I keep hearing from some certain Hindutva section accusing the Christian missionaries of converting the poor tribals in different parts of India and thus fomenting communal disharmony. The argument goes that since the tribal are poor by giving them food, education and health care they become easy hunting ground for Christian missionaries who are funded primarily by Western countries. Once the demography is greatly changed communal harmony is disturbed. And Christian missionaries are, therefore, primarily to be blamed for much of communal violence is tribal areas. This notion is fairly prevalent among many Indians as it does not take so much of first hand experience to confirm its sound reasoning. There is truth in such thinking. But if does not go deeper in studying the matter it'll be unfortunate. One who refuses to see the deeper side of reality will not be helpful in advancing justice and peace in the country. So if one is a lover of justice and peace it is important to peep into the matter little more deeply.
At the heart of theistic religion there is this idea that GOD is just. The Bible talks again and again about justice. The Bible says that since God is just he wants his followers to be just too. To claim to worship God and yet refusing to follow his path of justice is nonsensical. The Bible further says that God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the Lord of all. It is through Jesus Christ that the universe and all in it was created and is sustained. God created the earth so that the food items in it will be for all. Due to various reasons distribution of wealth, however, does not reach all-- God's design is thwarted by human greed, disease, laziness etc.
Since Jesus loves even the poor and the naked, and he wants them to be fed and clothed his followers in obedience to their Lord give and serve the needy. Justice requires that the poor and the naked are given importance. For example, if one child is struck by polio and cannot walk, parents cannot ask both the children to walk to school. Parents will either drop or arrange some conveyance for the kid who is physically disable. Justice requires that the two kids cannot be treated equally; only when there is 'bias' will there be justice here. Similarly if God is just it's very reasonable that he gives more attention to the poor and the hungry. And Christians who believe they have a mandate from God to serve operate on this idea of justice.
So far everybody is happy. The annoyance starts as soon as Christians tell the about the One whose justice and love propel them to serve. But is this a righteous indignation? For Christians to serve the poor and to tell who sent them to serve are two sides of the same coin. Service without the message is lame and message without the service is meaningless. To insist that Christians do only one is to insist that a Christian live like a non-Christian. It is an oxymoron.
I have never heard any Christian missionary say to a tribal, "I shall give you rice and clothe if only you become a Christian. If you don't become Christian I shall give you none". I am inclined to believe that this is an invention; not based on facts. But in case such thing is there I do not endorse at all. In fact if any Christian missionary is caught forcing people to convert to Christianity such person is not being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Christian community in India would not justify such person being arrested. Stories of forced conversion is circulated in so many forums. But such case is never registered in police diary. I believe such stories are lies.
Communal disharmony does not arise just because people follow different religions. Economic injustice is one main reason which generate ethnic or religious clash. If all Christians in India become Muslims through peaceful and loving persuasion why must I want to kill the Muslims! Similary, I don't see why Muslims or Hindus in India should want to kill Christians because Christians peacefully and lovingly have successfully persuaded many to become Christians. Jainism spread to South India because of evangelistic activities by its adherents. Buddhism spread to South East Asia because of conversion activities by Buddhist. Hinduism spread to North East India because its missionaries carry the message. to argue that Indian religions don't convert people is historically untrue. It is through conversion that religions spread. What must concern us is whether a particular religion is using cunning and unlawful means to communicate its religious message.
Modern India was born in 1947-48. Any religion that has come to the inhabitants of this present geographical boundary must be considered originally Indian. I reject the idea that Christianity and Islam are foreign religion. If that is true many North Eastern states are foreign states too. They were never part of India till 1947-48. But if we do support such B grade citizenship status to those states that were not part of India till 1947-48, then even Christianity and Islam cannot be considered foreign religion too.
But coming back to the question of the post I would say that Christian missionary show more concern to the poor because God is 'biased' to the poor because they are weak. This idea is rooted in Christian belief. This missionary enterprise is not because they are easier prey to convert. Such accusation is a cheap shot and thus indicate illiteracy about Christian religion.
At the heart of theistic religion there is this idea that GOD is just. The Bible talks again and again about justice. The Bible says that since God is just he wants his followers to be just too. To claim to worship God and yet refusing to follow his path of justice is nonsensical. The Bible further says that God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the Lord of all. It is through Jesus Christ that the universe and all in it was created and is sustained. God created the earth so that the food items in it will be for all. Due to various reasons distribution of wealth, however, does not reach all-- God's design is thwarted by human greed, disease, laziness etc.
Since Jesus loves even the poor and the naked, and he wants them to be fed and clothed his followers in obedience to their Lord give and serve the needy. Justice requires that the poor and the naked are given importance. For example, if one child is struck by polio and cannot walk, parents cannot ask both the children to walk to school. Parents will either drop or arrange some conveyance for the kid who is physically disable. Justice requires that the two kids cannot be treated equally; only when there is 'bias' will there be justice here. Similarly if God is just it's very reasonable that he gives more attention to the poor and the hungry. And Christians who believe they have a mandate from God to serve operate on this idea of justice.
So far everybody is happy. The annoyance starts as soon as Christians tell the about the One whose justice and love propel them to serve. But is this a righteous indignation? For Christians to serve the poor and to tell who sent them to serve are two sides of the same coin. Service without the message is lame and message without the service is meaningless. To insist that Christians do only one is to insist that a Christian live like a non-Christian. It is an oxymoron.
I have never heard any Christian missionary say to a tribal, "I shall give you rice and clothe if only you become a Christian. If you don't become Christian I shall give you none". I am inclined to believe that this is an invention; not based on facts. But in case such thing is there I do not endorse at all. In fact if any Christian missionary is caught forcing people to convert to Christianity such person is not being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Christian community in India would not justify such person being arrested. Stories of forced conversion is circulated in so many forums. But such case is never registered in police diary. I believe such stories are lies.
Communal disharmony does not arise just because people follow different religions. Economic injustice is one main reason which generate ethnic or religious clash. If all Christians in India become Muslims through peaceful and loving persuasion why must I want to kill the Muslims! Similary, I don't see why Muslims or Hindus in India should want to kill Christians because Christians peacefully and lovingly have successfully persuaded many to become Christians. Jainism spread to South India because of evangelistic activities by its adherents. Buddhism spread to South East Asia because of conversion activities by Buddhist. Hinduism spread to North East India because its missionaries carry the message. to argue that Indian religions don't convert people is historically untrue. It is through conversion that religions spread. What must concern us is whether a particular religion is using cunning and unlawful means to communicate its religious message.
Modern India was born in 1947-48. Any religion that has come to the inhabitants of this present geographical boundary must be considered originally Indian. I reject the idea that Christianity and Islam are foreign religion. If that is true many North Eastern states are foreign states too. They were never part of India till 1947-48. But if we do support such B grade citizenship status to those states that were not part of India till 1947-48, then even Christianity and Islam cannot be considered foreign religion too.
But coming back to the question of the post I would say that Christian missionary show more concern to the poor because God is 'biased' to the poor because they are weak. This idea is rooted in Christian belief. This missionary enterprise is not because they are easier prey to convert. Such accusation is a cheap shot and thus indicate illiteracy about Christian religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment