Other Issues in Mission and Evangelism

Conversion and evangelism (M.M. Thomas, chap. 15 Inter Religious Conversion)

Introduction

The Indian debate on religious conversion has been an ongoing one for a few centuries now. However, the mutual understanding between the advocates and the adversaries of conversion has not advanced much. This paper suggests that this is due to the fact that Hindus and Christians refer to two different objects when they discuss 'religion'. The traits which the Christians ascribe to religion account for the premium they put on the right to convert, while the traits of the Hindu view of religion explain the opposition to conversion. As the two parties attribute mutually exclusive properties to religion, they encounter difficulties while seeking to make sense of each other's claims about religion and conversion.[1]

Religious conversion has become the subject of passionate debate in contemporary India. From the early 20th century onwards, it has surfaced again and again in the political realm, in the media and in the courts. During the last few decades the dispute has attained a new climax in the plethora of newspapers, journals, and books whose pages have been devoted to the question of conversion. Apparently, a large group of Indians considers this to be an issue of crucial import to the future of their country.

The positions in the dispute are clear. On the one hand, there are those who plead for a ban on conversion, because it disturbs the social peace in plural India. This group consists mainly of Hindus. The aversion towards the proselytising drive of Christianity and Islam is widespread among various Hindu groups – from the radical spokesmen of the Sangh parivar to the moderate Gandhians. On the other hand, there are those who argue that conversion is a fundamental human right, which should be protected in any democracy. Generally, the proponents of the right to conversion are Christians and secularists. In spite of the clarity of these two positions, which have remained unchanged throughout the previous century, the debate has not seen significant progress.[2] The discussions are still governed by feelings of mutual incomprehension, unease, and resentment. The participants in the debate seem to agree on one thing only: the gap between the different views on conversion is unbridgeable.

The Indian Constitution

There is much to be said in favour of this conclusion, since all attempts to settle the conflict have failed. The Indian Constitution addressed the issue of conversion more than half a century ago. In Article 25, it is stated that “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”. Soon, it would turn out that this piece of legislation was not able to resolve the problems around conversion in Indian society. In 1954, the Madhya Pradesh state government launched an inquiry into the proselytising activities of foreign missionaries, which resulted in a report that recommended legal restrictions on conversion. In the next decade, the Orissa government endorsed a Freedom of Religion Act that put such recommendations into practice. Other states would follow. Recently, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Ordinance added more confusion. The ensuing polemics demonstrated that the question of conversion is still as contentious as it was before.

The situation is growing worse today. The encounters between the Hindu traditions and the proselytising religions of Christianity and Islam are more explosive than ever. Little is needed, these days, for hostile feelings to flare up. In recent years, a similar enmity towards the proselytising activities of Christians has surfaced in Sri Lanka. Conversion seems to play a crucial role in these conflicts. Thus, there is an urgent need to understand why so many south Asians are disturbed by the issue of religious conversion. Why has this issue become a bone of contention? As yet, our research does not allow for conclusive answers. However, given the current weight of the issue, we would like to submit some provisional results for consideration.

Ministry in the past

Jesus was a person who lived on earth about two thousand years ago. This is a proven historical fact. While he was on earth He showed that He was also divine and that His being on earth as a man was so that men could have their lives changed. They could have peace in their hearts and joy in living. They could live in harmony with all people regardless of who they are. They would have satisfaction and contentment with no fear of the future or of eternity. This is what Jesus taught while He was on earth.[3]

Real Christianity, which teaches what Jesus taught, is not just a religion. It is more. It is a life-style. A life lived in peace and harmony with all neighbours; a life lived in deep satisfaction and contentment. A life lived in service and servant hood to others. A life of hope and anticipation – anticipation of an eternal future with God.[4]

For World Council leader, M. M. Thomas of India, "Salvation Today" meant physical well-being, material abundance, peace in the world and justice among all peoples. Only by this road could modern man realize true selfhood and dignity. As for the Church, its function was not to propagate itself but to further the movements for societal change. Although the final Bangkok Report somewhat tempered Thomas’ sentiments, Emilio Castro, CWME’s Director eventually to become the World Council’s General Secretary, could announce: "The missionary era has ended; the era of world mission has begun."[5]

