keep out others and we also support other churches working among other sections. However, it is obvious that its a middle class and upper middle class church.

I imagine that the needs of people in various contexts are so different that it would not be feasible for a local church to cater to all economic sections equally well all the time. So a formatting of the church on economic lines does happen, even if not intended. This need not be interpreted as social or economic exclusion. At all points however, we must obey the command to us in Jas 2:1-7 at all times.

The bhakta groups (and there are various kinds of them) have intentionally chosen to exclude themselves from social Christendom for methodological and contextual reasons, instead of economic reasons – atleast that’s my understanding till date.

Or is the concept of “house church” being hijacked to plant racially segregated churches that are designated as “Homogeneous” or “Mono-ethnic” churches? Do these academic terms mean anything more than racial segregation?

(Ajoy: I have very little empirical knowledge of these matters, especially the house church movement. Others in the group should submit their views, especially those who have ground level knowledge of local churches, house churches etc)

(iii) Is the command, “love your (low-caste) neighbor as yourself” binding on Bhaktas?

(Ajoy: Its binding on all who claim to be followers of Christ, regardless of their context. Since different contexts usually require different expressions of love, the Bhaktas can submit how this plays out in their lives and within and outside their context. It would be a presumption for me to comment on how they should express their love for their neighbor)

Yours – for a transforming Gospel.

Vishal

PRINCIPLES OF ANTI-CHRIST Vs PRINCIPLES OF CHRIST

Dear bro.Rick,

Greetings in Jesus’ name.

Thank you for your response.

As missionaries, it is good to analyze ourselves in the light of Christ’ teaching and submit ourselves to Him for fulfilling His divine plan for us.

Really I am grateful to you for having modestly admitting the following.

1. Admitting the facts:

You have written in your last mail dated 11-8-2010,

“My second point to you was that I cannot assume the role of representing mainstream scholarship in debate with you. I am not a Sanskritist, and I do not even know a Sanskritist..”

Through this statement you are humbly sharing with us that, you are

1.      not a scholar representing mainstream scholarship

2.      not a Sanskritist and

3.      do not even know a Sanskritist.

Apart from that in your mail dated 5-7-2010 you have written that,

4.      Origin of casteism is unknown

 (“This leads naturally to a discussion of just what caste is and just where it did come from. This is a subject so vast and so full of varying opinions that anything resembling a comprehensive overview is impossible in this paper. There is a general scholarly consensus that the origins of caste are unknown and unlikely ever to be fully traced out…”)

Indeed admiring your spirit of humility.

At this juncture kindly allow me to write the real position.

Prior to this mail I have made it clear to you that that without having an in-depth knowledge in Tamil literature one cannot understand Indian culture, especially the origin of casteism.  

2. Varying perceptions:

In your mail dated 11-8-2010 you have written that,

“I really do not see that there is any way forward for us to carry on a meaningful dialogue due to vastly varying perceptions and presuppositions,”

Yes brother, there are vastly varying perceptions since your system is upholding casteism and our system is striving to uproot casteism. So it is quite natural to have different perceptions.

3. Your presupposition:

You have brought to my attention and now I am focused on your presupposition that casteism is  part and parcel of Indian culture. Views of this nature is due to lack of in-depth knowledge in Tamil, one of the two classical languages of India.In the interest of the Gospel, it is best if you give  another look at it.

4. Your stand – ‘‘History is Tentative’’:

You have written that,

“My first point was about history, and I suggested that all history is tentative”…

 Brother, can you completely dismiss the historical perspective?

Then what will be your stand ?

Will not it show that you are hesitating to find out real history and holding on to presuppositions?

I would like to remind you that already we have explained that without in-depth knowledge in Tamil literature one cannot understand the origin and development of casteism in India. Besides that we have explained to you in our earlier emails origin and development of casteism in India historically. Kindly make a note of it that history seems to be tentative as you said, when not knowing real history and holding onto presuppositions.

5. Already answered:

You have written that,

“I tried to suggest to you an avenue of approach, which was your interacting with “Caste and Christianity” by Duncan Forrester. This also you did not address.”

If you have read my earlier mails carefully you won’t be repeating Duncan. I have already explained in my mail dated 22-7-2010 as follows:

“In your reply, you have mentioned the name Duncan Forrester, author of the book titled Caste and Christianity. Likewise our Bro. Dayanand Bharati has also referred the names of many scholars. I am much thankful to both of you for graciously pointing out the names of many scholars.  Since this crucial issue on casteism should be analyzed in depth in different perspectives , I have finished my last email dated 10-7-2010 with the following demand:

“..kindly form a committee of scholars and dedicated missionaries, to analyze the different perspectives, comprehend and build strategies to evangelize very effectively in India.”

But you have neither formed a committee nor have you come forward to appoint scholars representing your system, which would make an avenue for more questions and clarifications like this, but instead Duncan is repeatedly mentioned. It doesn’t show here that you are not interested in analyzing various perspectives without presuppositions.

6. Vedanta:

 Regarding Sanskrit you have written that,

“……in fact contained yet more dogmatic statements like Sanskrit being a language developed by St. Thomas Christians.”

Though we have explained the origin of Sanskrit in our previous mails, without reading them carefully, and without coming for discussion, holding onto presuppositions, intentionally you are labeling our research findings as dogmatic statements.

Without knowing the origin and development of Sanskrit, you have stated above.

‘Samskrit’ (‘Sanskrit’) means ‘formed well’.  It is not a natural language, but a code language of the scholars.

If it was ‘formed well’ means, naturally there arise four questions as follows:

1.      Who formed it?

2.      When was it formed?

3.      Why was it formed? and

4.      How was it formed?

In fact Sanskrit is not a language of the Aryans. It was formed by Vedantists in the post – Christ era to proclaim Vedantic concepts all over India, since at that time there was no common link language in India, on the basis of the then existing languages of India viz.,

1.      Tamil,

2.      Pali,

3.      Arthamagathi,

4.      Persian,

5.      Greek,

6.      Aramaic and

7.      Latin.

They have produced Vedantic literature in Sanskrit to proclaim Vedantic concepts all over India.

Vedantic concept is based on fulfillment of sacrifice.

Vedic concept is based on sacrifice.

Vedantic concept cannot be explained without Vedic concept.

Hence Vedantists compiled Vedas to proclaim Vedantic concepts.

Vedantic school of thought was named after Vedavyasa.

Vedavyasa, a Vedantist, produced both Vedic and Vedantic literature in Sanskrit.

Vedic literature                                             

– Four Vedas (10^th Mandala in Rig Veda explains Vedantic concept)

Vedantic Religions such as

1. Saivism and

2. Vaishnavism were developed in Tamil land.

Vedantic literature                                       

Saivite and Vaishnavite literature.

1. Literature in Tamil

1)      Panniruthirumurai

2)      Naalaayira Divyapprabhantham

3)      14 Saiva Siddhantha Sastras

2. Literature in Sanskrit

        1). Ithihasas

        2). Epics

        3). Prasthanathraeya

Vedantic philosophies (in fact they are Theologies)

·         Saivism            –  Advaita and Saiva Siddhantha

·         Vaishnavism  –  Visishtadvaita and Dvaita

Saivism was developed by 63 Nayanmars of Tamil land.

Vaishnavism was developed by 12 Alwars of Tamil land.

Vedantic philosophies such as

1.      Advaita,

2.      Visishtadvaita and

3.      Saiva Saiddhantha were developed in Tamil land.

4.      Dvaita was developed in Karnataka adjacent to Tamil land.

Basic doctrines of Vedantic School:

1. Doctrine of Trinity

2. Doctrine of Avatar (Incarnation)

3. Doctrine of Fulfillment of Sacrifice 

4. Doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin and

5. Doctrine of Salvation by Faith.

Above said five doctrines cannot be seen in the worships and religions of pre – Christ era in India.

Worships and religions of pre – Christ era:

Worships and religions of pre – Christ era can be classified as follows:

Worships                                                                        

1.    Indus Valley Worship                                                          

2.    Ancient Tamil Worship and                                

3.    Aryan Worship

Religions

1.      Jainism (Atheistic)

2.      Buddhism (Agnostic)

They can further be grouped as follows:

1.      Worships which practiced sacrifice –

          Indus Valley worship, Ancient Tamil worship and Aryan worship

2.      Religions which denied the concept of God

          Jainism and Buddhism

Above said five doctrines cannot be developed from the worships and religions of pre – Christ era. If so, where did it come from?

It is very clear that the said five doctrines of Vedantic school are of Christianity that developed in Tamil land in Tamil culture and in Tamil language i.e., St.Thomas Christianity.

St.Thomas Christians used Tamil and Sanskrit as their tool for propagating St.Thomas Christianity.

Without having an in-depth knowledge in Tamil, classical languages of India, one cannot understand

·         St.Thomas Christianity of India.

·         Indian culture and

·         Origin of casteism

How will it be the books written by foreign authors about Indian culture without having an in-depth knowledge in Tamil literature? 

7. Caste stratification – against Indian people:

(according to caste stratification

85 percent of Indian population are Sub Low Caste)

Core issue of our discussion on casteism, the principle of segregation, degrades the original inhabitants of India as follows:

If we deeply analyze caste stratification, devised by the Aryans, we can see three major divisions in it.

·         High caste

·         Low caste and

·         Sub Low caste.

Aryans:

According to the caste stratification, among the Aryans

·         Brahmins who form 4 percent of Indian population are high caste;

·         Kshatriyas and Vasishyas who form approximately 10 percent of Indian population are low caste next to Brahmins;

Dravidians:

·         Dravidians, the original inhabitants of India and who form 85 percent of Indian population are Sub Low castes (either Sudras or Panchamas).

Thus

               Foreigners are branded as            High castes and

                                                                           Low castes

               Dravidians, are branded as           Sub Low castes (Sudras and Panchamas).

Thus caste stratification of the Aryans degrade whole Dravidians, the original inhabitants of India, as Sub Low castes.

–          8. Racism and Casteism are the principles of the followers of          Anti –Christ. How?:

Vedantic religions talk of Triune God i.e., Siva, Vishnu and Brahma.

Trinity concept is explained in different aspects in Vedantic literature and they are as follows:

1. Historical aspect

2. Mythical aspect

3. Literary aspect

4. Theological and Philosophical aspect and

5. Iconographic aspect

Mythical Aspect:

Among trinity, concept of Son of God has been described in ‘Mythical Aspect’ in following four different aspects in Vedantic religions i.e., Saivism and Vaishnavism.

1.      Kumarakkadavul            –  Son of God who conquered Satan

2.      Pillaiyar / Ganesh           –  Death and Resurrection of Son of God

3.      Brahma                             –   Creator of the world

4.      Ayyappan                         –   Light of the world

Saivite perspective                         – Kumarakkadavul and Pillaiyar

Vaishnavite perspective – Brahman and Ayyappan

 Trinity concept has been explained as follows:

v      God the Father is known as                        – Siva (both Saivite and   

   Vaishnavite perspective)

v     God the Holy Spirit is known as                – Vishnu (Vaishnavite perspective)

v     God the Son (Christ) is known as             – Brahma (Vaishnavite perspective)

·         Followers of Siva                     – Saivites;

·         Followers of Vishnu                – Vaishnaivites; and

·         Followers of Brahma              –  Brahmins.

Among trinity, concept of Brahma i.e., Son of God, is glorified in Brahma Sutra by Vedavyasa.

In 9^th c.A.D. Adi Sankara had alienated the concept of ‘Brahma’ from trinity and  incorporated with it his new interpretation that claims that ‘I am God’, the concept against Son of God, i.e., the principle of Anti – Christ (2 Thessalonians 2 : 4) and based on this principle he had given religious sanction to racism and casteism through Advaita philosophy and formed a new sect known as ‘Brahmins’. (It should be noted here that according to the caste stratification of the Brahmins, the Brahmins are superior (highest caste) by birth and all non-Brahmins are inferior (low caste) by birth, and thus the Brahmins are holding top most position of egotism i.e., the principle of Anti – Christ.)

9. Discussion between Two Systems:

Discussion between two systems:

System 1:

Followers of Anti – Christ :

(Both Brahmins and pro–Brahmins who support caste stratification, against the concept of ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ)

Principles of upholding racism and casteism that totally breaks down 

‘Divine Unity in Christ’.

System 2:

Followers of Christ :

(Christians who are striving for bringing ‘Divine Unity’ in Christ )

Principles of eradicating racism and casteism, which build up

‘Divine Unity in Christ’.

10 . Highly Indispensable – irrespective of religion:

Discussion between

Followers of Anti-Christ  (System 1) and

Followers of Christ (System 2) 

is highly indispensable.

Hence, kindly bring scholars including the scholars who secured Ph.D. in Sanskrit, even though they are not missionaries or Christians and irrespective of religion.

11. Conclusion

In my previous mails I have outlined the following seven questions and invited you for a discussion with your team of scholars. But you haven’t come forward for discussion and did not even bother about the following seven questions.

1.     Is caste a genetic factor?

2.      Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.      Is casteism an age-old concept of India?

4.     Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.    Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

7.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against the constitution of India?

For the above seven questions

discussion between two systems is indispensable.

If you are convinced that the stand of the pro – Brahmin is the stand of Anti – Christ, then we can sit together and form strategies for delivering India from the clutches of Anti – Christian Brahmanical  fold, to the Kingdom of Christ.

So Kindly select,

1. Discussion between two systems

or

2.   Discussion for forming strategies to deliver India from the clutches of Anti – Christian Brahminical fold to the Kingdom of Christ.

Standing together for the common goal will yield more fruit.

Kindly allow me to finish this mail again with the prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My  prayer for all of them is

“that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may  believe that You sent me. (John 17: 21 )

“Make them pure and holy by teaching them your words of Truth.  As you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. (John 17: 17, 18 )

May the divine Grace of God blesses and strengthens us to carry out

His unsurpassed precious teaching all over the world.

Expecting your kind reply.

In Christ,

Sis.Devakala Deivanayagam.

Dear Vishal,

The following email was forwarded to me by someone not listed here.  Since it refers to something I supposedly said, let me clarify.  

The Muslim believers in question, did meet and even participate in small bible studies with some of the believers from the Spanish evangelical church in our country.  However, when the pastor of that church wanted them to join his church, and we asked if he was willing to ask the women of his church to wear less revealing clothes (they wore spaghetti-strap tops and mini skirts at that time), he said “What? Our women dress like those “Moros” (a very derogatory name Spaniards used for Muslims, literally meaning “negros/niggers” or “blacks”).  Neither were the church members willing to remove pork from their lunch potluck menu.

Needless to say, it was the established Christians not the new Muslim-background believers that made eating and fellowshipping together difficult. “We” missionaries were not making the decisions.

I hope that helps anyone who might have misunderstood what I was saying.

Thanks,

Becky

This certainly reflects the sad state of the church today. First the violation of God’s principles in  1 Corinthians 8, and then the attitude of a so called ‘Pastor’.

However, this should not lead to segregation but rather the planting of a new local church governed by true shepherds based on God’s Word, practiced in love and open to all.

With warm regards,
Alex

Hi Alex,

That is in fact what happened. There were two fellowships started by Muslim believers, who Spanish believers were free to come to, and some did.  They had to get used to things like drinking mint tea, eating with their hands, sitting on the floor, and being led by former Muslims, of course. Praise God for the few Spanish believers who were willing to do that and even dress modestly too! Yeah!

Perhaps it would help to point out that while we can of course encourage people from different cultures/language groups/races to fellowship with each other, the gathering itself will tend to be one culture or the other. We ourselves met a few weeks ago with the couple-hundred workers we have in S.E.Asia.  They came from 13 nations. I was in a small group that had no language in common except Indonesian (Argentines, Germans, Philippinos), so they shared in that language. However, I did not understand it, so one of the couples translated into Spanish for me (since none of them knew English).  Yet the “big” meetings themselves were still in English, the language the most people understood, with songs in English. Everyone seemed OK with that, but it could not exactly be called a “multicultural” worship service.

I hope this helps understanding of how these things often play out in practice.

Becky

Dear Becky

Thank you for clarifying. I have encountered that sort of thing often in India. For a while we worshipped in the Centenary Methodist Church in New Delhi. The Senior Pastor then was an American. One day I was sharing with him about a group of dalits who wanted to be baptized. He responded, “Do we really want those people to come into our church? Isn’t the Indian church looked down upon because of such converts?”

Another Indian pastor in Delhi went farther in calling the dalits “dogs” (who wanted to quit Hinduism. In Hindi a Dog is not a cute little animal that you want in your home. It is an animal you chase with sticks or bricks.) Obviously, it will be very hard to worship in a church where the pastor treats you as low and untouchable.

So, while your situation is understandable . . . to understand one problem with the Insider Movement to the Hindus you have to imagine this. A white American missionary goes today or ten years ago to South Africa  in order to establish a mono-ethnic, homogenous, racially segregated (white only) church in the name of Homogeneous Unit Principle. It is possible that SA whites will be very uncomfortable in most black churches . . . but would it be contextual to establish racially segregated churches in South Africa?

The Insider Movement is supposed to be contextualizing . . . but how can it be so completely out of touch with the social context of Tamil Nadu (which began the current national agitation against casteism.) The reason the Insider Movement is so non-contextual is because its theoretical foundation is Dr. McGavran’s mistaken definition of “Nation.”  For Pasadena missiology, Tamil Brahmins are a nation, India (or South Africa) is not a nation (biblically). Therefore, India’s need to overcome the caste-problems created by “Hinduisms” is not important. This is why my problem is not Rick Hivner but Dr. McGavaran. His definition of nation is the problem and beyond that American Fundamentalism is the larger historical problem. It privatized the Gospel of the kingdom . . . making it publically “irrelevant” (Guinness/Marsden) i.e. Gospel and mission cease to be about discipling nations.

The reason Rick’s seminar in Gurukul raised this storm is not because people like Devakala and Alex do not know how to speak the truth in love. It is because an attempt to plant racially segregated churches in South Africa is vastly different than establishing four different worship services in Lake Avenue church to suit different musical tastes. Caste is not even an issue about interdining or intermarriage. It is the issue on which the Lord spoke to Peter in a vision in Acts 10 . . . don’t look upon these people as “unclean” . . . the Lord had to persist with Peter by repeating the vision, which is really the same thing as rebuking him.  This segregation is an issue that so angered James that he called those church leaders hypocrites who separated people along class (not race) lines. This fight against segregation is about violation of human dignity of the vast majority of Indians. The issue is profound enough that it merits 4-40 hours of discussion and I hope Bruce Graham will organize it. As Dr. Winter correctly saw, the roots of the problem go back to D. L. Moody and British-American (Fundamentalist) eschatology and Christology and ecclesiology. I do want to write a series of articles on this and eventually a book on The Great Commission According to Revelation because Pasadena Missiology (built on American Fundamentalism) has really blundered on a number of points . . . Let me give one example, I have been meaning to write the following to Ajoy, but perhaps I should just add it here . . .since he is getting this email.

To understand and correct some of the fundamental errors of the Insider Movement I recommended to Ajoy to study Psalm 2 and Revelation 2 . . . “Ask of me and I will give you the nations (not just souls) as your inheritance . . . you will rule them with an iron scepter (“Authority” that Pasadena Perspective fails to see) . . . you will dash them to pieces like pottery (Sati and idolatory and untouchability and corruption and oppression are obvious issues in India). Ajoy and the rest of us have to go on reading the rest of the book of Revelation to understand who Christ is, what his mission is and how John saw the Great Commission at the end of his life.

The promise to Abraham, explained in more details to the Messiah in Psalm 2 . . . I will give the nations as your inheritance . . . begins to be fulfilled in Revelation 5 when the Lamb-Lion takes the title deed of the earth from the hands of the Almighty. As he opens the seals, he begins to shatter the nations to pieces. By the end of the sixth seal the kings and generals and the mighty of the earth begin to say to the rocks to hide them from the wrath of the Lamb . . . and the Lamb goes on to spread his tent over the poor and meek (of the Sermon on the Mount). This is the historic transformation of India that began with the Gospel and William Carey. He was involved with Brahmin Pandits on an intimate and daily basis, translating the Bible with them and teaching Indian languages to British civil servants. So, on any given day he spent far more time with upper castes than with the lower castes. Carey understood India and contextualized the Gospel, He  made it a requirement that anyone genuinely repenting and converting had to eat with believers from all castes . . .  He was responding to the context of centuries old apartheid in India . . .

His (God’s) mission was messed up by post 1813 British missionaries who brought the snobbishness of the British Class system to India and the American missionaries who brought the moral failure of the American church (segregation) into India . . . But at least they had most of the Gospel right . . . and the two centuries of missions is what has generated the present nation-wide movement against Hinduism , , , but now thanks to Pasadena missiology which does not understand even the biblical meaning of terms such as “nation,” we have American missionaries who in the name of contextualization will go against both God’s mission to reconcile all things in Christ as well as go against the cry of the Indian nation to find a spirituality that helps us transform our hierarchical society into an egalitarian society.

Dr. McGavran was wrong because the “modern” (post-Reformation) understanding of nation-state is in fact biblical. God promised to make Abraham a great nation by giving him a land to own and govern (authority), descendents (people group) that will rule than land, and become a blessing to the nations (bring the kingdom to them by making them disciples of the King). Being a nation involves geography, economics, law and governing authority and love for all of this – nationalism. “Dsicipling Nations” therefore includes issues of justice, development and freedom. These are dimensions that were part of the 19th century theology and missionary movement (do take the time to read my book “India: the Grand Experiment.”) But pietistic, pessimistic, premillinial, dispensationalism reduced the Gospel to what we see today.

The conflict over the Insider Movement is about whether the “spiritual” needs of the Brahmin nation supersede the need of the nation of India to find a spirituality that promotes human dignity, equality and freedom. The different perspectives emerge from different theological worldviews. That is why I am asking for a minimum of a four hour discussion.

I respect you dear Becky . . . you are a wonderful sister and I have no doubt that you will be a blessing to India. However, this is a battle where I have no choice but to take a very firm stand against much of what Dr. McGavran and Dr. Winter taught. I just wish that I had paid enough attention to this two years ago and persisted in arguing my case with your dad. I think that he had begun to move in the right direction when be began to rethink the theology of the Kingdom – the public dimensions of the Gospel. Anyway, what I couldn’t do with him, I hope I can do with you. . . study these issues . . . not to correct what Rick is doing, but to correct the problems created by Moody and Wheaton and Scofield and the Holiness Movement and Pentecostalism and Fuller and the US Center. My concern is not just the Dalits and OBC but America. It is terrible that in India we lost 10 million Dalits to Neo-Buddhism but to see America being lost to paganism, homosexuality, corruption and poverty becomes heart-breaking when you consider that American missiology is still driven by “Finish the task in our generation” mind set which is so mistaken about its basic assumptions of what the Gospel and God’s mission are all about.

I am glad to be an Outsider looking at American missiology critically.

It was great to see Emily last night. I am so grateful for the community of girls = Suzana, Davita, Emily = who are being used to impact India in a way, none of us can hope to do and it is so good that they have you and Silvia and Linda as models and supporters.

Thank you also for connecting me with Beth.

Vishal

Dear Vishal,

I do not believe that my father, Dr. Winter, (or Dr. McGavran, whom I also knew) ever promoted racism or segregation, any more than Paul the Apostle did when he defended the right of the Greeks to remain uncircumcised and still deserving of the respect of the Jewish believers as joint heirs. Although they may have been misunderstood by others to be saying or promoting that, as even Paul is sometimes.  ALL are made clean before God by the cleansing power of the Gospel, both the oppressed and the oppressor.

“Insider Movements” more than anything else reveal this most amazing power of the Gospel to “break down the walls of hostility”… as I have seen with my own eyes orthodox Jewish Israeli believers in Jesus their Messiah embrace Muslim insider followers of the Lord Jesus.  Yes, arch enemies for 4000 years embracing each other EVEN THOUGH each remains a light and a witness INSIDE their communities of birth. My experience has confirmed my faith that Jesus Himself is our peace.

Therefore, I do not think we need to fear these kind of Jesus movements. The transforming power of the Gospel itself brings that unity of the Spirit across all former barriers that we all desire.

Perhaps some think we have too much faith in the power of the Gospel to transform people (and eliminate racism) if it can gain a hearing in their midst. But is seems to me that is where Paul put his faith. 

From my perspective, the problem of racism in the USA does not exist among true believers (like my father), who freely love and fellowship with believers wherever they find them (yes, even Muslim believers). Racism exists among the half-Christian who demand that others become “like us” before they will embrace and fellowship with them. My father even had our family attend black churches, Vietnamese and Spanish churches, and churches from very different denominations, like Seventh Day Adventist, Quaker and Catholic churches. 

You misrepresent both my father’s character and his teachings if you imply anything different. And those who knew him will know that you are misrepresenting him.

Respectfully,

Becky

Hi Becky

How would you explain McGavran’s statement in his book – Bridges of God (page 329),

“In many parts of the field it was psychologically difficult for a person to become a Christian as it would be for a white man in South Africa to join a Negro church knowing that his children would intermarry with the black children.”

Alex

Dear Becky

I am not suggesting that either Dr. Winter or Dr. McGavran were racists. But they sowed and watered the seed that is now blooming in this idea of establishing racially segregated churches. In an email to me, copied to few others, your dad defended caste-based churches on the ground that Lake Avenue had four services to cater to different musical tastes. Organizing worship services to cater to different linguistic preferences or musical tastes is one thing, organizing churches in order to exclude some races or castes is entirely different issue.

Dr. McGavran confused the issue with his argument that since Paul did not oppose slavery, we do not need to oppose casteism. Slavery and Racism are two different things.

Slavery is an economic evil which can become a moral evil. God’s desire was that each family should own its own land in the Promised Land and enjoy economic freedom and security. However, in a fallen world, wars, famines, disease and death do drive people away from their land. Therefore, the Scripture recognized that situations would arise where an individual or a family (of the same race) may have nothing to barter but their labor. God commanded that such victims of “natural” or social disaster should be set-free during the Sabbath year and their land restored to them in the Jubilee year.

Racism, in contrast, is a moral evil which has no justification. It is our refusal to love our neighbor as ourselves. Dr. McGavran was confused about it and from what I see your dad followed him in this confusion. Together, their influence has promoted a missiology of establishing Caste-based churches which is sinful. It is not surprising that Dr. DM and Dr. RDW and you keep quoting Paul, but never come to terms with Paul confronting Peter’s hypocrisy. Paul didn’t make campaign against slavery his priority . . . but don’t you think he put up a pretty determined fight against race-based segregation? And incidentally, Paul’s battle was not about inter-dining. It was about Peter’s refusal to obey the vision God gave him in Acts 10 – about not treating other people as unclean or inferior. As James puts it the fight is about treating human beings with the dignity of God’s image. Brahminical separation from other castes violates that dignity. Insider Movement respects that sin as “Indian culture.”

Vishal

Dear Vishal,

I can see how you would be offended if you felt that my father was equating caste with musical tastes. I assure you that was not his intention, and what perhaps he intended to refer to were the different services for different language groups that exist at LACC, which are NOT done in order to keep the Latinos (etc.) separate ethnically from the Anglos due to any racial prejudice, but to better provide for the needs of both groups and occasionally they all meet together.  

Regardless, the problem of caste is clearly at a whole different level than the above, and please forgive anything that appears to either minimize or overlook that fact, in what I have said or my father may have written during his dying years.

The passage you refer to below in Galatians, about Paul confronting Peter over his hypocrisy, I discuss  in my latest article entitled The Intergrity of the Gospel and Insider Movements (in the January 2010 issue of IJFM) which I have attached.

The context makes clear that Paul was condemning Peter’s actions because his actions gave the impression that a person could be “justified before God” by the “following Jewish customs” or “the Law” (i.e. eating kosher food in this case). This point is made clearly and repeatedly in Galatians 2:14-21, 3:2-5, most of the rest of the book, but then summarized again by Paul writing “in his own hand” Gal. 5:11-16.   It appears that Peter, Barnabas, and some other Jews had already clearly been fellowshipping with the Gentile believers, but Peter apparently withdrew to another (kosher) table when some ritually-strict Jewish believers showed up, drawing some of the other Jews with him, including Barnabas.  While Paul acknowledges previously (Galatians 2:6-10) that he and Barnabas were called by God to reach the Gentiles and Peter to reach the Jews (showing that reaching people by people-group was OK), Paul insisted that in their fellowshipping together, they must not imply a greater holiness before God by either being circumcised/kosher or NOT being circumcised/kosher. 

So it appears to me that Paul was not just fighting racism or prejudice (as important as that is) but he was fighting for something he seemed to believe was even more important: he was fighting to obtain equal access to salvation for all people groups (both the Jew and the Gentiles) by grace alone. With nothing added.  

My attached article explains why I believe that Paul’s defense of the Gospel for all peoples must included a freedom to not change people-groups as part and parcel of salvation itself (unless they want to). Salvation is free to all sinners, both to those in the downtrodden groups and those in the oppressive elite groups. Ultimately it is this free salvation (including the sanctification aspects of it) that delivers people from the evils of prejudice and hatred (as Gal. 5 and 6 makes clear), and all their other besetting personal and cultural sins.   

We all want to destroy prejudice and oppressive systems like the caste system. My father did too. While access to the unencumbered Gospel might not be sufficient to see this transformation, it is certainly both the foundational and the necessary precursor to any internal transformation. Jesus was both very patient and persevering in helping his 12 disciples put off their Jewish prejudices, continuing the process even after his ascension.  Jesus himself (the apostle or missionary) associated from the beginning with people from all “castes”: Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. It seems to me that for the (sinful) disciples it was a process that began with faith.

You asked for me to comment on Paul’s rebuke of Peter. That is my understanding of what happened.

I send you greetings from Greg Watts and his wife!

Becky

Hi Alex,

Sorry, somehow I missed this email. 

You asked:

________

How would you explain McGavran’s statement in his book – Bridges of God (page 329),

“In many parts of the field it was psychologically difficult for a person to become a Christian as it would be for a white man in South Africa to join a Negro church knowing that his children would intermarry with the black children.”

__________

The key phrase here is “to become a Christian”… I believe that McGavran was simply pointing out that NON-believers were seeing that the only gate into being a believer (or “Christian”) was to join a people group that they despised.  Since prejudice is something only removed BY the Holy Spirit (after conversion) , non-believers will reject the Gospel out of hand as “not being for us” if it is only seen as possible for people in other people groups they currently hate. 

McGavran was not in favor of apartheid. So I do not believe that McGavran said this to in any way condone prejudice (in either India or S. Africa, or either in the church or out of it), but to point out that prejudice is a fact we cannot just ignore, especially when reaching out to people in unreached people groups. 

For example: In Jesus’ time, the hated Samaritans or the Greeks thought they “had to become Jews” to be saved by a Jewish messiah, and Jesus (John 4) and Paul (many places) had to disabuse them of that idea.  Jesus said basically, “no you don’t have to worship God in Jerusalem instead of on this mountain,” to the Samaritan woman, “BUT, you do have to worship Him in spirit and truth.” In the end the Samaritan village understood that Jesus was “the savior of the world” not just of the Jews.

This separation of the Gospel from having to change people groups (during evangelism) is important because the Gospel is for SINNERS, including horribly prejudiced sinners who would not even consider joining another (hated) people group to receive salvation.  AFTER they begin to have the Holy Spirit work in their lives, the Jews, Samaritans and Greeks/Romans were able to begin to love each other without requiring changes in culture for that to happen (the Greeks didn’t have to mutilate their flesh with circumcision or become Kosher, and the Jews didn’t have to break all their Jewish laws either to be accepted by God and as fellow brothers by the Greeks).  

The “dividing wall of hostility” is broken down by the transforming work of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives. The unity is a “unity of the Spirit” created BY the Spirit. 

And YES the believers do need to be encouraged and rebuked to overcome their prejudices (as Paul did to Peter when he forgot the lesson he had learned post-conversion through dreams and the visit to Cornelius). [And I also agree with Vishal that we must fight prejudice in society through the courts of law, as did McGavran, by the way.]

But you notice, Jesus, in John 4, after telling the disciples to “see” the Samaritans ripe for harvest, goes and stays in the Samaritan village two days ALONE, modeling no racism but still giving his disciples time to get over their prejudice. It is only later in Acts that we see any examples of the disciples going into Samaritan villages, BUT THEY DO! That is the encouraging thing. Would the Jewish disciples have seen the Gospel as good news for themselves if part of receiving it was to go and live among the Samaritans? Not likely. But, post-conversion, the Holy Spirit gave them a love and brotherhood with the hated Samaritans and later the idolatrous Greeks.

So I believe that McGavran’s only point is that we should not expect more of non-believing prejudiced people than Jesus himself expected. We need to go to them where they are, whether in their Jewish ghettos or their Samaritan ghettos, win them to the Lord where they are, THEN help them overcome their sinful thoughts and attitudes.

That is how I have always understood McGavran’s teachings, from the time I was little.

I hope this is helpful to the discussion.

Becky

Dear Becky,

I am sorry that it has not been possible to go through your Bible study carefully and respond to the details. Today is my deadline to finish some projects – – – but I did want to respond to at least one of your fundamental assumptions . . . that is “Since prejudice is something only removed BY the Holy Spirit (after conversion)”

You are one of the few American evangelicals I know who are interested in Finny and the Second Great Awakening, therefore, that statement coming from you says to me that you are still struggling with “pre” and “post” D. L. Moody understanding of biblical spirituality. May I suggest, respectfully but without beating around the bush, that a fundamental problem between us is that I think that you know better, but you are still choosing to side with post-Moody American evangelicalism, which is confused about Christ, Holy Spirit and the Church. This is admittedly a sweeping statement and can easily mean that I am utterly conceited or that we really do need 40 hours of Bible study. I wish I had discussed these things with your dad when he was with us, because I think during the last few years he was trying to get out of the theological errors of the last 100 years but hardly any one at the US Center worked with him in the profound struggle in his soul. He was a greater than the ideas he inherited from his theological climate. I think you are also greater than your ideas . . . so, by His grace I will make up in what I failed to do with your dad – that is, discuss the details with you.

To begin with a response to your statement above . . . may I begin by asserting that the Holy Spirit does not bear our cross. We have to bear it ourselves and stand against the sins of our cultures and suffer for our stand. The Spirit gives us the grace and the power to do that. Peter – the apostle to the Jews – was crucified in pagan Rome, because Pagans saw him and his messianic movement as a threat to them! The Jews in Jerusalem saw Paul – the apostle to the Jews – as a threat to Jewish culture and therefore wanted to crucify (stone or kill) him in Jerusalem. These apostles were turning the world upside down because they were like Finny, not Moody or Billy Graham (though Billy Graham did take a great stand against racial segregation in his crusades.) As you know, it was white Christians who burnt down Finny’s first church in New York, forcing him to move to Oberlin College. He preached against slavery that had ceased being an economic evil but become a great moral evil (as in the days of Nehemiah, when the rule of releasing slaves in Sabbath year had been set aside due to economic greed. Finny did not leave his culture’s sin up to the Holy Spirit.   

I am attaching a chapter, “Jesus the Troublemaker” from my book “Truth and Transformation” (commended by your dad). If you cannot read the whole chapter, please do read the section on the untouchable Canaanite (Syro-Phoenician) woman whom Jesus called a “dog.” Jesus was transforming his disciples way before Peter’s vision of the unclean animals in Acts 10. His Jewish disciples could not see Him as the Savior of the World (not just a Jewish Messiah) and go into all the world (including India) and make disciples of all nations, unless they were freed from their racial prejudice.

My book (you can get a copy from Ivan) has a chapter on the Holy Spirit on Social Reform . . . but right now let us begin with a discussion of Christ and our cross, because my contention is that we have this conflict because the Insider Movement does not understand Christ of the Gospels – it has a caricature of Christ of post-Moody American evangelicalism.

Yours for a recovery of the transforming power of the Gospel.

Vishal

Hi Becky,

Having a strategy to change people groups during evangelism is understandable. However, our message is (Acts 26:20) – Repent and Turn to God and Perform Deeds worthy of their Repentance. There can be no compromise on this.

God is very clear in His Word,

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envying, murders, drunkenness, reveling, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Gal 5:19-21) 

And YES, this transformation is accomplished BY the Power of His Holy Spirit evidenced by the individual’s works/deeds (James 2:14-26). Hence, there was always a local church where Jews and Gentiles fellowshipped, and when there were issues, the Elders rose up to resolve them so that there was no disparity in the Body of Christ.

Regarding the “courts of law”, I will let I Corinthians 6 speak.

The historical truths discussed are spiritual weapons that break down strongholds in people’s lives; as Paul writes,

For the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Cor 10:4-6) 

In an interesting experience with my Gideon brothers in Coeur D Alene, this principle so clearly played out. One of them had travelled to India and came back with the “typical American Evangelical” perspective, stories, pictures, etc. My wife and I spent hours explaining but it made no difference. I then felt in my spirit that I was missing something in my historical research. It was then that God opened my understanding through Angus Madison’s research and confirmed the role of the British in India. Sometime later I did meet with my Gideon brothers in Coeur D Alene, Idaho. I started to explain how the region of India and China were the most affluent in the world till the onset of the British, and their role in destroying the land of India and China, and, the birth of Global Racism based on one’s skin color. I hardly took a minute or two and they all got it!

The word Christian since it is a grossly misused and misunderstood term today. We find it first in the Bible in the book of Acts 11:26 where the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. A key point should be noted here, it was the disciples who were called Christians. There were two types in those who followed Jesus, one were the disciples and the other were called the crowds or multitudes who followed Christ for self-gain. It was quite simple to separate the two groups since the slightest discomfort was sufficient to cause the multitudes to fall back. A distinct example is seen in Matthew chapter five verse one where Christ desiring to teach His disciples sees a multitude following him.

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him. Matthew 5:1

Notice the simple stress of climbing a mountain separated the multitudes from the disciples. Generally multitudes follow Christ for personal gain like a healing, personal problems, etc. However, today this distinction has been lost and we carelessly call the multitudes as Christians. However, God has called us to be disciples and to make disciples of the multitudes that would seek Him. The Mark of a Disciple is clearly seen in Luke 14:25-35; he or she is one who will deny self, take up their cross daily and follow Him.

With warm regards,
Alex

Hi

Pastor Jake and I met Dr. Devanaiyagam and Dr. Devakala last Tuesday (a week back!!!) for a couple of hours. Its interesting how people can find oneness in spirit and heart while we are trying to work out our various and sometimes opposing perspectives. It was like meeting old friends.

We discussed various theories and views related to St. Thomas Tamil Christianity and it is surprising how much empirical data has been packed into the hypothesis from philosophy, iconography, popular religion, linguistics etc. Besides, the one thing I found most impressive was that both of them (and their team members) find access into temples, political forums and Christian groups (across the country) since their presentation of the gospel message draws heavily from local philosophies and religious stories and hence has a contextualised format which immediately hits a chord with the local populace. (Interestingly, the only other person I know who does this is Chris Hale of Aradhna who is loosely connected to the Rethinking Forum!!)

Frankly, for this reason alone, the St. Thomas Tamil Christianity views merit serious attention. The internal consistency and the empirical adequacy (esp with respect to history, linguistics and iconography) of the set of theories of course needs to be investigated further in detail by anyone who desires to provide a honest response.

Both of them reiterated their support for Insider movements as a relevant contextual method but did raise a concern that given the caste based structures in India, the insider movement among Brahmins could be harbouring/preserving the evils of the caste system while sincerely attempting to reach their context for Christ. Also, they felt that Western Christians used to dealing with slavery within social structures do not and indeed could not understand the ramifications of casteism which is purely a local phenomenon. Hence the suggestion that casteism should be responded to with the same approach as the apostles and the Western church dealt with slavery is counterproductive. (This has been Vishal’s suggestion as well and needs to be discussed further by the group).

For its implications for the church existing within the framework of Christendom (and for all interested in theological and missiological perspectives), the idea that Christ is the fulfillment of all religions just as he is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion needs to be studied further. Also, the relevance of the Old Testament today within the above framework. (I thought that there was a germ of an idea that the OT may not be as relevant as the NT for our context today, but I’m not sure). People interested in missional models/church planting and inter-church relationships may also have some queries regarding how/if/whether this presentation of the gospel integrates eventually with the local church today and if its even necessary that it does.

Pastor Jake and I left expressing our desire to return and discuss some more details (after enjoying the warm hospitality and the high tea!). Dr. Devakala also asked if there was some way this group could work together in concert for the sake of our country. I’m surely its possible and obviously, that’s a question that this group needs to respond further to.

Meanwhile, we can focus on understanding each other better. The views being shared across these conversations over emails have surely been useful. And we surely need to also hear more from some of the (so far) silent listeners in this group as well. There is much unspoken wisdom and insight present, I’m sure.

Ajoy

Hi, Alex

Thanks for the mail. I realise that this mail is not addressed to me but I thought I could share some thoughts given the open and heartfelt nature of these discussions. Also, since the issues being discussed here have a bearing on all of us.

(Incidentally, I have not read Mcgravan or Winter  and hence my thoughts are not FOR or AGAINST their perspectives but for a clearer personal theological, ecclesiological and missiological understanding. Big words, which I have borrowed from my friends in theological circles!!).

There dont seem to be any passages in Scripture which necessarily indicate that Jews and Gentiles ALWAYS worshipped together. Especially since the church in Antioch (Acts 11: 19-26, 13: 1), Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23) seemed fully Gentile with the exception of their Jewish and apostolic shepherds. The Galatian churches may also have been predominantly Gentile, if not fully so, given Paul attempts them to get them to see themselves as “descendants of Abraham” (Gal 3:29; 4:28). These passages do not support purely Gentile churches as a prescription necessarily, but surely suggest it as a possible and legitimate option.

Also, the verse Acts 11:26 can serve as a good historical lesson that whether we are “Christians” or not should be left to those who are watching us  in our various contexts and are perhaps outside the church.(You would agree that the term means the “Christ-ones”- a description that was not meant to be complimentary but descriptive of the rather explicit relationship with the controversial Jewish Messiah).The people around us will tell us whether we are associated with Christ or not – either favourably or unfavourably. Then we will know better who is among “the multitude” and who are among “the disciples”. When Christians take up the labelling, then it becomes part of the internal politics of Christendom.

What makes this situation even more interesting is that the so-called “disciples” (including those who went up to the mountain side in Mathew 5) and apostles were missing at the cross! Peter the apostle (who has been discussed much among us) sided with the Judaizers rather than risk social ostracisation. Barnabas also was led astray. John Mark left the missionary journey half-way. Obviously then, discipleship is more than a one-time reaction to a situation -whether a good response or a bad one.

This means unless there is a consistent outward practice of the “works of the flesh” as an active lifestyle (ref  Ga; 5:19-21 -NIV and NASB), there is not sufficient reason to call into question the faith of any person who calls himself/herself a follower of Jesus. Atleast, thats what I can safely gather from these verses.  Especially since among the “works of the flesh” are listed impurity, idolatory, hatred, discord, jealousy, selfish ambition etc – sins that most of us as followers of Jesus slip into from time to time – with or without our knowledge – insiders or outsiders.

Ajoy

Dear Ajoy

Paul – the apostle to the Gentiles – typically began his ministry in a Jewish Synagogue in every city and when he was thrown out he took the Jewish believers with him to the Gentiles. He was persecuted (see the charge against him in Acts 21:27-29) because he saw uniting all races in Christ as the most exciting mystery of God’s mission. Avoiding such persecution (a result of transforming evils of a culture by taking up our cross) seems to be a major impulse behind the Insider Movement. In an earlier email you mentioned that Thomas’ style of mission that threatens culture and leads to martyrdom is not binding … That is to say Christ, Peter, Paul, John, Thomas are not good models. We do not have to take up our cross. Leave it to the Holy Spirit. 

Vishal

Hello Ajoy,

I am happy to hear from you and to know that you met with Dr. Deivanayagam and Dr. Devakala and tried to engage in a dialogue with them.   Their Movement “tamilarsamayam” is an Insider Movement existing outside the established church in India.  They have a vision to lead people to Christ and developed their own theology through research based on both the Bible and Tamil Literature although their views could be challenged by other scholars.  However, I can greatly appreciate their fight and the personal sacrifice they have made to eradicate Casteism from its roots.

Sometime back Alex corresponded with me about People Movement Approach promoted by the US Center for World Mission.  Then on June 17, 2010 he sent a flier and letter stating that he wanted to take this matter to the global church.  He said we were free to circulate his letter and that is what I did.  After I forwarded it to many and several individuals joined in responding to his letter. Dr. Devakala,s experience with the Gurukal meeting also became part of this discussion.  The question about caste in the church and its mission has been now debated by the Christian scholars through e-mails.  So far I have been silent but reading all the information coming in the mail.    

I am so anguished over Casteism like Alex, Vishal, Deivanayagam and many others.   I thought about it and wrote about it in the past.  Caste, caste system and Casteism are distinguishable but not separable in Indian society.  A person is born in a caste and dies in a caste.  He can choose his religion but not the Caste.  Indian society is well organized on caste basis after the Aryans introduced the caste system.  Discrimination on the basis of caste, race and color is the evil present in human society.  This evil will be in the society as long as the people submit themselves to the evil powers.   However, Jesus came to establish his spiritual kingdom on earth “Kingdom of God”.  It is invisible.  The visible church should follow and reflect the values of the Kingdom of God.  But unfortunately the Church as an institution failed in this respect.  The churches in India are the result of the missionary enterprise of the western Christians who followed racial and color distinction and followed the policy of segregation and discrimination in the Churches in the West for a longtime but now  the Christian churches in the West have opened their doors for all people.  It took about 200 years to reach this goal among white nominal Christians.  However, the missionary enterprise started in the West had the goal of expanding the western Christendom in India by proselytism.  Sadly western missionary enterprise started with the missionary paradigm of civilization prior to Christianization without spiritual transformation.   Such an enterprise created a Christian religion with thousands of denominations and divided the Indian people further by doctrinal and worship differences.  This is the social reality we have in India that may not change.  It is here to stay.

The early Christians both the Jews and the Gentiles met together as one body in house churches.  They worshipped and shared meals together.  Their faith in Christ, the personal experience of coming to know him and the ‘Blessed Hope’ brought them together as one people, the Body of Christ.  Christianity was not a religion at that time.  It was only known as the WAY.  (Acts 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).  Later on the WAY was turned into a philosophy and then it became an institution and a culture.  The mission of the western church became an enterprise during colonialism although some stood outside the view of enterprise and served the people of India with great personal sacrifice.

The issue raised by Alex was about McGavran’s view on mono ethnic church and people group movement.  Both views came within the framework and the tradition of the western missionary enterprise.  It is contended by both Alex and Vishal that the implication of mono-ethnic church means segregation of Christians, churches and worships on caste basis that is totally contrary to the gospel.  They are absolutely right.  Jesus broke all the walls (caste, race, class, religion) that separate one human being from another.  Apostle Paul affirmed the fact that in Christ all are one and equal in God’s sight in spite of cultural differences.  All human cultures are defective and there is no such thing as divine culture.  But there are moral and spiritual principles that are absolutes.  Jesus clearly made the distinction between religion and the absolutes and worshippers and followers. (Matt.6: 1-18;  7:21-23; 9:13; 12:7; 15:2-9; 19:16-21; 23: 1-23; Luke 10: 30-36; 18: 9-14; 19: 45-46; John 4: 21-24) 

The command of Jesus was not to proselytize anyone to change his religion.  He rebuked those who did this in his days. (Matt. 23:15)  He commanded his disciples to make disciples.  Christ clearly explained what he meant to be a disciple.  (Matt. 10:37-38; 16:24; Luke 14: 26-27; 14:23; John 8:31; 15:8)  Jesus never asked anyone to worship him but asked many to follow him.  The word disciple means follower.  After Christ, a religion was gradually made out of the life and teachings of Christ.  This started to happen during the days of Paul.  Therefore, Paul had to write several letters to several churches dealing with the issues related to morality and religion.  He explained what it meant to be a follower of Christ.  (1 Corinth. 11:1)  A Christian is a new creation in Christ. (2 Corinth. 5:17; Gal. 6:15)

The Christ view of the Kingdom of God is realized only in the hearts of some Christians.  Majority of Christians are worshippers of Christ belonging to various western denominational churches in India.  The caste structure is maintained by the Christians in India from the Syrian Christians of 4^th century AD to now.   The Catholic missionaries too tolerated the Casteism within the Church.  This trend was followed by the Protestant missionaries although a few voices echoed against it.  The western missionary enterprise started with a defective missionary paradigm.  Many, with few exemptions, came to India to convert the Indians to western Christendom not to the ‘Kingdom of God’ proclaimed by Christ. The western missionary enterprise promised the Dalits justice, freedom from poverty, prosperity etc.  To some extent it did.  Some missionaries genuinely served the people to free them from oppression, poverty, illiteracy, superstitions and sickness.  However, they did not take much effort to break the power of the caste system that had its grip on the lives of the Christian converts.  The converted Christians continued to maintain their caste identity within the Church and have been fighting within themselves on denominational and caste basis.  They have not tried to overcome the stigma attached to them.  By and large Christianity itself has been viewed as a dalit religion by most Indians.  It seems Christianity itself has become captive to dalits’ agenda in India.  The Insider Movement has come in response to such situation in India.

