There are thousands of churches and para-church organisations in India. And all of them have a tag. Suppose we are to remove their name saying it's for God that we are working and so name is not required, there will be chaos. There are perhaps individuals and organisations for whom name is so important, but that is the general case. And because of such people or group it's not required that we abolish names for all the churches and organisations.
But I wish that some organisations do not name it the way it is named. I don't find any such group in India, but it's there in other part of the world. For example, take Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. I don't understand why it has to have 'Billy Graham' attached. From the culture I come from I can't appreciate it. I do have much respect for Billy Graham as a person. And he appears to be a kind and humble man as I read his biography. There are also others like Ravi Zacharias International Ministry, Benny Hinn Ministries, Luis Palau Association etc. all named after one person. Even Langham Partnership International is called John Stott Ministries in the US. Is this some US culture! ( I want to mention that I learn the ABC of Christian theology from reading John Stott's writings. And I admire him much.)Why can't one take some neutral name like Stand To Reason, Reason To Believe, Biologos Foundation, Grace Ministries, Indian Evangelical Mission, Youth With A Mission, Union of Evangelical Students of India etc?
Having ministries institutionalised is not bad. One of the reasons why some religious systems don't have proper teaching is because the system is just too loose and everybody is on her own. If proper teaching is to be dessimated to the adherents of the particular religious system one cannot do away institutionalisation. One cannot teach Mathematics or Philsophy without having such acamedic pursuit institutionalised. Loose system will result in poor dessimation of ideas. To say we are working for God and we don't require any name or institution is, I think, not a realistic opinion however sincere one may be.
Not to all but there's the question, 'whose empire are you building?'
ReplyDeleteFrom what I know, the regulations in the US require that certain forms of "religious organizations" carry the name of its founder; it helps them carry a better stand in terms of tax benefits, its perception as a non-profit religious organization, and other such things.
ReplyDeleteI've also read that the US laws require that for certain publications, the founder's (or chairman's) photograph accompany the organization name. That's why you would see the photograph of Billy Graham or Ravi Zacharias or Lee Strobel or anyone in the magazines or newsletters.
I believe it is a mandatory requirement and nothing more.
But Abhilash organisations like the ones started by Bill Bright ( Campus Crusade) or Francis Collins ( Biologos) etc. don't carry the name of the founder.
ReplyDelete