Let's Rest Now and Bridle Our Tongues

When I first arrived in the US in 1999, many members of the diverse Asian community let me know that in the US no woman or non-white could ever be the President. I did not form an opinion on this sweeping statement until about 2 years later when I disagreed with them and against prevailing sentiment. Today they have been proved wrong resoundingly. We had a magnificent election in which a black man with an unusual name and a history of international upbringing and education won the elections, competing first against a powerful white woman within his own party and then against a white woman and a white war hero. The naysayers still ominously add that it is the war, the economy and any number of other disasters that led to this- but the fact still remains that the immense margin of victory lays to rest such speculations. It is an historic day for America. And what a fantastic perspective from a pillar of contemporary American Christian Conservatism- Al Mohler. His column, while mourning the setback for pro-life activism, nevertheless declares the moment's glory unabashedly. Quote:

That victory is a hallmark moment in history for all Americans -- not just for those who voted for Sen. Obama. As a nation, we will never think of ourselves the same way again. Americans rich and poor, black and white, old and young, will look to an African-American man and know him as President of the United States. The President. The only President. The elected President. Our President.

This is glorious. I was talking to my friend about how President Obama's victory will change the quality of discourse among lawmakers. He has demonstrated his gracious speech and consensus building approach. It is safe to say that most lawmakers will treat him with more respect than they showed President Bush if only for the reason that he is a minority. This is all good, regardless of that twisted motivation. Al Mohler's article reflects Christian grace, but outside of such bright lights, the quality of the current discourse on both sides of the centre is terrible. This Wall Street Journal article talks about how ungracious Americans have been in their treatment of Mr. Bush. Regardless of the fact that his presidency has been followed by a trail of problems, some created by the presidency and some not, this shabby behaviour reveals more about ourselves than about Mr. Bush. Quote:

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in
support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

Last Thursday's Presidential Bash on SNL showed Mr. Bush's daughters talking about the fact that "everybody's calling Dad dumb"- although this was supposed to be funny, it proves how irresponsible we have become in our public discourse. The incredible lies that have been circulated in emails about Mr. Obama belong in this same category. I'm reminded also of George Clooney's comments about Charlton Heston's Alzheimer's, when he refused to apologize for a joke he made about it with "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him." I've written elsewhere in this blog about the declining quality of conservative bickering about liberalism, from religious leaders.

All these statements are intended to hurt, not build up; it is full of malice and spite; it reaches families; it alienates and divides us as a people. Yes, some Americans for all their progress against racism have become a crass, crude bunch of people- and I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama's term will lessen that. In that sense we look to him not only for leadership but an example. The Messianic fervour not withstanding, I think it is right for us to expect that level of class from every lawmaker. I'm glad that so far Mr. Obama has indeed given us the right signals.

And thankfully, Mr. Obama has the media on his side. I hope that a few months of economic and social upheavals do not turn the media against him. When that happens it will time to run for the hills.

Truth without Grace

Peggy Noonan's column this Friday (today) on the Presidential elections has an air of defeat, no matter that she has been trying her best to present both sides of the argument for some time now, battling her Republican allegience to give Obama credit where he deserves it.

In this column she makes this great point (among several others):

When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.

As a Christian Obama's only blip in his campaign came at the time when he had some observations to make about the Bible. I think he was mauled by Conservative commentators, in particular Dr. James Dobson (which may be understandable because Obama singled him out and hinted that he was as far Right as Al Sharpton is to the Left). But Dr. Dobson's comments seemed to me lacking in Christian charity. I have listened to his radio program and certainly it is not all about politics. I think he cares about the family and the values that we cherish. But his blindsidedness has affacted him to a point where his comments in response to Obama's do not reflect Grace.

Besides this I have to say I have not seen a political candidate anywhere in the world take on detractors with the finesse that Obama has shown. The great orators among statesmen- Nehru, Churchill, et al showed at least some hints of arrogance in public. To date except for the blip above I have not actually seen Obama ruffle anyone's feathers. That is not the important thing, though- the most significant point is that he still fascinates with his ideas a nation that is used to listening to short, pithy soundbites meant to excite, anger or polarize.

Dr. Dobson's response to Obama in June brings me to another thought. I have seen Christians debating from both sides. Dobson, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others have crossed the line from civility to ungracious behaviour many times in these debates. Other Christians, rooting for Obama, too have followed the world's way of ranting and raving- with a caveat that we will laugh all about it in eternity anyway. While this is true, it reminds me of what a comedian once said about the American Deep South: You can say anything you want about anyone, as long as you add as a suffix, "Bless his/her soul." It is funny because it is actually true to a large extend.
The fact is Christians, whichever side they have taken, have been largely ungracious. You see it in conversations, in blogs, in emails. It seems to me that we may not be evaluated by the unbelieving neighbour so much for our allegience as our attitude. After all if we simply take sides in a debate, we will be considered simply as part of a voting bloc: Conservative vs. Liberal, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Capitalist vs. Socialist, Right vs. Left.

When and how do we get counted as Christians? I do not share the opinion that Christians have no role in politics as such. I think our convictions- the Gospel, the saving grace of Jesus Christ- compel us to act in the social and political sphere. All too often, due to the limited nature of the fallen world, we are forced to take sides, often compromising one value for another. We all become single-issue or two-issue voters in most elections, whichevere side we are on. We assign priorities. We sometimes get the label "nutcases" by those opposing our views. This would not matter so much if it had been just the unbelievers on the other side. But the fact is we squabble about it the exact same way as the secular world does. Though the words used are not usually as severe, I have seen words and phrases used by Christians in this debate which should not be on their minds to use at all. Schaeffer's columns (one of which I had commended on this blog) with respect to Dr. Dobson has been peppered with truths couched in language that is hurtful and sometimes (though rarely) inappropriate for a Christian.