 The educated Hindus did not embrace Christianity as William Carey expected.  Protestant work remained unsuccessful for a longtime from the western point of view.  In this kind of situation the missionaries like Donald McGavran proposed the idea of mono-ethnic church movement with the hope of taking the gospel to all castes in India.  His focus was Church Growth.  He viewed caste as part of the social structure and wanted to use it as a means to evangelize without breaking it.  He failed to realize that the gospel of Christ has to break all the barriers that divide one human being from another and Christ broke all the walls of separation that includes religious, socio-economic, geographic and racial barriers.  Dr. McGavran genuinely came up with bright ideas for the Church Growth in which he emphasized that the converts need not cross the cultural barriers in order to become Christians.   He did not seriously consider the evils of oppression, untouchability and discrimination ingrained in the caste structure, culture and psychological nature of the Indian brain.  McGavran might have felt that it was impossible to break the caste structure but used it as a means to Church Growth.  The western mind is much interested in goal setting, statistics and quantity.  He might have thought that he should convert and baptize them first and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit.  I wish McGavran had focused on spiritual growth instead of church growth of the westernized Church in India.  But that might not have appealed to his western supporters who were interested in numbers.  He might not have believed in Casteism and racism.  He was very genuine, faithful and right in his thinking to somehow lead the Hindus to Christ.  But his view of the mono-ethnic church did not represent the gospel of Christ in India.

I can understand the heart of the western missionaries who came to preach the gospel and serve the people of India.  I know the mindset of the western missionaries and their desire to establish churches all over the world.  It is their belief that God in His providence has chosen the western nations for evangelizing the world.  Therefore, they are willing to commit themselves and all their resources for the task of world evangelism.  They feel ownership to it and want to be the sole leaders directly or indirectly.   Since they own it they like to have power and control over it. They like to develop missionary strategies for India and execute them through new indigenous mission groups and groups that were already established.  I greatly admire the sacrifices they have done in this great task.  However, they too have made mistakes ignorantly and unintentionally.  I do not want to write about all the mistakes at present here.  They were eager to lead the people out of darkness to light in large numbers.  Their focus was not making disciples for Christ but converting the other religious people to western Christianity and to make them to worship Christ not necessarily to follow Christ.

I think the Rethinking Forum is trying to correct those mistakes in order to carry on the work of evangelism among all the Hindus including the caste Hindus.  The Insider Movement is a natural, logical response to the situation in the westernized Christian Church in India.  The Church in India is viewed as Dalit Church, carbon copy of the western churches in everything, culturally foreign and controlled by the foreign leadership directly or indirectly.  This Church cannot and will not become an indigenous Church.  This Church will never appeal to the educated caste Hindus.  But the gospel has to reach them as well.  The Insider Movement is trying to become a viable alternative to Christian faith and practice in India.  If the evils of Casteism such as oppression, untouchabilty and discrimination are eradicated by the Insider Movement it can make valuable contribution to the cause of Christ in India.

The Insider Movement (like the movement of Swamy Dayanantha Bharathi)is interested in leading Hindus of all castes to Christ and to demonstrate the power of the gospel of Christ outside the established churches.   I know it is only a movement consisted of devotees from several castes and languages.   I have attended the worship conducted by the Hindu Devotees of Christ and enjoyed meals with them.  The worship was attended by different caste groups. Such Insider Movements can do well without interference and support of the westerners.  Let the Holy Spirit direct and guide the Insider Movement. Some westerners are sincerely interested in understanding and helping such movements.  They want to make it to look like the part of the Christianity for which they are the custodians.  They like to take leadership and want to see such movements succeed.  In doing so, they want to keep the paternalistic attitude toward the people.  When I started my ashram, a western missionary told me that he would like to raise funds for the ashram and make it a center for training indigenous gospel workers.  He said that his institution in US will be like the mother institute and the ashram will be like a daughter institute under the mother institute.  I told him clearly that ashram cannot accept that role but remain as independent.  I suggested that we both can be partners and help each other but not one under another.  He did not agree to it and started his own program in India.  His vision and my vision were different although we both are interested in proclaiming the gospel in India.  Ashram wants to bring people of all castes, religions, denominations together in Christ and share the teachings of Christ with them.  We try to find practical solution to the issue of caste the ashram.

The born Christians who desire to fight against Casteism should do so first within the Church.  I am a Hindu convert.  I left Casteism when I became a Christian.  I washed the feet of other caste people during the Lord’s Supper.  I had lot of friends from other castes when I was a student in the Bible College.  But after I became an employee in the church organization I witnessed caste conflict, fight and politics within the church.  I went through the experience of discrimination, rejection and enmity within the church stemming from the caste feelings.   There is a church in Mukuperi whose members belong to one particular caste.  Other castes people are not admitted into that church.  I spoke with the leader of that church about it.  He told me, “Our church is peaceful without many conflicts.  If it is a multi-ethnic church we will have lot of conflicts in the church”.  Mono-ethnic church idea, although contrary to the gospel, is a useful view for the westernized church in India because the church has become like a social institution. But such a church will not represent the Kingdom of God on earth.  

The experience of the born Christians brought up in the westernized Church is different from the experience of the Hindus who have come to know Christ.  The Hindu converts who join the westernized Christian congregation go through cultural shocks and unnecessary suffering.  They are rejected by their own and not accepted fully by the adopted group because of the cultural differences.  A Brahmin convert to Christ was forced by the Christians to eat meat.  Another Brahmin convert was coerced by the Christians to marry a Dalit meat eater.  Many more such experiences the converts go through in the church.  The converts who join the Insider Movement can avoid going through such experiences.  The Hindu converts can certainly feel at home in an Insider Movement.  However, they have to find a meaning full way to relate with Christians in general and born again Christians in particular.  In addition, Insider Movements need to take efforts to understand the vision of each other and help each other build the Kingdom of Christ in India in the hearts of people.

I believe in one God, one world and one people.  You may not able to eradicate caste as a social group, but you can strive to eradicate caste system and Casteism which is the root cause for oppression, untouchability, discrimination and social injustice. In this fight we should not sound like anti-Brahmins and anti-Insider Movement.  We have no quarrel with them.  While the present Indian Church cleanses itself from Casteism, western materialism and worldliness, the Insider Movement needs to learn to help in its spiritual and moral struggles without completely segregating itself.  Although the existing Indian Church appears to be the product of colonialism some of its children are making significant impact on the Indian society through their service and scholarship.

I suggest that the Hindu devotees or followers of Christ and Christian scholars meet together and have a dialogue with each other on the question of caste, mono-ethnic church, culture, contextualization and Christian fellowship   Together they should come up with statements to the world Church on the question of Christian witness in India.  I do not think that in any near future the members of Insider Movements and the Christian believers can come together in faith and fellowship. (Matt. 9:16,17)  The Christians themselves do not cross the denominational barriers to fellowship with each others.  Therefore, we cannot expect them to become part of any Christian congregation. However, the Insider Movements should not remain as exclusive groups while they have their social and spiritual space to work out their faith in their specific context but try to have meaningful dialogue with the Christians and Hindus.

P.R. Solomon

Karunaiyananthar Ashram

Thiruppanthuruthi-613103

Thanjavur Dist. Tamil Nadu

India

Phone# 9360429679

Dont agree, dear Vishal !!!!!

Partly, because the persecutions and hardships that people in the Insider movements face must be judged not by the Outsiders (pardon the use of the term) but by the Insiders themselves. Besides, the Insiders clearly are under the mandate of their Lord to be a prophetic witness to their own communities. They are more aware than most of us who live in fairly cloistered Christian dominated subcultures most of the time. But they would prefer to take up the cross from within their communities in practical every day decisions and within the “web of relationships”.

If comparisons must be made, then the Jewish religious system in the 1st century which had received scriptural and divine revelation is better compared with the established and visible Christian Church (which has also received divine revelation). To compare them to some Hindu groups does not fit, since the Hindu groups have not received scriptural and divine revelation. To compare them to the Insiders is incorrect, since the Insiders are trying to do the exact opposite of what the Judaizers tried to do – make everyone else look like them culturally and socially.

Isnt it is the Christian Church today which persecutes the “Pauls” of our day who insist that Nadars should be freely permitted to intermarry with other Tamil Christians or that Syrian Christians to marry with Nadar Christians or with any other Christian for that matter. Isnt it the Christian Church which has separate churches for separate castes in India motivated by a purely hierarchical consideration?  If we (who are part of  the visible Christian Church) set our own house in order, it might be one of the first steps in reforming our societies. As they say, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others. If we set our own house in order, the Hindus and the Muslims will learn that the gospel works, firstly in the lives and communities of its most visible professors.

Paul says in Timothy that “everyone who desires to live a godly life will be persecuted”. So there is no escape from persecution for true followers of our Lord. But it is unlikely that all of us will be persecuted the same way nor must we create an artificial standard for persecution. My comments about the apostle Thomas or for that matter instances in Scripture come out of general hermeneutical principle : descriptions are not prescriptions. So while we may learn from our illustrious forbears, it might not be necessary to do exactly the same things as they did since their contexts were different from ours.

I find your chapter “Jesus the Trouble maker” most profound. Have finished reading half of it. Should complete the rest by tomorrow.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.
Ajoy

Dear Brother Solomon

Thank you for the comprehensive mail and your inputs for this discussion. You have pointed out many important matters in our history as the church in India and it would great to have others respond as well. I was glad to meet Dr. Devanaiyagam and Dr. Devakala. A personal meeting often dissolves many unnecessary perceptions and establishes that we share a common humanity and in Christ, a new humanity This is despite the disagreements that we may or may not have as we seek to understand each other better.

One of the fine models for exhibiting mutual solidarity among various groups of believers is in the following verses in the earliest stages of the church:

“During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.” (Acts 11:27-30).

Isnt it inspiring that a freshly born Gentile church in Antioch sends gifts to the church in Judea (predominantly Jewish including Hellenistic Jews) expressing their love for their spiritual kin in the face of impending famine !! A reminder that we can maintain our kinship through practical good deeds with our brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of the nature of our composition. Also a apostolic command from Gal 6:10 :

“Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers”

So I am not in favour ANY group (insiders, outsiders or others) being totally cut off from EVERY other expression of church (though every group is alone capable of deciding its specific response in its specific context).

It may be that like Barnabas and Saul in the example above, there are people who understand both camps who may have to be the bridges. Again this is not meant to be prescription for all times and seasons, but a pattern from Scripture that we can learn from.

Thanks again for writing in.
Ajoy

Ajoy, 

I have much appreciated your last two emails. 

I would like to comment on the idea that believers remain “inside” their people group to avoid persecution, which I think is not only not true, but quite the opposite, sometimes they flee their own family and people group to avoid persecution and martyrdom.  

In the New Testament we have both examples of people being martyred who stayed as insider believers in their culture (e.g. Stephen and James, martyred by the Jews) as well as people martyred who left their culture to thereby reach other cultures better (e.g. Paul and Peter, martyred by the Romans).  The same is happening today. 

A few weeks ago I heard Don McCurry speak in Thailand, and he shared a story from his time in P*kistan.  A Mu*slim friend of his became a believer and was determined not to hide his faith from his family.  So he arranged to be baptized by a highly respected medical doctor (from a nearby hospital) in his home town.  His family was humiliated, and his father almost beat him to death in the town square.  But he said, “You are my family, you are my village, you are my people.  I am choosing to follow Isa al Masih (Jesus the Messiah) but I will not leave my family or my people.  I will stay right here, and if you do not feed me, I will die.”  For several days no one fed him, but then his mother began to bring him food. Within a couple weeks, his father begged him to recant so he could take him back into his home.  When he refused, his father finally relented and brought him home anyway.  His family came to faith within a month and soon after that other families in the village began to follow suit.  His behavior was a better witness to his family than if he had left them to join a Christian group in the capital city.  It also involved more persecution and danger, not less, than if he had left.

In the passage Vishal mentions in Acts 21, Paul was in the temple to go through a purification ceremony with some Jewish believers to prove that the reports that he was teaching “Jews that live among the Gentiles to turn away from Jewish customs”(v. 21) were NOT TRUE (v. 24 “then everybody will know that there is no truth in these reports about you..”). Verse 20 says that there were “thousand of Jews who had believed and all of them were zealous for the Law” (these are insider Jewish believers) but that these same zealous Jewish believers were glad that the Gentile believers only had to abide by four restrictions that would make it possible for them to associate with the Jewish believers (see v.25, as decided in Acts 15). 

So Paul was clearly affirming the freedom of Jewish believers to continue to follow the purity laws etc. of Judaism if they chose to do so, while maintaining that the Gentiles should be free of these laws.  And the Jewish church was agreeing.  The riot started because Paul was accused by non-believing Jews of bringing Gentiles into the temple, but verse 29 makes it clear that he did not do that.  The shouting Jewish mob that was stoning him was not even clear about what he had done wrong (v. 34) but was so angry he had to be carried away by the Roman soldiers. 

 It seems to me that the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers had learned to accept each other’s freedom in Christ to follow the Law (if Jewish) or not (if Gentile).  It was the NON-believing Jews who saw Paul’s ministry to the Gentile insider believers as destroying their Law and their people.  

I am really trying to just read Acts for what it says, and not bring my preset agenda to the passage.  I am not saying we have to copy what they did, but I think it is important to understand what was happening.

Blessings,

Becky

Dear Vishal,

Thank you for your response when you are so busy.  I do have my own copy of your book Truth and Transformation, (my daughter Emily made sure I had a copy since she helped to edit it and is listed in the acknowledgements), and I will read it again more thoroughly. She is due to arrive here in Delhi in two weeks to live with us for six months, which we looking forward to very much.

I hope you believe that I am all for doing whatever we can to take down the evils of society, including caste-based prejudice (as was my father).  I realize some of the things I write makes it appear otherwise. Perhaps this email will clarify.

When I was studying in the Library of Congress in Washington DC, I had the privilege of reading many handwritten letters (preserved on microfilm) between Charles Finney and Arthur Tappan (the businessman who funded the founding of the first racially-integrated and alcohol-free church in New York City, which Finney pastored for a while). Tappan himself sat among the blacks in the church as the blacks and whites tended to sit separately even though they both attended the multi-racial church.  Arthur Tappan, and his brother Lewis, also provided most of the funding to start Oberlin College, the first college in the USA to let in both blacks and black/white women in addition to white males. The college was founded primarily to train people to preach the Gospel, and to preach against slavery and against alcohol.

What was interesting about those letters is that Finney and Tappan were debating this same subject (of how to best do societal change) around 180 years ago. Tappan wanted to put more emphasis on the anti-slavery crusade and he wanted Finney to train anti-slavery preachers that would NOT also preach the Gospel (thereby to win over the Jews and others as well to the anti-slavery cause).  Finney refused, saying that to win people to anger against the moral evil of slavery, without ALSO winning their hearts to the Lord, would only succeed in “rolling a wave of blood across our land.”  

I remember sitting back in my seat in shock at this prophecy of Finney (made in the 1830’s) that was fulfilled thirty years later, with more Americans being killed in the Civil War than ALL the other wars Americans have been involved in added together.  

Finney and the Tappan brothers (Lewis and Arthur) eventually had a falling out because Finney insisted that the preachers he trained preach the Gospel for a few days before moving on to preach against slavery and alcohol.  The Tappans went on to promote abolition through various printed media that they funded, apart from evangelism.  I read through this entire process of the breaking up of their relationship in their correspondence, which the Tappans had saved.

Theodore Weld, one of the most-traveled preachers, also broke with Finney over this issue, because Weld wanted his focus to be anti-slavery and temperance, not evangelism/revival. (The woman who became Weld’s wife, Angelina Grimke, was one of the first female preachers in this movement). Weld eventually came close to rejecting his faith in Christ completely because he was so demoralized by continued resistance even among believers to become avidly anti-slavery and anti-alcohol (which was seen to be destroying as many lives as slavery).  

But Finney had tried repeatedly to warn Weld that only those who were real believers (won to Christ or revived in their faith) would be able to truly recognize and repent of the evils of these things. 

So, it was Finney himself, in his own handwriting, who has persuaded me of the position I now hold: which is that the Gospel must be preached as the foundation, together with a call to transformation, if any success can be expected.  It seems that a revival in the church of America (or India) is needed before believers will put aside the racism in their hearts, a revival that includes both a recommitment to the person of Jesus Christ and a rebuke for hatred/anger or discrimination against those from other races or castes, whether those from the higher castes (the oppressors) or those from the lower castes. 

So you can see that I do NOT hold the Billy Graham or Moody position of staying out of social issues, and salvation being only personal. I believe Finney’s perspective was correct that repentance follows conversion (and must include repentance from societal evils not just personal evils, which then enables believers to make proactive changes in the society at large).  Perhaps if the Tappans and others (William Lloyd Garrison, for example) had followed Finney’s advice, the US could have avoided its bloody civil war. [And perhaps it would still be alcohol-free (the 2nd highest cause of death in the US that is man made, after abortion).]

I have no problem “agreeing to disagree” with you over this subject, or having you challenge positions you disagree with by defining that position (not attributing it to us) and attacking it.  However, I would prefer that, if you are going to represent the supposed positions of my father or myself (or others, like even Finney) that they be as accurate as possible. Therefore, I hope that you will consider this clarifying email helpful to the process.

Give my greetings to Ruth!

Becky

Hello Rick

It’s more like avoiding the issues, direct questions and evidences with responses like, “I stand in the broad stream of academic research” (whatever that is supposed to mean to us Christians), and, “Historical understandings are never absolute and never complete. They are always tentative – sometimes highly so and sometimes hardly at all. Historical knowledge, in technical terms, is never entirely certain” ( I hope none of us have doubts of Jesus’ historic ministry on earth)!

Anyway let me clarify an earlier comment made by you on Sanskrit and Dravidians (extracted from my paper – http://appiusforum.net/paper.pdf):

The first evidence of Sanskrit is attested by an inscription dating around A.D.150 in the Brahmi script ^2,3. It records the repair of a dam originally built by Chandragupta Maurya, and also contains a panegyric in verse which can be regarded as the first literary composition in Sanskrit. It is at Girnar in Kathiawar and was inscribed by Rudradamana, the Saka Satrap of Ujjayini, on the same rock on which the Fourteen Rock Edicts of Asoka were also found. It is significant that Rudradamana employed Sanskrit in a region where about four hundred years before him Asoka had used only Prakrit.

The period 1st c BC to 1st c AD is extremely significant in the history of India. The Sakas (Scythians) were one of the three main groups who supplanted the Greeks in the North West. The others were the Pahalavas (Parthians) and Kushans (Yeuh-Chih). The North West was divided into several petty Greek Kingdoms, which easily fell victim to the great wave of Scythians, which took place in the middle of the first century B.C. The Indo-Scythian Empire of the Sakas was conquered by the advancing Indo-Parthians, upon the coins of which appear names6 such as Gondophares, Orthagnes, etc. The date of Gondophares6 is firmly established by the Takht-i Bahi inscription of the year 103, which is also dated to the twenty-sixth year of Gondophares’ reign. The first date must be reckoned according to the “era of Azes” (57 B.C.) and therfore corresponds to 46 A.D., while the accession year of Gondophares is consequently 20 A.D. Tradition ^7,8 records that Thomas set out for India immediately after the Crucifixion, i.e. 30 A.D., thus the appearance of Gondophares in the Acts of Thomas is therefore chronologically acceptable6. Thus during Gondophares’ rule the apostle Thomas brought the first knowledge of Christianity to India ^6,7,8,9. Christianity comes to northern India through the Apostle Thomas into the Pahalava Empire during the reign of Gondophorus when the Sakas were under the dominion of the Pahalavas. The Gospel spread throughout the Empire and later expressed in the Sanskrit literature like the Gita where the development of Sanskrit is evidenced by the inscription of Rudradamana, the Saka Satrap of Ujjayini in 150 AD and the Dwaraka (in Gujarat) legends of Krishna; also it is hard to miss the similarity in the names, Christ and Krishna.

Another interesting fact is during the reign of the Kushan king Kanishka (~1st c A.D.), who was an ardent supporter of Buddhism, a new form of Buddhism called Mahayana (the original form is called Hinayana) developed with the new concept of compassionate saints (bodhisattvas) helping to save others which spread in the North. The Kushan Empire was adjacent to the Pahalava/Saka Empire where Christianity was introduced by the Apostle Thomas; hence the Christian thought certainly influenced Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism seems a syncretism between Hinayana Buddhism and Christianity.

The Hinayana scriptures are in Pali, while the Mahayana writings developed in the Kushan Dynasty are in Sanskrit. This is significant since the Kushans had adopted the local Bactrian language for their kingdom and took it all around their area of influence, including Northern India. The usage of Sanskrit instead of Bactrian is logically explained by the fact that Sanskrit and Christianity developed in the adjacent kingdom of the Pahalava-Saka Empire, and, influence and discussion gave rise to the development of Mahayana Buddhism and writings in Sanskrit since the Christian thought was embedded with the language. Also in any Sanskrit literature the Christian influence often can be seen since they were all written after the 2nd c AD.  

Sanskrit which first developed in the Saka Empire around 150 AD then spread slowly across India since the Christian thought was embedded with the language. The stone pillar inscription ^11,12 of Samudra Gupta (AD 330 to 380) written in Sanskrit and a late Brahmi script called the Gupta script was incised on an Asokan pillar at Allahabad. Composed by Harisena, a commander-in-chief of the king it describes elaborately the moral, intellectual and military achievements of this king; this inscription dates around 350 AD.

Candra Gupta II (AD 380 to 415) subjugated the Saka territories, and Sanskrit, which developed in the Pahalava-Saka Empire gained eminence in the Gupta Empire as evidenced by the Allahabad inscription of Samudra Gupta, mentioned earlier. During his reign, art, architecture and sculpture flourished and the cultural development of ancient India reached its climax. However, this change is certainly due to the Pahalava-Saka language, literature, art and culture now part of the Gupta Empire, and, the Christian thought was the catalyst.

Another interesting fact is that the Allahabad inscription of Samudra Gupta mentions King Vishnugopa of Kanchi (Pallavas 4th to 9th c AD) who was defeated by Samudra Gupta and then liberated about the middle of the 4th c AD. The southern Pallavas are often linked with the North Western Pahalavas, though this is not conclusive, the spread of the Gupta language and culture South is evident through epigraphy and iconography.

The spread of Sanskrit South is first evidenced by the Talagunda stone pillar inscription of Kadamba Kakusthavarman ¹³ in the Shimoga District, Karnataka dated between 455 and 470 AD. It is written in late southern Brahmi inscribed in the reign of Santivarman (450 to 470 AD). It is a posthumous record of Kakusthavarman.

Sanskrit then spreads in the South evidenced by the inscriptions in early Grantha, dating from the 5th to 6th c. AD on copper plates and stone monuments from the kingdom of the Pallavas near Chennai (Madras). The Grantha alphabet, which belongs to the writing system of southern India, was developed in the 5th c. AD to mainly write Sanskrit. From the fifth century A.D. Sanskrit is seen to be the dominant language in the inscriptions, which indicates that Sanskrit was replacing the dialects.