Mission of civilization

Throughout the colonial period Christianity enjoyed a specially favoured relationship with the state and, together church and state cooperated to reproduce a western European Christian culture in India. In this context, indentured Indians and Hindus, introduced in the colonies not only for the fruits of their labour but also for the salvation of their souls, were viewed as outlandish and foreign aberrations, heathen savages, and sinners that needed to be civilized and Christianized. The instrument chosen to effect this higher civilization was, of course, the Christian church.[6]

Christianity and the Indian States

The principal expression of Christianity in India is the hegemonic Christianity inherited from Europe, and enunciated by white metropolitan theologians located in and sensitive to, their environment of power and domination. With the decline of European global domination, United States became the centre of this brand of Christianity and its concomitant ideologies of conquest and domination. From this new and fertile source Christian missionaries armed with their fundamentalist ideologies and endless material resources, come descending on us with concerns of our salvation.[7]

The dominant classes in any society tend to order the dominant religion official or quasi-official at the service of the expansion, deepening and consolidating their dominance. Conversely, the dominant religion actively struggles for attainment of and participates in hegemony of the dominant classes.[8] In India, commencing from the pre-independence era, officially sanctioned Christianity, more than any of our institutions, has served to legitimize and sanctify the dominant values of the ruling classes of the colonial state. To the extent that nuances of the church-state relationship and the dominating ideologies it produces are deeply embedded in Indian Christianity. Hinduism in the region still confronts hegemonic Christianity.

The continuation of this relationship of values and structures is no accident, no conspiracy. It is part of our colonial legacy. How often do we not hear "our Judeo-Christian values" being invoked? There is an unquestioned intimacy with which the symbols of the Christian church and Indian states intermingle. Look, for example, take the highest civilian award of India, the propriety of which as a national award in a multi religious society has only recently been questioned by members of the Hindu community much to the outrage of the wider society. The presumption of Hindus! After all are not Christian and Western values, the norms? And is not conversion meant to accord status and approval from those who are the producers of the dominant western Judeo-Christian values?

Missionary Discourse: It’s Socio-Political and Theological Background

Historically, it has been the powerful military and economic nations that sent missionaries abroad as part of their apparatus of conquest. Great Britain at the height of its imperial power supplied the majority of missionaries. Now the missionaries, who in ever-increasing numbers invade our shores, come from the United States, the current super power on earth.[9] Being a super power founded on conquest and subjugation, the pervasive social discourse in the in the United States tend to reflect triumphalism and domination. Missionary theology is a product of this environment. It is informed and empowered by, participates in and perpetuates the culture of imperialism and domination. Any speech that denigrates and devalues a people is tantamount to an act of violence. Missionary theology devalues and denigrates individuals and groups. Since the days of Constantine, whenever the Christian church received the support of military power, individuals and groups labelled as "unbelievers," "sinners," "idolaters," "heathens," "savages," and "pagans" were victims of oppression and extirpation. Labels of hostility are the precursors to violence.

The assumption of superiority

Missionary theology is explicitly based on the assumption of superiority of Christianity over the religions of the world. Since Christianity is the only way to salvation, all deviants are cast into the fires of everlasting hell. The world is polarized into saved and sinner, free and condemned. Hence the imperative to convert to save. Even the usually liberal Vatican Council II has arrogated to itself the authority to assign to Hinduism a mere ray of truth, reserving for itself the full truth. Thus the council declares: All must be converted...all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body.[10] The fact is that missionary Christianity has been so obsessed with its own truth; it has failed to recognize even the possibility that others may have their truth. It has been so engrossed in proclaiming, announcing and sending that it seems to have permanently lost the compassion and love to listen and receive. In its profound arrogance it anointed itself the teacher of humanity and has steadfastly refused to learn from others. In the more than 150 years that Hindus have lived in this region, has Christianity learned anything from Hinduism? Hindus have been important only as objects of evangelism. Hinduism is still an "area of darkness" to many.

