Should Christians in India endorse Intelligent Design Theory?

This topic has generated heated discussion among many Christians as much as topic like gender has generated much heat. Everyone will agree that discussion must take place with due respect for the opponents even when we passionately disagree, yet reality is oftentimes otherwise. Labels or terms that we use in the debate can also contribute to more confusion and more heat. And so it's important that terms that the other party dislikes are avoided.

Intelligent Design theory "holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not an undirected process such as natural selection". The problem with this theory is that when it says "not an undirected process such as natural selection" it is arguing against a strawman. After all evolutionary biology does not say that natural selection is undirected or directed. Now an ID proponent may argue that "undirected" has been added in some scientific literature and therefore such literature have supported atheism. After all "undirected" implies no purpose and no design which atheists argue for. There is some merit in this argument. However, such ID theory does not present itself as an alternative theory to theory of evolution; it justs tries to find fault with clause like 'undirected' inserted by some atheists.

Leading ID proponent like Michael Behe has no problem with idea of common descent with modification; it's the mechanism for which he has problem. But to me Behe's proposed idea of 'irreducible complexity' smacks of 'god-of-the-gap' argument. Just because we cannot explain the step by step process of the formation of, say, bacterial flaggellum now we cannot bring in an 'intelligent cause' to explain the gap in our knowledge. As a Christian, therefore, I don't find ID theory persuasive from theological standpoint.

If one reads Reason In The Balance by Phillip Johnson, who is the chief architect of the ID camp, it is clear that he was concerned with atheistic elements in American public life. I understand his thought pattern to imply that since atheists have used evolutionary biology to support their atheistic agenda, the most plausible way to fight such atheistic agenda in public life is to critique evolutionary biology. I sympathise with such cause but I am not convinced of the plausibility of the approach. That is not the way to redeem Science.

But should Christians in India endorse ID theory? I don't think there is a need to do that. Though ID proponents try to present ID theory as a scientific theory it is not a scientific theory; it is neither falsifiable nor has it generated scientific research project. I find ID theory as a response to materialistic worldview, not against evolutionary biology. In India there is hardly any influence of materialistic worldview in our scientific textbooks. In our Biology textbooks theory of evolution is taught, but it is not taught as a theory that undermines God; it is only a scientific theory. It is not a Philosophy. Therefore, I see no need to endorse ID theory and setting it up to critique evolutionary biology. What use is it if we argue against a scientific theory in our Bible studies or Sunday sermons?

Just as I have no problem in Big Bang theory I have no problem with theory of evolution. Whether it's Big Bang or some other Bang I believe it's God who did it. Whether it's evolutionary process or some other process I believe it's God who did it. Science is a study of God's world as Theology is a study of God's word. And since God is the author of both the world and the word I believe Science and the Word will not contradict each other. After all God does not lie.

What does it take to be a Christian?

Sometime back I was reading a book by an extremely famous scholar in the particular field. At one point the author explained in kind words why he is not a Christian. As I read the line I thought to myself that he's got it wrong. I also remember having a discussion with a person who was very hostile to Christianity. A reason exactly like the previous man was given why he was not a Christian. But this is thought pattern is found among Christians too. And I guess such understand spread because Christians themselves got it wrong in the first place.

Am I saved because I believe that Bible is the word of God? Or am I saved because I believe that God is three in one? Or am I saved because I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sin? These three questions are important for a Christian. To affirm that she does not believe Bible as God's word or God is three in one or Jesus died on the cross for her sin will make her less of a Christian. In fact, that will amount to Christian heresy. But the question about how a person is saved is still not answered yet.

In Acts 16 Luke narrates of an incident when Paul and Silas were in jail. As an earthquake shook the foundation of the prison and the jail door flew open the jailer thought the prisoners had escaped. If the prisoners had escaped the jailer would have to pay with his own life; and taking his own life would make things less uncomplicated. As he drew his sword to kill himself Paul told him that they were all there, and suicidal attempt was aborted. Cutting the story short, the jailer than asked Paul what must he do to be saved. " Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved" (v. 31), said Paul; putting it slightly differently-- believe in Jesus as Lord and God for the forgiveness of your sin (10.43).

To believe in Jesus as Lord and God is to submit one's life to Jesus Christ; to surrender our ambition, our life to him. It may sound scary, but it is rewarding as those who have taken the path said so. After all he is kind and just and he will never let down anyone who trusts in him. Trials and hardship will follow because the evil ways of the world are not an option now. Yet to live a guilt free life and to be guided with a new purpose in life is exciting. Trust me; he is real.

What Easter Means To Me

It has been only recently that the meaning of Easter dawned on me very strongly. Till then Easter just means the day Jesus was raised from the dead. When I started reading the Bible afresh, attempting to understanding how the whole historical-theological narrative from Genesis through Revelation works out, I realised Easter has meaning much deeper than the one I have grown up with all the years.

In 1 Corinthian 15 the Bible says that if Jesus is not risen from the dead our faith is in vain, and we are still in our sins. If Jesus had not been raised from the dead, death is not really conquered; death will conquer us all ultimately. But Jesus is risen, therefore, death will not prevail. But what relevance does it have for me while I am still alive? Does it give me just hope beyond the grave and nothing else? No. The conquer of death is a very subversive message. The ruler of the world uses death sentence as an oppressive tool. To have his sinful ways he puts to death all those who oppose him. And many follow his ways because to them death is scary and the end of life. But did not the poet say, "death, be not proud"? If death is not the end because Jesus is risen from the death, then the ruler of the world has no weapon with which he can threaten his subjects. I stand for what is right and just because I know as I do what HE wills death will never have the final say. I shall be scared when the ruler of the world threatens me with his weapon of death if death is the end of the story. But as I look to Jesus I know HE has triumphed over death.

Easter also reminds me that God has begun his new creation. "Thy kingdom come on earth... as it is in heaven" is not a dream of the Enlightenment era, but God's sovereign work inaugurated through the resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ in history. To live out God's teaching in my life, even when it is in the interest of my tribe or my nation, is not carving out an utopian dream to be achieved only in heaven but an exercise of faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who has been raised from the dead in time and space. This suggests that I forgive as the Lord forgave ( Col 3. 13), love my wife ( v.19), break tribal-class barrier of Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free (v. 11) and so on.

Easter spurs me on to stand firm and to work for the Lord. After all the work I do will not go in vain; Jesus will take notice of each of them, even a glass of water that I give to the thirsty.

Are the poor really the target of Christian missionaries?

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.

Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922)

Ramabai was born as the sixth child to Anant Shastri Dongre and Lakshmibai. Her father earned his living by rendering Vedic recitals in temples, teaching and narrating Puranas in public platform and other similar activities performed by a devout Brahmin. The family lived under severe economic strain. With famine sweeping the region the economic hardship increased. It was in this condition, when Ramabai was just 16, her father passed away. Within few days her mother too passed away under the continued paid of starvation and the emotional trauma of having lost her husband. Even her elder sister died of cholera within a short time leaving behind only her brother and herself, since her other siblings have died in early years. But before her parents died she has mastered Sanskrit under her mother.

For years she led an intellectual nomadic life with her brother. In 1878 when Ramabai was 20 she reached Calcutta with her brother. It was her that Ramabai was honoured with the title 'Pandita' by Calcutta University for her learning in Sanskrit. Tragedy, however, struck her again when her brother Srinivas succumbed to Cholera in 1880. Shortly Pandita Ramabai married her brother's friend Bipen Behari Das, a lawyer from a non-Brahmin (Shudra) background. Worse was to come when her husband died of cholera two years later leaving her with their daughter Manorama.

When she was 25 she travelled to England to study medicine. There got converted to Christianity and got baptised in the Church of England. Three years later she travelled to the US where she spent two years publicising her plan to open a home for high-caste Hindu widows in India.

In 1889, when she was 34, she started a widow's home called Sharada Sadan in Bombay which eventually was shifted to Pune and came to be known as Pandita Ramabai Mukti Mission. She spoke out against gambling, drinking and other social evils that destroy homes. She has acquired a fighting spirit from her parent as she went about encouraging widow's remarriage despite opposition from conservative Brahmin. After all even her father faced social boycott for having insisted on educating his wife when such virtue was considered an anathema. Just as she led an independent life she taught women to be independent and confident. Pandita Ramabai also introduced kindergarten system of education to India for the first time.

In 1882 she started one Arya Mahila Samaj for the cause of women's education. She also wrote two books: Stri Dharma Niti in 1882 and The High Caste Hindu Women in 1887. The former representing a reformist approach to Hindu womenhood and the latter critiquing the deplorable condition of Hindu widows. She went on to suggest, in Lok Stithi, that Hindi should be enriched and developed by incorporating from other language wherever necessary. Her contribution to literature would be incomplete if her work in translating Bible to Marathi from original Hebrew and Greek is not given due recognition.

The way she withstood personal loss, the manner in which she critiqued Hindu religious traditions that legitimized patriarchal oppression and her long quest for the truth which she found in Christ Jesus are some lessons one can learn from her life. In 1989 the Government of India in recognition of her contribution to the advancement of Indian women issued a commemorative stamp.

I want peace in the Land of the Nagas

As Government of India (GOI) engages with National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in a dialogue to solve the six decades long political imbrolio I am hoping that something concrete would emerge out of this meeting. I have seen and heard so many lives being lost in this political fight as Naga freedom fighters waged a battle against Indian Union. So much of resources being diverted towards killing the political opponent instead of being used to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Many Indians are simply illiterate about the history and never bother to read the issue seriously. However, as one whose life is affected in various ways I have oftentimes get frustrated with the GOI and also the Naga freedom fighters.

Present India was formed out of many princely states. Some joined the union voluntarily; others were more or less arm-twisted. A section of Nagas still did not want to join the union, and they have been fighting since then. History is complex and it is not black and white. If one's reading of Nagas' history ends up as "India being all right" or "Nagas being all right" I would say the reading is flawed.

At present I want that India shows more sincerity and seriousness. Dragging the matter and waiting for the present Naga freedom fighters to die will not really solve the problem. If this dragging continues I don't see the problem being solved even for the next 50 years. Unfortunately, India seems to be using this tactic. I also wish that Naga leaders would be more realistic and tone down some of the demands. We are not living in the 1950s or 60s. We have entered 21st century and so political and economic game must be played differently.

Nagas have come a long way. Fighting a giant like India for sixty years say that the matter is complex and serious. If Nagas should tone down its demand India must seize the opportunity. Dragging the matter will only result in more bleeding. For many Naga freedom fighters if "integration of naga areas under Indian union" is not going to be feasible they would prefer to wage a bloody battle even onto next generation. They would argue that they have been fighting for sovereignty for 40-50-60 years and if even "integration" is not possible why on earth have they been fighting for. For India to resist such a "compromise" would be politically insensitive to the wishes and aspiration of the Nagas.

I want to see both parties toning down its stand. I don't want bloodshed anymore. I want to live peacefully. After all isn't my "fathers" fighting so that his children can live peacefully!