As shown there is firm evidence for the Apostle Thomas in North India, and his martyrdom in the South is well accepted; also South India had excellent trade relations with the Roman Empire during the 1st c AD, which leads to cultural and religious exchanges. Thus early Indian Christianity developed both in the North and the South; the northern movement is often referred to as Vaishnavism and southern movement, Saivism. These Christian movements intersect around the 4th c AD and early Indian Christianity then developed as a mature religion of the Hindus.

Since the Christian thought was embedded with the language, the Dravidian South developed the Grantha script which belongs to the southern group of scripts. This and other evidences outlined by Dr Devakala highlight the keenness of the Dravidians to propagate early Indian Christianity.

Alex

http://appiusforum.net/

Dear Dr. Devakala,

It is abundantly clear to me that we are not communicating very well but are talking past each other. I have answered your email below a number of times, yet you think I have not. I have written to you points for discussion, yet you must not have recognized them as such, just as you think I have not recognized your points below. I find it difficult at this point to continue participating in this email interaction. I am trying to conclude my doctoral dissertation and would be happy to send that to you for your evaluation and interaction when it is completed (it is on themes related to these discussions).

Again, I pray someday we each move to where there is more commonality between us and a possibility for mutually helpful interaction.

In grace,

Rick Hivner

Dear Friends,  The issues raised in the exchange from all participants are live ones, even to me as a layman.  Every key participant has made known one’s position pretty fully and clearly.  To press on each other beyond this point is not dialoguing but debating, even if not for score points. I think, it is time to leave this discourse aside. For me, it is not terminating it, but to proceed thankfully that I have received new grist to grind on in grace and hope in the awareness of the shortcomings of our faith in the culture of India. Wishing you well in the completion of your dissertation, Rick.  God be with you all.  Louis Sundaramani Simon

Dear Friends, I am making haste to correct possible misinterpretation of my hurried brief note of yesterday.  I merely wished to see suspension of the drift of Gurukul-linked exchange on caste as embedded in Indian culture. What everyone is doing about it is important for us to share.  Further, input from research studies of Deivanayagam, Devakala, Alex. Vishal Mangalwadi and others, many of whose work I am happily introduced for the first time, is extremely worthwhile for us to continue to share.  Honestly, I did not know something like the University Institute existed in New Delhi.   Perhaps my Southern blinder!  Interesting to know of the strong evangelical thrust through this scholarly institute.  Seen as a part of outsiders strategies for insiders movements (I cringe at that epithet, hearing it for the first time) and other missionary efforts (largely membership driven efforts, so alien to Indian thinking in general), I will continue to be skeptical of the modern-day evangelical thrust, even if it does not add any more convulsive note to the patient work of making known Christian presence in India.  So, let us continue…   Yours in faith,   Louis Sundaramani Simon

dr alex and all:

sorry, but i have not been following the discussion fully.

however, on the particular point of dr alex regarding the time of gondphorus-kanishka-thomas-asvaghosha period, some might find the attached of interest.

again, this is only in response to dr alex’s email of 9.16.10 centering on the gondphorus|kushan dynasty|kanishka|mahayana moment|gandhara valley|st thomas in north india traditon.

i invite critique and comments.

sincerely,

thom wolf

also, for those of us who have not met, attached is my resume.

see further at www.universityinstitute.in .

 [See in Paper for the article on Buddhism–db]

Dear Friends, I am making haste to correct possible misinterpretation of my hurried brief note of yesterday.  I merely wished to see suspension of the drift of Gurukul-linked exchange on caste as embedded in Indian culture. What everyone is doing about it is important for us to share.  Further, input from research studies of Deivanayagam, Devakala, Alex. Vishal Mangalwadi and others, many of whose work I am happily introduced for the first time, is extremely worthwhile for us to continue to share.  Honestly, I did not know something like the University Institute existed in New Delhi.   Perhaps my Southern blinder!  Interesting to know of the strong evangelical thrust through this scholarly institute.  Seen as a part of outsiders strategies for insiders movements (I cringe at that epithet, hearing it for the first time) and other missionary efforts (largely membership driven efforts, so alien to Indian thinking in general), I will continue to be skeptical of the modern-day evangelical thrust, even if it does not add any more convulsive note to the patient work of making known Christian presence in India.  So, let us continue…   Yours in faith,   Louis Sundaramani Simon

Thank you Dr. Wolf for sharing your research very appropriately at this time. I rejoice since future generations will have solid basis, and enabled by the Holy Spirit, will refuse to “stand in the broad stream of academic research” to rewrite history with His Story and the Acts of His Apostles.

                And

Without fear be ready to give answers for their Faith to the fanatical forces as seen in the Indian Express article dated Oct 25^th 1999 titled, “Tell the Pope how Hindu he is” (http://appiusforum.net/pope_hindu.html)!  

Let’s all work together as Paul writes,

For the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6 RSV) 

Blessings.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

Dear bro.Rick Hivner,

Thank you for your reply dated 17-9-2010 to my mails dated 18-8-2010 and 11-9-2010.

We expected your answers for the following seven questions which we have given in our mail dated 22-7-2010 and in our reminder dated 9-8-2010.

1.       Is caste a genetic factor?

2.       Is casteism a part and parcel of Indian culture?

3.       Is casteism an age-old concept of India ?

4.      Were not the Aryans devised casteism?

5.      Is not casteism against the principle of Christ?

6.      Is not casteism a stumbling block of the ‘Divine Unity’?

7.      Is not casteism against the people of India and against

     the  constitution  of  India ?

For our above mails, you have responded on 11-8-2010, but you haven’t answered our seven questions. Instead of delivering answers to the seven questions, you have thrown criticisms narrowing down to say that our statements are dogmatic and our research findings as presuppositions.

Hence we have sent mail on 18-8-2010 under the title ‘Principles of Anti – Christ Vs Principles of Christ’. We did not receive any response from you till 11^th September, 2010 and we reminded you vide the title ‘Expecting your kind reply’ on 11-9-2010. You have responded to this reminder on 17-9-2010, but we were all disheartened  seeing you not answering  our seven questions, and you have later given us a bigger  surprise  with your following statement,

“I have answered your email below a number of times…”

The said statement obviously reveals that you are not willing to come out of your system that justifies and maintains racism and casteism, stumbling blocks of ‘Divine Unity in Christ’,  which are the principles of Anti – Christ.

In this circumstance you have written that,

“I am trying to conclude my doctoral dissertation and would be happy to send that to you for your evaluation and interaction when it is completed (it is on themes related to these discussions).”

We are much grateful for your consideration to send your doctoral dissertation to us for evaluation. However, it is clear that, without coming for a discussion to analyze the prime issues (7 questions), the stumbling blocks of ‘Divine Unity in Christ’ in various perspectives, evaluating your doctoral dissertation will place you in a difficult situation for your system of thought. It is not an issue between just two individuals but between two different systems, which are entirely different and in fact contradictory, and in this circumstance we cannot have a good interaction.

Since you have extended your kind invitation to us to evaluate your doctoral dissertation, then it becomes our responsibility and obligation to explain the historical development of two different systems. If you are willing to dislodge your system of thought from your doctoral dissertation, and feel that our historical explanation will be useful, you may by all means incorporate it in your doctoral dissertation and correspondingly we shall be much happy to evaluate your valid doctoral dissertation, which will be beneficial to all of us.

We will be glad to write the historical development of two different systems in the light of ‘redemption’ of our Savior Jesus Christ, in our coming mails.

In Christ,

Sis.D. Devakala.

Dear Brother Rick

I have genuinely appreciated your spirit in one of your last emails, where you urged that we handle this controversy with grace and civility. You are right. Therefore, I apologize for some of the harsh language that I have used in some of my previous emails.

This email is to humbly request you to please reconsider your decision to not respond to sister Devakala. If you are really so busy that you cannot take the time to answer her, then please ask one of your colleagues to answer her on your behalf. This is because your refusal to answer her probing questions reinforces the unhappy impression of “American Arrogance.”  Let me explain:

• You went to Chennai and said some things about caste which raised serious questions in Dr. Devakala’s mind. She tried to voice her objections but the mike was snatched from her hands by an American.
• She overlooked that insult and wrote out her questions to you and you kept dodging them for a long time.
• Finally you said to her that you cannot talk to her because she is not a scholar: that she will need to reframe her positions as “tentative” in line with postmodern historiography. In other words,  she will need to say, “From all the available data it seems that Jesus may have been crucified for our sins. He was probably buried and may have risen the third day.”
• When she presented her academic credentials and many of us said that she is a scholar that deserves full respect, then you flipped and said that you cannot talk to her because you are not a scholar (i.e. a Sanskritist).
• When it was pointed out to you that her seven questions do not require any knowledge of Sanskrit, you began to say that you cannot answer her because you are focusing on your Ph. D. dissertation.

I hope I am completely wrong, but if I may be honest, it seems to me that you have been dodging her questions for months because you feel that you have no obligation to answer anything to low-caste followers of Christ.

Do American missionaries have the right to go to India and speak on this sensitive issue of caste and demand that Indians hear them but not ask any questions?  This discussion has been going on for several months now. I do not know why other “Insiders” have not explained the rationale for their strategy. They may have good reasons . . . but I am afraid that their silence (unless justified) also comes across as sheer arrogance . . . I understand their silence to mean: “we don’t care for you low-caste believers.” 

You may be surprised to know that as a result of these emails, I have myself just become a victim of a high handed expulsion-without-trial by some of my American friends in one group where I served as a member of the Steering Committee. Two Americans pushed the group in such a way that they did not ask me one question or give me one minute to explain anything. I was expelled because I am challenging Pasadena Missiology.

You are right that we need grace as we work through this controversy  . . . so please do honor sister Devakala as she humbles herself before you and begs you again and again to clarify your position.

Thank you for listening.

Vishal

Sep. 21^st, 2010.

????

John Dayal

New delhi

Sep. 21^st.

Thanks Thom for this well written document that gives some key insights. Its taken me time to finally get around to reading it but I really enjoyed it and appreciate the solid thought you put into it and taking the time to write something that was so well researched.

Tim Svoboda

Oct. 2^nd. 2010.

Tim

Based on your comments below, I assume now that you are able to see clearly the evidence of Early Indian Christianity, you will help YWAM FM Pune include the new research in their teachings & strategy, drop the ‘People Movement Approach’ and move away from their ‘Hivner Syndrome’.

Thanks and Regards,

Alex

Dear Richard

Praise the Lord that Baliraja’s myth was useful in leading some OBCs to the Lord. However, if you ask people like Mohan Philip they will tell you that plenty of OBCs are coming to the Lord without any evangelist using any myth.

The OBCs are turning to the Lord because many of them have understood that being a Hindu means remaining an untouchable Shudra – 4^th class citizen in Hindu hierarchy. That position is acceptable to some if it helps them get a Government scholarship or job, otherwise it is not worth remaining Hindu.

In early 1990s, I sat in several Kushwaha Panchayats where Buddhist options was discussed. Like other OBCs the Kushwahas were attracted to Buddhism because of Ambedkar. But they were cautious, because privately Kanshiram himself spoke against Buddhism (and against all religions). Once Mayawati (Dalit) and Mulayam Singh (OBC) feud became permanent, the dream of Bahujan raj was shattered, and Mayawati teamed up with Brahmins, it made no sense for OBCs to follow the Dalits into Buddhism. Therefore, Christianity – especially a politically bold Christianity that Sunil embodied – became attractive to OBCs who were disappointed with BSPs politics. The myth of Baliraja had nothing to do with people like Dinesh or Jairam ji Jai coming to Christ.

It is good to explore redemptive stories and myths but it is far more important to understand that Christianity won the pagan world because Jesus and his apostles unleashed the power of truth in a culture where religions were based on myth. Greek rationalism degenerated into skepticism and them mysticism centuries before Christ. Therefore Greco-Roman religions (like Hinduism) had nothing to do with philosophy or quest for truth. They were based on myths and stories. Christianity claimed to be truth. Just look through the epistles to see what Paul keeps saying about myths and stories.

Following the Enlightenment the West flirted with Rationalism again. Once again its rationalism has degenerated into skepticism and mysticism. Its hope and quest for finding truth is dead. Following Joseph Campbell, the West is now desperate for stories. Campbell is now required reading in every non-Christian university training writers – especially for Hollywood and Radio. Every preacher for 2,000 years has told stories every Sunday – so why has story become so important to American missions now? It is only because they are naively following their secular culture. I will urge you to take the time to listen to what Os Guinness said about Truth in Cape Town and then listen to my lecture “Could America Collapse Like a House of Cards?” on www.RevelationMovement.com .

It is important that we understand why Christianity is losing America . . . soon I hope to start a weekly series discussing this issue. Pessimistic Premillinnial Dispensationlism was the main reason for the decline of Christianity from 1910 – 1960. “Finishing the task” mentality coupled with People Group missiology took a heavy toll following Lausanne 1. Post Cape Town two American follies that will hurt global Christianity the most are Orality and Storying. Since Jesus every preacher has communicated the Gospel orally, so what is new now? The new orality = illiteracy as the preference for postmodern missions. Storying is turning witnessing (truth telling) into story-telling.  Etymologically “Baliraja” can mean the king of strength (baliwan) or the king who offered sacrifice. If you read his story, he offers no sacrifice. After he is defeated, it is his wife who sacrifices herself in a Jowhar (suicide to save her honor – a sort of Sati – which is deemed to be a great sacrifice.) Sunil’s exegesis of Phule’s baliraja as a king who sacrificed himself is building one myth upon another. Could such myth-making lead OBCs to Christ – yes, it can, because many of them have made up their minds to quit Hinduism and to not follow Ambedkar and Udit Raj. They will convert even if you tell them the story of Jack and Jill. But if you think that it is your story telling is turning them to Christ then you will only delude yourself.

Since many OBCs are now open to Christ, it is very important to build the new church and new India upon the foundation of truth. Can stories help in this process? Yes, they can and should be used as parables and bridges to explain the Gospel. The question Paul’s epistles confront us with is this: should anyone’s faith rest on cleverly invented stories – even if they happen to be from his own culture?

Before too long, I hope to write more extensively on the menace of Storying movement as well as on the costly folly of misinterpreting “nations” as people-groups. Right now I need to get ready to leave for Guatemala in four hours.

Vishal

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Dear Vishal,

I have witnessed personally (OBC) people who have come to Christ by understanding the mythical story of Baliraja. I think in the story of Baliraja is a redemptive analogy, which needs to be explored. We have not even scratched the surface. There are many such redemptive analogies all over India, which need to be understood.

I think it is important we puts our minds together prayerfully to theologise. The evangelical thought  in India is very weak in theologising.

At the same time we need to remember all theologising is a human task. This will keep us humble. The western church has done its home work. However as Robin Boyd said, “the Latin captivity of the Church in India”. Isn’t this a reality?

Let all people groups come to Christ. God is at work, movements will begin and flourish. If God is not in them they will die.

Your friend,

Richard Howell Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Dear Richard

Thanks for your gracious response. Thanks also for speaking up for OBCs. Thakurs are likely to be the next people-group (and they are a people-group in McGavran sense, though not a nation.)

As the Lord of history, God is using a movement begun by Kanshiram – a movement that has nothing to do with Phule’s Baliraja. I had predicted this move in 1987!

But as the experience in Allahabad shows, mistaking a hatred-driven socio-political movement as a move of the Holy Spirit creates its own problems. The numbers make interesting story, but they do not necessarily mean it is God’s work.

Vishal

October 26, 2010

Dear Vishal,

Thanks for your response.

I believe God is shaking his church and the traditional categories are not sufficient to capture God.

I view  whole OBC movement as a movement of the Holy Spirit. The best way to understand it is in fulfilment categories plus more. Jesus not only fulfils but brings in much more that is new.

I think the way forward is to walk along patiently and be the salt and light of reconciliation. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Your friend,

Richard

October 26, 2010

Dear Tim

Thanks for sending the following link to the Lausanne vimeo on OBCs. Dinesh Kumar is an old friend of mine and from my father’s side I come from “an OBC caste” – i.e. a Jati or a “people group” as Dr. McGavaran used that term. In the Hindi Bible “go and make disciples of all nations” was translated as “go and make disciples of all jatis.” That is what started McGavran with his people-group missiology. In the sense of “jati”, the OBCs are not a “people group” – there are several thousand jatis that were lumped together in one list as  Other Backward Castes (OBCs) by Justice Mandal Commission in the 1980s and that list (schedule) was adopted by Prime Minister VP Singh for Reservations in 1991. The OBC, thus, is a political classification that developed a political identity because of an anti-Reservation movement launched by the upper castes in early 1990s.

It is very true that the OBCs are opening up to Christ as never before and given their numerical strength and political clout the upper caste Hindus are in no position to persecute them. Therefore, a Christ-movement among OBC castes in North India could become a tipping point movement for evangelizing India. That is one reason why Ivan and Silvia Kostka launched the monthly magazine FORWARD Press. We are hoping that by January 2011, we can launch a vigorous book publishing program – 25 of my own titles have been planned. These will be evangelistic, apologetic and pre-evangelistic books and booklets. We need some capital resources for this project and your prayers and participation – especially in distribution is invited.

Having endorsed the basic point of Richard’s presentation at Lausanne, I must say that thinking of OBCs as one “people group” is at best confused thinking with harmful consequences. For example, my friend Sunil Sardar (who is applying Rick Hivner’s missiology to OBCs) and deserves the credit for leading Dinesh Kumar to the Lord, has argued that this people-group of 700 million Indians needs a Hindi Bible because the present Hindi Bible uses “Brahminical” terms for God etc. The erroneous ‘people-group thinking’ has so permeated American and global missiology that Sunil’s harmful case is getting significant traction. There are lots of problems with this thinking – let me mention just a few:

• To begin with the 700 million OBCs are divided in hundreds of language groups and a few thousand people-groups who do not all read Hindi, nor do they inter-marry or inter-dine. They have no common social/cultural authority structure. OBC is a political classification specifically to designate educationally and socially backward castes (Jatis). More importantly,
• I am not sure if anyone is asking the question if Bible translation has to be concerned with “people groups” or “linguistic groups.” In the Bible Translation movement the concept of “heart language” has become so important that they no longer realize that people-groups do not just need the Bible in their heart language – the Bible also shapes the heart language of people-groups. For example, because of the Malaysian Bhasa translation of the Bible  “Allah” has become the term for God in the heart language of Hindu, Chinese, Sikh Christians in Malaysia. As it did for Germanic and other European tribes, the Bible is creating a “Malaysian” national consciousness. Just as the Bible made Germany or Holland a “nation,” it is making Malaysia a nation – which is a “people group” in a more significant sense than “OBC” is a people-group. The argument that because Allah is a “Muslim” term and since the Muslims have oppressed the Hindus, therefore, Malaysian Hindu seekers must have a different (non-Islamic) translation of the Bible, because they are a distinct “people group” or “nation” is an argument that needs careful debate over the meaning of the terms nation and people-group. The core issue that Dr. Devakala has raised in objecting to Rick Hivner’s teaching – and it applies to Sunil Sardar’s teaching just as well – is that of the unity of the body of Christ. Just as the Insider Movement uses the people-group idea to segregate the body of Christ, so does Sunil’s idea of having distinct Bible’s for “heart languages.” Should the OBC Christians love Brahmin followers of Christ enough to use some of their term (“Permeshwar”) for God? The problem is that this confusion over the meaning of terms “nation” and “people-group” is breeding a spirituality of hate within the North Indian church.
• I suspect that as an American/South Indian you were not able to detect the spirituality of hatred towards Brahmins in Dinesh Kumar’s presentation at Lausanne in the vimeo below. But Richard ought to have known better. I am afraid Sunil is cultivating that hatred amongst OBCs and Richard is too much of a gentleman to relate to Dinesh  as Jesus related to his disciples (“Get thee behind me . . . “ he said to Peter.) if the Gospel has to have different results in India than Hinduism or “Christian” revival in Rwanda, then our leaders have to have more courage and maturity than Richard conveyed in promoting Dinesh’s conversion motivated  by hatred without helping him to love Brahmins. (A few years ago in a meeting in New Delhi where Richard and I were present and washed each other’s feet, Shekhar Kalyanpuri – a Brahmin convert – offered to wash Dinesh’s feet. Dinesh got mad and created a public fuss over Shekhar’s initiative, simply because he is a Brahmin background believer. While we felt that Shekhar was being sincere, Dinesh was upset at a Brahmin taking the lead to wash the feet of backward castes in a Christian event.) This is not a rejection of Dinesh – but from his presentation it is clear to me that Sunil and Richard have not talked to him that to be a follower of Christ would require him to love Brahmins.

• Phule did present Baliraja’s kingdom as the kingdom of Christ – but he saw British colonialism as the kingdom of Christ (Phule was not a premillianlist, nor were more British and American missionaries in the 19^th century. They saw the spread of Christian civilization as the spread of [postmillinial] kingdom of Christ). In keeping with the postmodern missiology, where a witness has become a storyteller, Sunil’s Truthseekers movement often comes across to me as mythmaker’s movement. Clearly, Richard has not read even Phule’s presentation of the kingdom of Baliraja. He has bought Sunil’s misinterpretation. In his presentation Richard does try to separate myth and truth and I hope to write more to make that distinction sharper. This is important for as Os Guinness tried to say in Cape Town, if neo-evangelicalism does not make a sharp distinction between myth and truth, it will end up with the same fate as theological liberalism. In this connection you may want to watch my video “will America collapse like a house of cards?” in www.RevelationMovement.com . It will explain a bit more of what Os Guinness tried to say in Cape Town . . . I suspect that post cape town his message will be overshadowed by silly postmodern ideas of Orality and Storying. Storying has become such as huge hurricane that I am not surprised to see Richard not drawing a clearer distinction between truth and not myth – although Richard was better on this point than Sunil usually is.
• As a result of my earlier emails, I have lost a lot of friends. I was expelled from one committee and emails were sent to Korea and Indonesia to prevent me from speaking there. As a result of this email, I am likely to lose more friends who are doing good work with OBCs. Be that as it may, I have resolved that speaking clearly on these issues is more important than trying to win friends – another time I will explain why —The Indian church has to grow up enough to have honest discussions. OBCs are beginning to hate Hinduism and Brahmins, I welcome them, but they need deliverance from their hate as much as from Hinduism.

Vishal

October 26, 2010

This video was filmed at the present Lausanne Congress that presented Richard Howell and Dinesh Kumar speaking on Caste and Movements to Christ from the OBC’s. you can view it at http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/resources/detail/11338

Tim Svoboda

Dear Loren

Back sometime around 1998there was a meeting in Chennai with Grame of FMC Pune on the errors of the “People Movement Approach”; the Deivanayagams were also at the meeting. We had a very spirited discussion and Grame handled it well. We went around in circles for a while until I asked Grame to articulate his understanding of Hinduism, which he did – a typical aryanized perspective. Then the Deivanayagams and I clearly pointed out the errors of his understanding. Grame then went back to Pune and gave YWAM Pune an update. My understanding, based on the feedback/reaction was that YWAM Pune’s focus was the spirited dialogue and not the issue. In addition, I remember a key question I posed at the meeting – Let us say that there is a people movement amongst Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), how would YWAM handle it? I remember that YWAM Pune was only upset over this question but no response!

However, I was baffled by your email dated 7/3/2010 where you stated, “This letter is highly offensive and you certainly never took this to YWAM FM”!

So Loren, please clarify what happened and more importantly what’s happening now.

Regards,

Alex

October 10, 2010

Is there any one to help me kindly to remove from the mailing list of this Forum?  I tried to stop this mail to come to my email account, still it comes.  I will be grateful if anybody in this forum to help me to remove my name from the list.  Thanks.  God bless you.

Whoever be the coordinator or included my name in this list, please help me.  I become tired of getting mails.  I am not reading any of the mails and simply send them to Junk mail, still they are coming.

Dayanand Bharati.

Feb. 2, 2011. Gurukulam.

@@@