Where to draw the line

Men are typically conservative and do not wish to be disturbed in their settled ways of life. When any new ideology, view, principle, or practice is introduced into their collective lives, they not only feel disturbed but also threatened. Thus, people who wish to introduce new ideas must struggle significantly.

This is true even in our bhakti. When I say that one can remain a Hindu and still be a bhakta of Bhagavan Muktinath, I know it is not easy. We have to struggle on both fronts—Hindus and Christians. However, I often find that struggling in our home situation seems easier than with Christians. I am not overly concerned about all the comments, misunderstandings, and questions raised by Christians. Yet there are a few genuinely concerned individuals among them who are our well-wishers. They say, “Though we completely agree with you on most of your points, we are not sure where to draw the line for a Hindu to live as a bhakta of the Lord in her birth family and community. As we are outsiders (I mean outside the Hindu community, not necessarily non-Indians), we don’t understand several things in Hinduism. So we are not sure where to draw the line and how far one could go.”

A few Hindu bhaktas, not knowing the background of several practices and principles of Hinduism and also Muktiveda in its textual, historical, theological, and even sociological contexts (yes, even there is a social context for that; see Hoch’s parable), raise the same question to ‘take a stand’ for the Lord and bhakti. In responding to these two important questions, I presented the following paper during one Conference, which I would like to share here.

Before reading this, one must understand that ‘exclusivism’ is not necessarily a ‘dogmatic’ view when it comes to bhakti/faith, whether in Christianity, Islam, or any other non-Hindu faiths. Even within Hinduism, in most of the sampradayas (sects), exclusive bhakti/faith in their deity and scripture is part of Hindu pluralism. This context helps us understand the question about taking a ‘stand for the Lord’ by the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord. Although they use (without knowing) some Christian technical terms, what they mean is how to uphold ‘exclusivism’ when it comes to having bhakti only in the Lord Muktinath. Though this is viewed by liberal Hindus as strange, it is not some kind of evangelical fanaticism and has scope within our Hindu religious tradition.

**Where to Draw the Line?**

One of the crucial questions asked in contextualization is: Where to draw the line? This question is not only asked by those who are doing the ministry but also by new believers. As usual, no easy, clear, and general answer can be given to such a question. My answer to this question is another question: WHO should draw the line?

It is interesting to note that the question ‘where to draw the line’ is always asked by those involved in the ministry as if they have the spiritual and moral authority to draw the line for new believers. Although this is not explicitly stated, it can be easily inferred. There is often a patronizing spirit, even a hegemonic attitude, behind such questions.

Before analyzing where to draw the line and who draws it, we need to keep in mind that sometimes we do not allow the right person to draw the line for us. If someone else draws the line without understanding the struggle and needs of others, they do so based on their expectations and interpretations of the other’s life. For example, if we allow the missiologist, theologian, missionary, or church leaders to draw the line for a new ‘convert’ or ‘bhakta,’ then that is what will happen. I need not explain this further as we know what has happened so far. The same is true for a new convert or bhakta; she too cannot draw the line for her church members or leaders. Several new converts do this in the name of First Generation Christians, expecting sympathy or concessions from their churches without understanding both their limitations and struggles. The moment they call themselves ‘First Generation Christians,’ they begin to draw the line.  About this I wrote another article but at present I don’t remember the title of it.  When I find, then I will give the link of that article here.

So, there is no one general answer to the question: ‘Where to draw and who to draw the line?’ It depends on who is asking the question and to whom. To answer this question, we need to keep four kinds of groups in mind:

**The First Group**

Group A consists of converts who THINK they have left Hinduism and the Hindu community to join Christianity and become Christians. Although there are genuine exceptions, most such converts, at least in the early days of their newfound faith, remain Christians for three hours a week when they go to their respective church to worship the Lord. For the remaining six days and 21 hours, they continue living as Hindus in many ways. (In this respect, traditional Christians are no different or better than any convert.)