From this and my other writings on this blog, I think it is by now clear that I feel that Christian behaviour that does not reflect Grace (as well as Truth) falls woefully short of the Lord's command. Being Pro-Life is indeed being Pro-Truth. Being Pro-Poor is surely being Pro-Truth. But being crude in our conversations about it is being Anti-Grace. Jesus, as the prologue to John's Gospel says, was full of Grace and Truth.

I have a confession to make. My faith has been shaken a few times in the course of these political debates- not severely, but shaken nevertheless. This has nothing to do with intellectual charges against the Christian worldview. Intellectually I'm convinced strongly of the truth, grace and beauty of the Gospel. I have listened to endless debates and statements from men who want to rip the Gospel apart- men and organizations like Richard Dawkins, Infidels.org, Swami Prabhupada and so on. Besides the fact that I find their positions intellectually untenable, I derive comfort from Christianity that my research into other faiths and worldviews cannot match. Christianity is Truth, and in addition it is also Good News! The comments that Obama had made in reference to slavery, capital punishment for an erring son, et al in the Jewish law are not mysterious elements to me. Slavery in the Old and New Testament were realities that when read in conext were not supported by God or His Law, but acknowledged as extant among the Hebrews as among the other Semitic peoples. In fact the Hebrews were given clear instructions to be humane towards their slaves- and from history we know that this was a benign form of domestic servitude, unlike the economic slavery that the Roman empire and pre-Lincoln America practised. Paul's writings also tell us how he regarded slaves to be free men in Christ and masters to be slaves to Christ. He considered himself to be a slave to Christ. Jesus calls himself as one who serves- quite literally, a slave. The concept of the slave that the Bible refer to is distorted by Obama's implicit suggestions about it, but we cannot hold it against him as a Presidential candidate simply because of his limited theology. After all, if our standards were so stringent, in some sense the theology of most Christian Presidents have been limited enough to warrant our displeasure. Obama's comments about stoning the errant son are derived from actual words in the Old Testament. It is important to note the distinction that Jesus made about Old Testament Law and what God actually desires. When questioned about divorcing a wife, he said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." When questioned about stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, he said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was he contradicting the Law? As He says, "Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jesus thus claims to be the end goal of the Law, that He came to fulfill it. The fulfillment of the Law is not found in its penal code, endless requirements, Sabbath regulations, ceremonial cleansing and so on, but its fulfillment in His Person- including his vicarious death and resurrection and the Christ-life that ensues after a conversion event in a believer's life- the gradual folding away of the flesh and the dominion of the Spirit, in which His righteousness becomes manifest.

None of these pronouncements trouble my theology, though it may trouble me that the Bible is being misinterpreted in the public sphere.

But as the Psalmist says in another context in Psalm 73, "But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled;. My steps had nearly slipped." As I watched debates among Christians, my heart sank as disappointment turned to shame and anger that these brothers would be so influenced by the world that they could address each other in the same way. I wondered almost hiding even from myself, if what the detractors keep harping about Christianity could be actually true. Individually their arguments are easily disproven. But the clamour of voices chip away at one's conviction, especially in moments like this, when one is frustrated with those who one has looked up to as leaders and exemplars. The violence over Christ in history, recent arguments about Christ's alleged non-existence, the scandal of the Da Vinci code and other gnostic writings aimed at draining divinity from Christ, the watering down of the Bible, following the cafeteria mentality of picking and choosing what one likes in the Bible while discarding others... All of these are no match for the theologically sound answers that Christians have come up with over the past 2000 years. But when one sees a community meant to reflect Christ reflecting something (or someone) else, one's faith is troubled.

In John chapter 6, when the people who witnessed Jesus' miraculous multiplication of bread and fish to feed them all were offended at his saying that he was the bread of life and that they must feed on his flesh to be saved, Jesus asked his presumably scandalized disciples if they wished to leave as well. Peter's reply finds an echoe in many troubled hearts: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:68-69).

The secular humanistic worldview offers a cold world with morals justified only by one's Quixotic imagination and ideals with no purpose to live or die for- a barren wasteland that is embraced with zeal by those fuelled more by indifference, misconception or animosity towards religion than those with conviction. Hinduism, with its view of the world as immaterial and illusory as Maya, a view of life as terrifyingly cyclical, only an abstract understanding of salvation that is called Moksha- and that by a lucky throw of dice in which chance, noble birth, Karma, Yoga (in its different spiritual forms), meditation and so on come together. Buddhism with its escape into the inner world so distant and disconnected with the world we live in and its myriad cries for help, with a non-exitent Deity that changes into a Deification of the Almighty Self, Islam with its rules and regulations, strictures and no hope, assurance or certain way (except by physical or spiritual Jihad) to attain salvation.

Forests of tongues, as Chesterton said:

Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.

Then I realize that I have nowhere to go. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do our spirits. In Christ there is fullness of joy.

Last week in church a ministry resident talked to us about the letter of James, chapter 3, versus 13-18. He made the point derived from this that spiritual ends cannot be achieved without spiritual means. So better programs, management, more resources and so on cannot save a dying church. The church is after all a group of people into whom God has breathed the Spirit of Life, and is thus inspired by that Spirit. Our engagements in the world are not to be governed by earthly means. When we use earthly frameworks such as governments, employers, law and other organizations, let us be mindful that we cannot push our agendas through manipulation, partisanship or out-arguing each other- if indeed our first agenda is to preach Christ and Him crucified.

As Peggy Noonan notes insightfully in her article, Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." Perhaps the era of some Christian leaders have ended as well, but the era of Christ never ends.

Alienating Our Own

A few months ago my cousin, a Catholic as most of my family is, let me in on a conversation she'd had with a guest at a common Baptist friend's wedding. She was asked which church she went to- as an ice breaker, to which she replied, "a Catholic church". The answer came back promptly: "I pity you." Clearly my cousin carried this in her mind for months and later shared the incident with me.

My wife's cousin was a medical student about 7 years ago. She was attracted to the praise and worship meetings that were organized by Evangelical students, and being a religious Catholic, she felt she'd found something closer to the ideal she imagined Christian worship to be... until she began interacting with her well-meaning Evangelical friends who went to the meetings with her. They were far more interested in "holy huddles" and beyond a cursory smile or friendly hello towards her no real relationships were built, and the ones who did talk to her talked ill about the Catholic faith and just a bit about the Gospel.

Thirteen years ago, in MCC, I came to the Lord, a rare Catholic student on campus and embraced whole-heartedly the fervour and the authenticity of the Evangelical faith I found there. My mom had shared horror stories with me of Protestants, especially Pentecostals; and it was the Lord's grace that overcame much prejudice about them for me to listen to these Christian students and accept the Lord. Mom had let me know of the Pentecostal believers who visited our home to share the Gospel, of their vehemence in ridiculing the Pope and Catholicism. Quasi-Hindu practices such as penance-for-favours practised at shrines like Vailankanni drew their ire and they did not conceal their distaste for these. Mom let me know even before I went to college that the Pentecostals had specifically targetted heavily Catholic countries such as Brazil and transformed it into a Pope-hating, fire-breathing radical Pentecostal community. Her explanation for all this then was that they hated Catholicism. For an impressionable young man, this was a pretty strong seed of prejudice.

On campus in MCC, after I became a Christian, I found great joy in my new faith. I also read with a friend a book about Francis of Assissi in a book called 'A New Kind of Fool' written by an Indian Franciscan monk whose talent in music, art, photography and poetry combined to make this book an intimate look at Francis. The monk traveled through Assissi and many other places of interest to Francis-researchers and captured his impressions in art, poems, snapshots and sheet music. The life of Francis took my breath away. I was amazed to find such depth of faith. A page in the book carried a black and white photograph of an unpaved road somewhere near Assissi. The author captions it this way (my paraphrasing): "These old roads carry a special signficance, because somewhere along these roads, Francis saw a leper, dismounted from his horse and ran to embrace him." This did not go down very well with most of my friends in college. We had long discussions about Catholicism, mostly criticisms from them and nuanced agreements from me. More than the fact that Catholicism had introduced many corruptions into Christianity, my displeasure in these disputes with brothers I loved dearly was that their dismissal of Catholics and their faith was simplistic and somewhat aggressive. True friends of the Reformation they were, as I myself turned out to be later (I still am- except that I would like be a kinder gentler friend).

I did realize of course that the word Catholicism means different things to different people. There have been people who turned to Catholicism like Chesterton and Muggeridge and others who were influenced strongly by it like CS Lewis. Francis lived in a time before the Reformation began, when there was only one mainstream church- and that was the Roman Catholic Church. Besides the practises of the church that drew Martin Luther's ire came to that extend of corruption much later than Francis' time. The later Catholic Reformation did much to clear these after the Protestant Reformation had done its work. But apart from a few believers I heard the oft-repeated criticisms of the Catholic church from my friends.

Three years later I was working in India and visiting at a believing friend's house. He and his wife talked of how a Hindu friend did not want to confess his new-found Christian faith to his orthodox Brahmin parents. He later married a Christian girl from a Brahmin background and they had a Hindu-style wedding with a former Hindu priest-turned-Christian officiating, somehow fooling the parents that he was chanting Hindu mantras! What was remarkable was that my friends believed that this was allright, while they simply could not think that a Catholic could remain in his church and be a believer.

When I listen to the retelling of Catholics' brushes with the Protestant crowd, I get the feeling that we are back in the times of the Reformation. Catholicism has greatly changed and is continually changing, and is differently practised in different parts of the world. For instance, the high theology of Pope Benedict XVI does not find any takers in syncretistic India where new age practices like Pranic Healing is practised by some in the clergy. Muggeridge and Chesterton remain names to be learned in Indian seminaries, with none of their thinking permeating the policies and practises of dioceses. Many heroes of the Christian faith could be found in Catholicism- Henri Nouwen and Josef Damien come to mind. We know that the average lay Catholic anywhere in the world pay no more than lip service to men like these. After all they are not 'canonized'.

Catholicism has a lot to settle in its cesspool of beliefs, in order that the core beliefs of Christianity may remain and all else may be weeded out. But we Evangelicals are guilty- in more instances than not- of ignoring one of basic tenets of our faith: charity. Jesus, as the prologue to John's gospel says, was full of grace and truth. We may have truth on our side (if as we say we are true to the Scriptures) but we have no grace to give in what we say or do to these Catholic brethren.

It is tough to witness to my relatives, not least because their few interactions with Evangelicals has scarred them. We have talked ad nauseam about the Gospel, the non-existent dichotomy between faith and works, the validity of the Catholic argument about the written tradition of the Word and the oral tradition that is supposedly enshrined within the Magisterium of the church and all other areas of conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants. The disconnect is so much that this has ramifications in the political level. Strong pro-lifers turn pro-choice, their faith in Christian teachings deteriorate and many turn to other religions such as Hinduism which claims to be a religion that "accepts all" in peace, although the logical and historical invalidity of this statement they do not necessarily delve into.

Why do we alienate those who are willing to listen? If salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Catholics are, arguably, those closest to us in terms of faith. They embrace mystery and paradox which many of our churches have lost as a result of the almost Deistic effect that our interpretations of Sola Scriptura have had on us. We may have good reason to question some of these mysteries, but the fact is we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In many churches this may not be true. Indeed many Evangelicals embrace the mysticism of A'Kempis and Bonhoeffer (who was Lutheran). But it simply isn't true of the majority.

Is it strange at all that churches that advocate mystic experiences that should give us pause- like the 'Latter Rain' movement- have sprung up in Protestantism? When we lose the mystery of communing with God, we feel the urgent need to replace it with something. After all, God is so mysterious and his judgments past finding out- we need to hear from Him badly. I think it will take years and years of right living and gentle corrections to win back Catholics, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others. Many were drawn to Jesus not because he kept contradicting them (which he did often), but because of his compassion- and the Bible says that they were like sheep without a shepherd.

Thoughts on the Morality of War, Justice, Violence and Forgiveness

A friend recently brought up the question of war as understood by Christianity. Is a war ever just? Is fighting in a war ever justified? Would Jesus have been a pacifist? My friend took the view that as it is possible to interpret any religion so broadly as to seek to justify completely divergent views, religion should not matter in public discourse involving politics, law, foreign policy, state policy, et al.

There are many dimensions to this question. Let's try to think broadly over some of these:

1. War is a characteristic of the fallen world. It takes human lives, often the lives of innocent people. Is it ever justified?

2. Wars happen in countries which Christians call their home and love dearly. But is a Christian justified in fighting a war?

3. Even if a country declares war for a presumably just cause, wars inevitably create sin in the lives of Christian soldiers fighting them: they foster a hateful attitude towards the enemy, they create loyalties to the state rather than God (even if the state's intentions are presumably aligned with God's), they enable soldiers to kill and thus get used to talking human lives- and this makes for a conscience that will trouble the toughest minds, they coarsen men by their very nature of violence, as well as by the nature of most militaries in the world- the rowdy company, the bawdy jokes, the question R&R practices, and so on. In the light of this, are the armed services a career option for a Christian?

4. Even if a country declares war for a presumably just cause, all actions in a war by any country cannot be justified. It is safe to assume that every country that has fought a war has had to revert to dubious measures to win battles. If a Christian is compelled to go into the armed services, he/she cannot desert the services with honour. But in the light of the above dubious situations, how could he/she remain in the services?

5. War fosters military spending, fueling further wars. It creates, as is in plentiful evidence today, an industry that develops lethal weapons and profits by it- it is in the interests of this industry to create wars or rumours of war and profit thereby. Why should a nation encourage this at all?

You see, five questions. And we've only just begun. The question of Go/No-Go decisions on fighting wars based on a moral understanding is as old as the very first act of aggression, possibly that of Cain upon Abel.

On April 20, 1795, James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the US Constitution and fourth President of the United States, wrote,

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . . "

Madison covers almost all these questions and concludes that war is to be most dreaded of all enemies to public liberty.l

A few months ago, I had written a review of the book 'Beyond Opinion' on this blog. In it, in the chapter titled “Postmodern Challenges to the Bible,” Amy Orr-Ewing writes that historically, Christians have taken four options as they understand war, retaliation, justice, and violence:

1. THOROUGHGOING MILITARISM: Any war, anytime, anyplace, and for any cause is just. Christians could work as mercenaries.
2. SELECTIVE MILITARISM: Only war that the state declares is just. Christians could serve as soldiers in their nation's armed forces.
3. SELECTIVE PACIFISM: Only war with which the individual agrees is just. Christians could volunteer to serve in their nation's armed forces for a particular conflict.
4. THOROUGHGOING PACIFISM: No war anytime, anyplace, or for any cause is just. No Christian should ever serve in the armed forces.

Orr-Ewing goes on to ask which of these positions was reflective of the church in its first three centuries of existence? If I remember right, I think Amy mentioned that the early church was inclined towards Option 3- Selective Pacifism. What then may have happened to those who were serving in the Roman army and were Christians? We do not know- they may or may not have quit. In today's world, in most countries, Christians are inclined towards Option 2. This holds true especially in America, as the US sees itself as a city set on a hill- at least many Christians in the US do, and understand that metaphor as being a fundamentally Christian nation.

A cursory reading of the history of wars and rebellions that the US has been directly or indirectly involved in will cast doubts on whether Option 2 is relevant any more in the US. The Amish people of course have always been thoroughgoing pacifists, but then the community's stance on war as its stance on many other issues is a mere blip in American Christian public life.

The four options Amy gives have been discussed onother blogs. Here is a blog that sets out the following explanation:

Before Constantine, the church’s response was entirely as pacifist that allowed Christians converts to stay in the army. Government was seen as the great beast of Revelation 13.

It was not until the time of Augustine (354-430 AD) that “just war theory” began to be articulated as he faced the Donatist controversy. “The primary disagreement between Donatists and the rest of the early Christian church was over the treatment of those who renounced their faith during the persecution of Roman emperor Diocletian (303–305)” (Wikipedia).

It was Augustine who applied Paul’s teachings in Romans 13 to those living under Christian ruling authorities.

If the early Christians were pacifist but were allowed to stay in the army, there are more questions that need to be faced squarely. Did these Christians fight wars? It would seem logical to believe that they did. Rome was an empire after all, and constantly deploying armies to quell unrest and hold out against the Huns who later laid siege to Jerusalem in AD 70.

The above blog also gives these broad ideas:

1. Atheist ideologies have led to more deaths and wars in the 20th century than in the previous centuries “wars of religion” combined.

2. War in the Old Testament is always limited in scope. See Deuteronomy 20 and 1 Samuel 15.

3. God’s judgment on rulers and nations stands today as well. We cannot trust in our military might. We must give God permission to go before us, and indeed He does.

4. Jesus never gave approval to violence. His ministry challenged the allegiances of every person. His teachings did not only apply to the “religious side” or “private world” of his hearers.

Matthew 5:44 “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
Matthew 22:21 “Give to Caesar what is Caesar”
Matthew 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place”
John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world”
John 19:11 “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above”
1 Peter 2:21 “To this you were called . . . “

Let us try to answer our questions. These are what seem probable to me; I'm not concluding on these bases for good.

Answer 1. The only argument for war that could exist is the argument from choosing a lesser evil. Jesus asked us to turn the other cheek. This holds true for an individual. Does it hold true when you are protecting someone else's life? If a marauder came into your house and threatened your daughter's life, is it wrong to defend yourself with violence? This argument points to the fallenness of the world in whcih the Christian needs to live, despite his having "died" to the world in Christ. The only example of Jesus physically fighting injustice is of course that of his driving out the money changers and the merchants from the temple. Although Peter's use of a sword at Jesus' arrest was rebuked by our Lord, Jesus still tolerated his carrying out a lethal weapon like the sword. From these examples, it would seem that there may be situations in which a "just war" may be demanded of leaders in power.

Answer 2. If war is an option at all, then a Christian who has validated his reasons with the Bible is justified in fighting a war that he believes is for a just cause. He may be deluded, but judging by his convictions, he is justified. Thus Amy's Option 2 would seem to be right choice for a Christian.

Answer 3. Every military fosters a dark environment and this is to be considered seriously by Christians. I guess the same is true for many other environments, like secular college campuses; but the armed forces create an environment of looser sexual morals and a hardened view of battle.

Answer 4. It is true that no war has been completely clean. But this is equally true of every work situation. The Christian is faced with both individual and corporate choices that go against her convictions. The only answer to this is that the Lord intends for us to do the right things, nothing less. We often fail because we are afraid to pay the price. I have often failed inmy work situations because I was cowardly enough to evade the consequences. I do no think that this could be a reason for a Christian not to fight a just war.

Answer 5. Yes, wars often are not simply responses, and if they are they do not remain that way for long. They engender more wars, more wasteful public spending, create a defense industry that in turn promotes wars. War is a monster that feeds on itself and creates worse progeny. A good leader who declares a just war can easily turn into a monster whose legacy involves perpetuating wars, creating new enemies and laying waste to public finances.

I have another point to add. In our brief time in Dallas, TX in 2005, our church paused to remember 9/11 on its anniversary. We prayed that those who perpetrated the events may be brought to justice, but we also prayed that they would receive mercy from the Lord and would come to know Him and confess Him as their Saviour. This paradox of justice and forgiveness is Biblical- and only Biblical. We do not seek to stifle one to prosper the other. A Christian serving in the amred forces would do well to remember that, although in such an environment it is far easier to hate than to love your enemies.

I would happy to receive any comments on this article.

An Orissa in Afghanistan

The Taliban in Afghanistan, as the saffron brigade in India, kills a British aid worker because she was "spreading Christianity". Here is the news from IHT. It is a sign of the times that the popular sentiment in the West, though critical of the killers, is still indifference or an attitude that Christians should simply not tell anyone else about their faith. As for Asia, it is losing grips with reality and logic in that they attempt to kill the messenger when they cannot kill the message- and seek to justify these killings under the same sentiment expressed by indifferent Westerners. How long will we tolerate intolerance like this? We are eager to root out perceived intolerance in the form of evangelization, but we justify the brutishness of these cultures by our confused logic.

It is no surprise for a Christian, but familiar ground through history, and one accurately foretold by Jesus:

Luke 21:12- 19
"... they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life."

Voices from Orissa

These are excerpts from newspapers from around the world with reports of the anti-Christian pogroms happening now in Orissa. It is incredible to see the responses of educated young Indian Hindus to these articles, many blaming forced conversions (which are alleged inducements given to the converts, such as food, education, healthcare, jobs and so on). Many of these comments justify the killings and the rapes as simply the only way to "reconvert" people to Hinduism.

To add perspective, I have included an astounding article from Shashi Tharoor, which while stating that the allegation of forced Christian conversions are supported only by anecdotal evidence (from dubious sources: addition mine), holds the killing and the killers unjustifiable even if those allegations were to be proved right.

In my view, a minority of Christian missionaries have indeed been aggressive and dismissive of Indian culture, Hindu deities and beliefs in their sharing the faith. None of that deserves such merciless treatment. Even if one were to claim that the killers were uneducated tribals and the trigger was the missionary denigration of their faith, India's shame is that the leaders, the cognoscenti, the politicians, the police, the courts, the people, the religious leaders, et al who have the power to change things... stood by and did NOTHING. What is their excuse?

Besides, unlike what Mr. Subhash Chauhan says (in the NYT article below), it is naiveté to assume that a sustained, month-long mass movement could arise out of spontaneous anger- especially when you consider that anti-Christian violence is nothing new in this region. As before in Gujarat and much before in 1984 when in the wake of Indira Gandhi's assassination, the anti-Sikh pogroms were aided and abetted by the Congress Party (leading to Rajiv Gandhi's infamous comment that when a large tree falls the earth trembles), a large scale pogrom like this could happen precisely because it was planned and executed by a statewide, powerful body which had a vested interest in killing Christians. If one could point to the swami Laxmanananda Saraswati's murder as having been carefully planned by a powerful body, how much more planned was an operation that rendered at least 100 people dead and 10000 displaced?

Articles from the BBC:

The Strange Case of Parikkit Nayak

I was told of a man named Parikkit Nayak, who escaped from the initial surge of violence. Two days later as he tried to flee from his village with his wife and two children, he was caught by a local mob.

They tied a rope around his neck and dragged him along the ground for 400m (1,312ft). Bruised and battered, he was then paraded through the village like an animal and asked if he would renounce Christianity. When he said no, he was cut to pieces with knives, while his young family had to look on.

Manoj, a Young Priest

I met a young priest named Manoj, now in temporary exile, who related the story of his father.

"They came to our house and held an axe to his neck. 'If you stay Christian', he was told, 'you will be killed.' He was taken to a local temple and forced to convert."

"To live in this world today," Manoj's father relates in a letter smuggled out of his village, "we have to live as Hindus."

The young Hindu woman

Even though she herself is a Hindu, she was gang-raped by her grandparents' neighbours because her uncle refused to renounce his Christian beliefs.

She says: "But we won't lie about it. Even if they throw money at our feet, we will continue to tell the truth."