Conclusion

Is dialogue possible?

Hinduism is a confederation of religions, a living laboratory of faiths, and itself being churned out of an ongoing process of perpetual dialogue. Hinduism holds every religion to be an authentic modality of the divine and the sacred. God reveals God’s self fully and directly to all humanity and, being equally active in every faith tradition, is the ultimate inspiration and source of freedom and wholeness. There are no privileged recipients of revelation.

Hinduism teaches that all humans are destined to transform a self-centred life to a God or Reality-centred life, in their respective traditions. God accepts us all as we are. We are not required to present ourselves in any particular garb or caricature. True conversion, the discovery of the ultimate ground of being takes place in the heart of one’s own religious and spiritual traditions and not outside of it.

Human life is characterized by diversities. We possess many cultures, foods, clothing, music, languages. No one seeks to supplant one or all human languages with a single one. Linguistic diversity is a fact of nature. Similarly, religious diversity and the plurality of faiths is the natural order of human society, God’s own creation and gift to humanity.

Many Hindus, conscious of their contributions to the rich cultural mosaic of India rejoice in the plurality of our people, the plurality of cultures, the plurality of our religions. They however view with grave concern any activity, especially those bred on cultural monolithism, that threatens to rupture the fabric of tolerance and hospitality for which our region is famous. They tell that they are committed to preserve the plural cultures of this region. But as long as they are under the spectre of Christian domination, the quest for genuine religious understanding and harmony will continue to evade them.

Now is the time for the practitioners of the various faiths to join together in some form of dialogue to strive for understanding, respect, and harmony among the religions of this region. Not only it is possible, dialogue is an imperative. The alternative may be degeneration into further dehumanization.

Bibliography

Bausch, William. The Parish of the Next Millennium. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1997.

Blum, Susan. Share Your Faith: A Behavioral Approach to Evangelization Training. Boca Raton: FL: Jeremiah Press, 1990.

Blum, Susan. The Ministry of Evangelization. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988.

Brennan, Patrick. Parishes That Excel: Models of Excellence in Education, Ministry and Evangelization. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1992.

Brennan, Patrick. Re-Imaging the Parish. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1990.

DeSiano, CSP., Frank and Kenneth Boyack, CSP. Discovering My Experience of God: Awareness and Witness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992.

DeSiano, CSP., Frank. Sowing New Seed. Mahway, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1994.

Hoge, Dean. Converts, Dropouts, and Returnees. Washington, DC: USCC, 1981.

Johnson, Paul. The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 1996.

Morris, Thomas. The RCIA: Transforming the Church. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1989.

Mueller, Walter. Direct Mail Ministry: evangelism, Stewardship, Caregiving. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1989.

Scheuring, Tom and Lyn, and Marybeth Greene, eds. The Poor and the Good News: A Call to Evangelize. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1993.

Thomas, M.M. Church Mission and Post-Modern Humanism: Collection of Essays and Talks 1992-1996, Tiruvalla: Christian Sahitya Samithy, 1996.

---

[1] Dean Hoge, Converts, Dropouts, and Returnees. (Washington, DC: USCC, 1981) p. 45

[2] Ibid., 53

[3] Scheuring, Tom and Lyn, and Marybeth Greene, eds. The Poor and the Good News: A Call to Evangelize. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1993) p. 87

[4] William Bausch, The Parish of the Next Millennium. Mystic, (CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1997).pp 38-49

[5] DeSiano CSP., Frank. Sowing New Seed.( Mahway, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1994) p. 47

[6] Thomas Morris, The RCIA: Transforming the Church. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1989) p.103

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid. 276

[9] Susan Blum, The Ministry of Evangelization. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1988) p. 97

[10] Patrick Brennan, Parishes That Excel: Models of Excellence in Education, Ministry and Evangelization. (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1992.) p. 38