For this group, the line is drawn by the church and its leaders. They are like a new daughter-in-law in an arranged marriage, with ‘contextualization’ as her husband and the church as the mother-in-law. Although the new daughter-in-law would like to bring new insights to make her life meaningful and rich, it is not easily allowed or accepted. Often, she doesn’t even get the opportunity to express such desires. The typical mother-in-law will say, “This is not how we cook, eat, live, etc.,” and expects the daughter-in-law to learn the ways of her new home. Even if she claims that the new things she brings will enrich their life, she has to struggle significantly to assert her legitimate rights. She may persuade her husband in private, but he too can do little as his dominant mother decides most things in the home. Though he can personally plead to accommodate his wife’s minimum expectations, he cannot force or fight for her rights because, as both son and husband, he has no authority to run the home. (Similarly, contextualization as a son can persuade the church to accommodate the needs of new converts and as a husband plead with his wife for patience, but it can do no more.)

A new convert who thinks she has become a Christian and joined the Christian community should not expect the church to change or accommodate her needs. As it is her conscious choice, she alone has to change and learn to adjust to the church. For example, if a person chooses to become a citizen of the USA by forsaking her Indian citizenship, she must live by the laws of the USA and cannot refer back to her rights as an Indian. So for Group A, it is the church that draws the line. This is why, in some churches, though the pastor and leaders may be willing to allow a new convert to keep her cultural identity, like wearing a bindi, they may not permit it to avoid offending the rest of the congregation. The common excuse is ‘not to offend the weak ones in the church.’ But the question is, ‘Who is supposed to be weak and who is supposed to be strong?’ A new convert is expected to be strong to accommodate the weak traditional Christians in the church, who have been hearing the Word of God since birth, even from the womb. The church expects new converts to bear the cost to maintain the weakness of traditional Christians.

If a Hindu feels comfortable becoming a Christian and joining a church, they are free to do so. But there are already plenty of problems in the church, so why add more by joining through conversion? We know well that Christians have no answers to our questions and needs, and they cannot help due to their limitations. So why should we add more problems to them? A hostile home is better than a friendly but suspicious neighbor. Every church is only a friendly but suspicious neighbor to all converts. It is better to stay in your home and fight for your birthright to worship any God of your choice than to seek temporary comfort and refuge in a church.

Group B

Group B consists of those known as ‘Churchless Christians’ or ‘secret Christians.’ Converts in this group are very biblical in their lives yet strictly and easily follow the principle of ‘becoming all things to all men.’ They become Christians to Christians and remain Hindus to Hindus. They want to enjoy the best of both worlds but do not want to identify permanently with any one group and struggle for their principles and ideology. We cannot blame them entirely, as they have learned this from their church. As the church or mission uses such converts as trophies to parade their success and later discards them, these converts also begin to imitate this behavior.

For example, a Brahmin or a Muslim convert is often paraded to demonstrate success more than a Dalit or tribal convert. These so-called high-caste converts enjoy going from church to church to give their testimonies, forgetting that they need to witness to their own family community first, which is real witnessing. They do this to please other Christians or to earn some sympathy or benefits to survive.

As a digression, it is important to note a bitter truth: More budget is allocated to convert high-caste people than to convert tribes and low-caste people groups. If they are Brahmins, money flows freely into the ministry. For example, in the recent RF Conference in Chennai on Feb. 27th, a songbook printed by CBSS with a costly cover and appealing pictures on the back proved this point. I wish I had bought one to show the cost of the cover alone, though all the songs (a total of 18 over ten pages) were taken from old Tamil lyrics with no new bhajans added.

Returning to our point of drawing the line, in this group, both the church or mission and the converts will draw the line according to their ‘mood’ and ‘need.’ In South India, a niece can marry her maternal uncle, making her grandmother her mother-in-law. She will approach her mother-in-law as her grandmother when seeking a favor, but when her expectations are not met, her grandmother becomes her mother-in-law. The same applies to the role of the mother-in-law. When they want to use the converts, they treat them as granddaughters, but when the converts do not meet their terms, they become daughters-in-law. The poor husband (contextualization) is caught between a rock and a hard place. So, the line is drawn according to the mood and need of both groups, who often try to survive for convenience rather than clear conviction. They show the head to the snake and the tail to the fish to escape from both, like the snake fish (a Tamil proverb).

In this group, they often insist on identifying themselves by their caste, like ‘Brahmin Christian,’ ‘Reddy Christian,’ or ‘Mudaliyar Christian.’ It is interesting to note that a Hindu will never say, “I am a Reddy Hindu, Mudaliyar Hindu, or Brahmin Hindu.”  Of course they will assert their caste identity but they don’t need the qualification ‘Hindu’ along with it.  However, Hindu Nadars were forced to call themselves ‘Hindu Nadars’ because of Christian Nadars. When many Nadars became Christian, they called themselves ‘Nadar Christians’ to separate themselves from Dalit Christians. To defend their position, rights, and identity, Hindu Nadars were forced to call themselves ‘Hindu Nadars.’ When the law came, sin awakened. Similarly, by converting to Christianity, Nadars created problems for both the church and their Hindu relatives, as the Tamil proverb says: “Irundum keduttan, settum keduttan” (caused problems when alive and even in death). The same could be said about Reddy Christians in Andhra.

Group C

The third group is the Hindu bhaktas of the Lord. Here, the analogy is a love marriage where the girl comes from a different (and a lower) caste. The Hindu bhakta’s newfound faith in the Lord is that girl, and she will never be easily accepted as part of her husband’s home. Sometimes, the family members will tolerate their marriage because of their son, but finding her legitimate place in the home won’t be easy, and in some cases, it will never happen. Though the Hindu bhakta has to struggle like all other new believers (converts), he can struggle with his birthright, as that is his home. While the struggles in both groups A and C seem similar, in group C, a bhakta can struggle with a clear understanding, whereas in group A, the new ‘convert’ struggles without any understanding. She will neither understand her church nor even her faith. But the struggles of a Hindu bhakta of the Lord, with a clear understanding of faith, his birth community, and the church, are better than those of the ‘converts’ who lack understanding. And a hostile home is better than a friendly but suspecting neighbor. As fish can live in its natural place, water, but it cannot survive in milk, though the latter is liquid and rich.  For every Hindu bhakta of the Lord, the church always remains a suspecting but friendly neighbor. Here, we never allow outsiders to draw the line for us. Though we need not draw any line for ourselves, sometimes we are forced to draw the line and tell Christians not to cross it and disturb us. If they dare to cross, they will hurt themselves. “Leave us alone” is our request to them. And I always promise that we will never come and disturb your church and will never allow you to come and disturb us.

Group D

The fourth group belongs to all the evangelicals from traditional Christians who are interested in contextualization. Their struggle is completely different. In their attempt to run a contextualized ministry, they will try to understand the struggles of all three groups and try to unite them for the common cause of ministry by minimizing their differences. But in this process, they won’t understand their own struggle, not knowing where to draw the line (both for themselves and others). Most of the time, because of their position in their church and mission, they cannot come out openly to support contextualization (and draw any line). They are like Nicodemus, who came secretly in the night to see the Lord. Many times, they cannot openly support contextualization, particularly those who are in group C. I can illustrate this from my personal experience.

When I wrote my first book, *Living Water and Indian Bowl*, I approached a top evangelical leader in Chennai and requested him to write a foreword for that book. With much sympathy, he listened and then said, “Though I agree with you on most of your approaches in your life and ministry, because of my position in the church and mission, I cannot come out openly to support you.” Then I approached another evangelical leader. As he was my mentor and the only Christian whom I accepted as my Guruji, I told him how the first evangelical leader refused to write the foreword. After listening to me, he too said, “I am in the same position as him. If I write a foreword for such a book, it will raise problems for my church and organization.” Then I approached one leader in the Church Growth Research Centre and received the same answer. Finally, I requested another evangelical leader from Andhra who herself was a ‘convert’ and she wrote back, “Sorry. Not acceptable.” Finally, Dr. Rokaya of Kathmandu wrote the foreword. And I acknowledge that Dr. Hoefer wrote the foreword for the American edition of *Living Water and Indian Bowl*, irrespective of his position in his church and mission, for which I remain thankful to him.

In one Rethinking Conference held in Bangalore (1995), one Navigator Missionary from outside India told how, in his ministry in India, they don’t give ‘baptism’ and never celebrate ‘communion’ with their Hindu believers. He also defended his teaching by saying that both ‘baptism and communion’ were mere symbols and were relevant to the first-century followers, and now we need not strictly implement them. So simply having faith in the Lord and living as his follower is more than enough in their home and community, not becoming Christians? Then, during the question and answer time, I asked, ‘If baptism and communion are mere symbols, then the death of the Lord on the Cross also could be a symbol, and we need not take it literally. And this is what many elitist Hindus and liberal Christians are also promoting. In that case, the forgiveness of sin and our salvation could also become symbols.’ Before he could answer my question, the power went off, and the time for dinner also came. So he didn’t have to answer my questions, and God saved both of us from each other. The next day, when I raised these questions with another person who was also a speaker, he said, ‘Last night I spoke about it to him and confronted him, asking if he would say the same thing back in his church and mission at home? And he said that he cannot say it there. So what they secretly or indirectly do, they cannot do openly. Similarly, another missionary who agrees with me that ‘faith’ is not a criterion for marriage and the so-called ‘believer should marry a believer’ is not in the Bible cannot openly support it because of his position in his church and mission.

I can give several examples to show how such evangelicals cannot openly support contextualization because of their position in their church and mission. So they are not sure where to draw the line and also to whom to draw the line. Though they secretly support people like us, when we are crucified and put to death by the church and mission, they will come openly to bury us, and their successors in the future will come to resurrect us to glorify us as the pioneers in contextualization. This is what happened with Brahmabandab Upadhyay and R.C. Das.

Upadhyay was thrown away from his Catholic church and ended up even becoming a Hindu by doing prayaschitta. After his death, his Hindu friends cremated his body (though some Christians tried but failed to get his body to ‘bury’). While he was struggling to contextualize the gospel and his Catholic faith (calling himself a Hindu Christian), his church crucified him. But several decades later, Fr. Gisbert Souch S.J. (of Vidya Jothi in Delhi) and Prof. Julius Lipner brought out all of Upadhyay’s writings and resurrected him to glorify him as the FATHER of Indian Christian Theology.  See Julius J. Lipner, Brahmabandhab Upadhyaya, the Life and Thought of a Revolutionary, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1999. While he lived, he became an orphan and was treated as a ‘Pariah’ in his church, but after his death, now he is resurrected and became the FATHER of Indian Christian Theology?!?

The same is the case with R.C. Das. Most Indian missionaries and theological seminary students never knew about him. He tried to contextualize the gospel while living in Varanasi. But he too was deserted by his mission, and finally, Catholics in Varanasi took care of him. He died without any money, and the Catholics were kind enough to bury him, and they even preserved most of his writings and magazines. Then H.L. Richard came, did all the research, and published the book *R.C. Das: The Pioneer of Contextualization*.

How for we have to go?

And if the question is asked ‘how far we have to go’ for this group, my answer is: ‘You need to go to the extent of losing your faith. Then alone you will understand the problem of the “converts”’. Because when the gospel is shared, the minimum requirement is that a Hindu should not only confess his faith in Muktinath but also give up faith in his other gods. However, they are ready to go to some extent to reach him, yet they also expect him to come to where they are, as per their expectations. And to come to their place, he needs to give up so many things. And in order to understand all his struggles, those in group D should go to the extent of losing their faith (as they expect a Hindu convert to do) to understand all his struggles. [Or to understand this, the counter question should be ‘how far should they (converts/bhaktas) come out’ from their community, culture, tradition, etc., to follow the Lord?]

Who to draw the line.

The question “Where to draw the line and how far one should go?” prompts a counter-question: “Who will draw the line?” Historically, the church and mission organizations have imposed their boundaries on converts, ostensibly to protect doctrinal purity and the faith of new believers. However, this “purity” often aligns more with denominational doctrines, traditions, administrative rules, and mission constitutions than with the fundamental teachings of the Bible.

When we argue that no outsider can draw the line for any Insider movement, it applies even to my disciples in North India. I encourage them to make their own decisions on critical issues since, as a South Indian, I can’t fully grasp their customs. However, on matters of universal moral standards, I advocate for upholding dharma. Despite this autonomy, we often face accusations of compromising the gospel and promoting syncretism.

Syncretism

What do critics mean by compromise and syncretism? So, where are we compromising? If disagreement with particular interpretations and denominational doctrines brands us as compromisers, we accept this label willingly. While Christians assert exclusivity for Muktinath and Muktiveda, other faiths have the right to claim the same for their scriptures and gods. If this is deemed compromise and syncretism, we embrace these labels for ourselves, though not in our perspective.

Heresy

Christians often accuse us of heresy and creating new cults. However, heresy occurs within a sect when a group diverges and forms a new sect with different interpretations. We are not part of any denominational Christianity or its community. We belong to the universal church but remain members of the Hindu community, choosing our path of faith and practice. Therefore, if anyone could accuse us of heresy or cult formation, it would be Hindus—but they do not.

Interestingly, within Christianity, there are various denominations like Baptist, Free Will Baptist, Anna Baptist, and Full Baptist. Who, then, is the heretic? Those claiming Saivism and Vaishnavism as offshoots of Thomas Christianity could be seen as heretics within Christianity. As we do not belong to organized, institutional Christianity or separated Christian communities, such accusations from them are misplaced.

Some evangelicals fear that Hindu Muktinath Bhaktas might eventually form another organized religious institution and advocate monitoring to prevent false teachings. While their concern is noted, organization often arises where there is money, power, and authority. I support decentralization and oppose remote control. Each Bhakta movement should grow independently, answerable to the Lord and the Word of God, without external control.  In our life as Hindu bhaktas of the Lord neither money nor any [administrative or religious] authority have any place.

Leaders should emerge naturally from within each group, recognized and accepted by their peers, not imposed from outside. While the early church selected leaders, this pattern need not be imitated. Each community should choose its leaders based on its unique context.  Then he or she might have her own moral authority to guide her group.

Decentralization minimizes worries about splits; I encourage multiplication through splits. If more than ten Bhaktas join a Mandali, it’s better to split into smaller, independent groups. If Christians argue for organizational unity despite their 48,000+ denominations, a few more won’t make a difference.

Response to Issues Raised in the Meeting

1. Where to draw the line?—See the detailed discussion above.

2. Respecting existing church members:—I assured that I do not steal sheep from any church and do not disturb church members.  At the same time any ‘convert’ want to return back to her his home, I welcome and do all that I could do, even arrange some ritual as per her or his requirement.  But this is also is not insisted upon everyone.

3. Monitoring for false teachings:—Refer to the discussion above. Concerns about false teachings often reflect a desire to safeguard denominational doctrines and mission agendas rather than genuine Bhakti.

4. Interviews with students and scholars:—Insider movements need protection, not exposure. Past experiences with scholars have been negative, and considering my priorities, I lack the time to engage in such interviews.

Finally I would also register my view about calling as ‘insiders’, as if we now become ‘insiders’ after sojourning among Christians for some time to become the agent of ‘Along siders’ or ‘Out siders’.  How one should be an insider in her own home?  Better avoid such labeling for your identity as ‘Along sider’ and ‘Out sider’.   We are Hindus and bhaktas of Bhagavan Muktinath. We know where to draw the line. 

March 4, 2010

Revised June 13, 2024, Gurukulam