From Sky News:

A Victim's Testimony:

One victim's lip quivered uncontrollably as she told us how she watched her brother being burned alive by the Hindu mobs. They came in their hundreds and just ransacked our homes, setting them on fire. If you didn't run away, you were beaten. They told us we could only stay if we converted to Hinduism. Otherwise, they said they would kill us.

A BJP Leader responds:

Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa, a BJP politician who runs the South Indian state, blames Christian groups for the violence.

"While Christians and Hindus have co-existed peacefully in the state, there have been unconstitutional and illegal efforts by some Christian organisations such as 'New Life' to forcibly convert or to induce conversion to Christianity," he says, according to The Times of India, adding: "Efforts of such organization include publishing booklets like 'Satya Darshini' in which Hindu gods and goddesses were denigrated. Our constitution provides for freedom of religion but does not permit forcible or induced conversion."

From the New York Times:

Solomon Digal's family:

The family of Solomon Digal was summoned by neighbors to what serves as a public square in front of the village tea shop.

They were ordered to get on their knees and bow before the portrait of a Hindu preacher. They were told to turn over their Bibles, hymnals and the two brightly colored calendar images of Christ that hung on their wall. Then, Mr. Digal, 45, a Christian since childhood, was forced to watch his Hindu neighbors set the items on fire.

“ ‘Embrace Hinduism, and your house will not be demolished,’ ” Mr. Digal recalled being told on that Wednesday afternoon in September. “ ‘Otherwise, you will be killed, or you will be thrown out of the village.’ ”

A Nun's Brutal Rape

Two nights after his death, a Hindu mob in the village of Nuagaon dragged a Catholic priest and a nun from their residence, tore off much of their clothing and paraded them through the streets.

The nun told the police that she had been raped by four men, a charge the police say was borne out by a medical examination. Yet no one was arrested in the case until five weeks later, after a storm of media coverage. Today, five men are under arrest in connection with inciting the riots. The police say they are trying to find the nun and bring her back here to identify her attackers.

Subhash Chauhan:" Hindus By Birth"

Given a chance to explain the recent violence, Subash Chauhan, the state’s highest-ranking leader of Bajrang Dal, a Hindu radical group, described much of it as “a spontaneous reaction.” He said in an interview that the nun had not been raped but had had regular consensual sex.

On Sunday evening, as much of Kandhamal remained under curfew, Mr. Chauhan sat in the hall of a Hindu school in the state capital, Bhubaneshwar, beneath a huge portrait of the swami. A state police officer was assigned to protect him round the clock. He cupped a trilling Blackberry in his hand.

Mr. Chauhan denied that his group was responsible for forced conversions and in turn accused Christian missionaries of luring villagers with incentives of schools and social services.

He was asked repeatedly whether Christians in Orissa should be left free to worship the god of their choice. “Why not?” he finally said, but he warned that it was unrealistic to expect the Kandhas to politely let their Pana enemies live among them as followers of Jesus.

“Who am I to give assurance?” he snapped. “Those who have exploited the Kandhas say they want to live together?”

Besides, he said, “they are Hindus by birth.”

Daud Nayak:

Trembling with fear, Daud Nayak, 56, submitted to a shaving, a Hindu sign of sacrifice. He drank, as instructed, a tumbler of diluted cow dung, considered to be purifying.

In the eyes of his neighbors, he reckoned, he became a Hindu.
In his heart, he said, he could not bear it.

Solomon Digal's Final Insult:

Here in Borepanga, the family of Solomon Digal was not so lucky. Shortly after they recounted their Sept. 10 Hindu conversion story to a reporter in the dark of night, the Digals were again summoned by their neighbors. They were scolded and fined 501 rupees, or about $12, a pinching sum here.

The next morning, calmly clearing his cauliflower field, Lisura Paricha, one of the Hindu men who had summoned the Digals, confirmed that they had been penalized. Their crime, he said, was to talk to outsiders.

From the Huffigton Post (Originally Appearing in the Times of India)- by Shashi Tharoor:

Of course, it is easy enough to condemn anti-Christian violence because it is violence, and because it represents a threat to law and order as well as to that nebulous idea we call India's 'image'. But an argument that several readers have made needs to be faced squarely. In the words of one correspondent: could the violence ''be a reaction to provocations from those religions that believe that only their path is the right path and the rest of humanity are infidels?'' He went on to critique ''the aggressive strategy being pursued by some interests in the US to get people in India converted en masse to Christianity, not necessarily by means fair.''

In his view, ''aggressive evangelism directed against India by powerful church organisations in America enjoying enormous money power, has only one focused objective -- to get India into the Christian fold, as they have succeeded, to a considerable extent, in South Korea and are now in the process of conquering Mongolia.'' Arguing that ''mass conversions of illiterates and semi-literates -- and they also happen to be poor, extremely poor'' is exploitative, he concluded: ''powerful organisations from abroad with enormous money power indulging in mass conversion'' are ''a destabilising factor provoking retaliation''.

I have great respect for the reader in question, but on this issue I strongly disagree. I cannot accept any justification for the thugs' actions, nor am I prepared to see behind the violence an ''understandable'' Hindu resistance to Christian zealotry. Put simply, no non-violent activity, however provocative, can ever legitimise violence. We must reject and denounce assaults and killings, whatever they may claim to be reacting to. Our democracy will not survive if we condone people resorting to violence in pursuit of their ends, however genuine and heartfelt their grievances may be. The whole point of our system of governance is that it allows all Indians to resolve their concerns through legitimate means, including seeking legal redress or political change -- but not violence.

Let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that Christian missionaries are indeed using a variety of inducements (development assistance, healthcare, education, sanitation, even chicanery -- though there is only anecdotal evidence of missionary ''trickery'') to win converts for their faith. So what? If a citizen of India feels that his faith has not helped him to find peace of mind and material fulfillment, why should he not have the option of trying a different item on the spiritual menu? Surely freedom of belief is any Indian's fundamental right under our democratic Constitution, however ill-founded his belief might be.

And if Hindu zealots suspect that conversion was fraudulently obtained, why do they not offer counter-inducements rather than violence? Instead of destroying churches, perhaps a Hindu-financed sewage system or paathshala might reopen the blinkered eyes of the credulous. Better still, perhaps Christians and Hindus (and Muslims and Baha'is, for that matter) could all compete in our villages to offer material temptations for religious conversions. The development of our poor country might actually accelerate with this sort of spiritual competition.

What Belies These Articles

Tharoor's article above asks why it should matter if different religions compete in offering material incentives to people? The question, as does every question raised here, belies the fear within Hindu minds. This is not so much about forced conversions, missionaries denigrating their faith, Hindus being concerned about gullible people being fooled by Christian promises or the alleged hand of the CIA in these conversions. After all, if I were a Hindu leader, I would first try to dispel any perceived falsehood by spreading truth, creating grassroots level organizations to counteract ideological claims. I would try to combat any unjust prosyletizing through the legal and political system. Besides, I would also assume that those who claim to have converted into Christianity simply because of material incentives aren't really Christians after all! And if indeed they converted to Christianity due to such gifts, do I consider such fickle-minded folk to be really Hindus? They are simply indifferent to religion.

I'm sure you are shaking your head and thinking how foolish I am. Of course, you are right. This is not about whether these people are simpletons! What is the real reason for leaders dividing communities according to caste, religion, colour, ethnicity, regional allegiance and so on?

This is first and foremost about power. Just as the imperial power of Rome bowed before the babe in the manger in Bethlehem 2000 years ago, Christianity comes to destroy the power of those who seek it for unjust purposes- including those who use Christianity itself to further their own power. Why should we let the politicians have the benefit of doubt by letting them hide their fear of losing power behind their lies? The case of Solomon Digal lays it bare for all it is. Those who have things to hide hate the truth. They fined him for talking about his "forced reconversion." It is the Truth, of course, that sets us free. The smokescreen of lies that tries to hide this fact serves its purpose for the moment. It will soon be revealed for what it is.

As a Christian, I have hope in our God who is our saviour. He is the transcendant one who becams immanent for our salvation. I believe that his incarnation into humanity is the hope for Orissa and India. We too, being incarnational into the situations of those who were hurt and wounded in the cities and villages of India, serving Him, will certainly lead India to embracing Christ. History has proven invariably that violence against Christians will only serve to strengthen Christianity.

Not Done Yet

There is something else to be said loud and clear, and with no compromise. The Hindu nationalist organizations mock such display of sympathy from Christian organizations and individuals, but for the sake of truth and justice in the sight of our Lord, this must be said unequivocally. The saffron brigade claims that the murder of the swami Laxmanananda Saraswati was perpetrated by Christians. His organization claims that they received threatening letters from Christians before the murder. They had requested police protection from the State Government, but were given only 4 baton-wielding constables. As angry members of the Orissa assembly averred, this is clearly a ridiculous response from the Government in a state known for Maoist sympathies, and if the saffron brigade is to be believed, over half of this group in this particular state comprises Christians. The larger Maoist movement is not predominantly Christian, but Hindu- if at all those with such strong atheistic tenets could claim to have any religion. Maoism was described by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a few years ago as India's biggest threat. This is after considering competitors to that title such as Islamic extremists, Pakistan, China and so on. If so, the State Government protection given to the swami was criminal. We do not have yet any definitive statements on who killed the swami, except the outbursts by the swami's lieutenants which are good guesses at best. Whoever they were, as Christians, we need to pray for justice to be accomplished, that the killers would be caught, judged and punished appropriately. We can pray for them to accept Christ's mercy, but let's pray for them to be judged by the Indian judiciary. We also need to be uncompromising in our sympathies for this fallen leader and his near and dear ones. The appropriate gesture is mourning. Raising grievances about the swami's activities that may have been provocative are as out of place as the saffron brigade pointing to Christian missions as the cause of the Hindu violence against themselves.

A Final Word on Charities: from the Blogosphere

The above is an article on front organizations of the RSS that collect money from overseas for ostensibly charitable purposes. It is not surprising that this organization accuses Christians of appropriating foreign funds for religious conversion. After all it is easier to accuse someone else and appear innocent when you are misappropriating charitable donations yourself.

Resting in Peace

The story of Karthik Rajaram's tragic murder of his family and his own suicide is by now known in Indian circles. Touted on Indian media as a fallout of the financial crisis and remembered by people trying to make sense of how a normal family of idyllic suburbs, known for financial, academic and career success could so quickly come to nothing. Karthik's eldest son, aged 19, was a Fullbright scholar at UCLA. His dad, as the above linked article says, was so wildly successful in business dealings and personal finance- until his investments crumbled and his job vanished.

Is there more to this story? Everyone who hears wants to know, and know that the answer is yes. Who knows? Driven to desparation, human beings commit reckless acts that i nhindsight could have been avoided. What if he had slashed his lifestyle and settled for lower pay? His son could have put in some hours to chip in... These are thoughts echoed by many Indians. Whatever else there may be to this story, isn't this something that could happen to any of us?

In his latest podcast, Michael Card interviewed Mike Yankowski, author of the book about his 5-month voluntary homelessness, Under the Overpass. Mike talked of how he met very educated people who were rendered homeless by a single incident in their lives that came unexpectedly. He narrates how a professor at a Christian university let him know of his homelessness for 4 years. Card shares with us that these are things that could happen to us in the flicker of a moment.

Would we be willing to trust God then and adjust our lifestyles? Is it that simple? Adjusting our lifestyle may not simply a matter of skipping a meal a day or not shopping for clothes or giving up driving your own car. It may mean the collapse of our hopes and dreams, the ambitions that we nurtured for ourselves, our better halves, our children. The health insurance that we bought for our ageing parents. It is humbling to ask relatives and friends for help, and more so, the church. The fear and insecurity that breaks the heart in these circumstances are both used and abused by those in power and those with the power to make a difference. Some of these are indifferent to the cries around us. A handful of them get out and seek out those who need help.

What killed Karthik, and what made him to kill? Was it the proverbial Indian pride about pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps? Was it the realization that the incredible education from IIT-Chennai and UCLA had come to nothing? Was it the frustration that a life of moderate means or even lesser means is no life at all? Was it the loneliness that comes of having nor supporters, perhaps not just outside but within his own family? Was it a crumbling of his worldview that perhaps hoped for the best and aimed at the top? Was it that he had gotten used to pace in his life and hated to slow down? Was it his 'emotional imbalance' alleged by a former boss at PwC, which included attending conference calls while inebriated and yelling at family members?

We look for someone and something to blame when crisis hits. It may be a individual. It may be employers, family , the Government, the President, and all too often, God. Aren't there so many variables that could be blamed if we needed to offload our frustration on someone? That leads us to ask, if so many people could be blamed, then does it matter to blame anyone at all in particular? Adolf Meyer, once President of the American Psychiactric Association, said that the principal aim in life was to understand why one should not contemplate suicide. The fallenness of our world is so apparent, isn't it?

The Evangelical Manifesto- My Thoughts

The Pharisees of Jesus' time formed the mainstream of Jewish thought. They were not so much defined by profession, rather they represented a movement or ideology within Judiasm and were people of different professions: clerics, lawyers and other prominent individuals. They were distinguished by their core beliefs that (a) the Old Testament was the revealed Word of God, (b) this word must be interpreted within a strict framework that has been understood traditionally from the beginnings of this revelation, and (c) they believed that their understanding of God through the Scriptures must influence their everyday life (and hence their insitence on the Sabbath rest, ritual cleansing and other issues over which Jesus was viewed by them with suspicion).

By this token they would be considered the Conservatives of their day. They sought to conserve the shared meanings of their past. When Jesus came around, he clearly drew a line in the sand where these teachings erred on many occasions. So he says on these occasions, "You have heard that it was written...., but I say to you...." In his debates with lawyers and clerics, his answers are always probing the essence of Pharisaic belief. The Pharisees question him about who they might consider their neighbour, and Jesus after his customary answer by asking a question, proceeds to tell a story that elevates the actions of a hated Samaritan over the understandable actions of a lawyer and a Pharisee (motivated by fear of bandits and surely by fears of being soiled through contact with the dead). Jesus goes beyond their law to ask them why they believed certain things. Another inquirer called him 'good teacher, and he responds, "Why do you call me good?" He then tells them that only God is good, but he demonstrates his divinity throughout the Gospels by his actions- miracles, forgiving sins, equating himself with the Father, projecting Himself as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophesies. He is constantly probing to get at their Conservative essence.

Was Jesus a liberal? The Pharisees surely thought so. But in general, that label was claimed by a powerful, wealthy and elite sect of the day, called the Sadducees. Although Jesus' interactions with them are minimal in the Gospels (and this is perhaps because they were fewer in number), one such interaction catches our attention. The Sadducees ask Jesus a question intended to disprove resurrection of the dead, an idea upheld by the Pharisees, which he refutes.

Little is known about the Sadducees, except that they were few in number compared to the Pharisees, wealthy, politically powerful, elite, influenced in their Judaism by external religious beliefs such as Epicureanism and Stoicism. The Jewish sriter Josephus tells us that they were boorish in social interactions. They also rejected the idea of interpreting the Old Testament by the strict framework that the Pharisees held to. They were probably puzzled by Jesus' teachings, in that he was clearly not influenced by the Hellenistic philosophies that they endorsed, but he was claiming his own ground. The Sadducees likely considered him a Conservative who was defining this movement in a new way.

I wonder what the Essenes thought of him. This group was scholarly, often monastic, arch-conservatives who were also messianic, mystic and ascetic in their lives. Many hold to the belief that John the Bapitzer may have been an Essene, judging by the austerity of his lifestyle. Perhaps the difference is also that he was clearly an outspoken messenger for Jesus, something the Essenes were not likely to have been.

The idea that emerges is that Jesus affirmed the Pharisees in their high regard for the revelatory nature of Scripture, interpretation of the Scripture according to the framework set by tradition and their insistence that this should influence their private and public lives. His efforts have always been to persuade the people to see what this should entail. The side story of the perceived threat this may have posed to the Pharisaic leadership in terms of social and political capital is not germane to our discussion, although it may be valid enough in our time as a dangerous contingency within Christianity.

These thoughts occured to me when I read through the Evangelical Manifesto, signed by many prominent Evangelical leaders, calling for civility in the public sphere, wisdom from being used by political parties as "useful idiots", respect for the right for every faith to speak freely and express itself freely in public, but rejecting both the false notions that all faiths are correct or that the public sphere must be secular in nature. I have read only mild criticisms of this important document for our times, seeking to define the Evangelical movement and dissociate it from the narrow political and social meanings it has been given by the media and the political observers. Perhaps the best critique on it I have read is from Al Mohler here and a later statement here, both of which still commend the document for its strengths. To my mind, with all its valid criticisms, this represents a magnificent effort by Christian minds to elevate our thinking beyond partisanship and the unforgiving spirit it inevitably brings. More important of all, the core Christian beliefs that bind us firmly to the unadulterated faith of the apostles are clearly affirmed here.

Although many Conservatives and Liberals alike claim Jesus as one of their own, it is important to understand our Lord's stance in a more meaningful way than simply to claim that he "came to conserve" or he "struck out on his own". He came to redeem the lost and his way was in conflict with the established powers of his day, as it is with many of our own.

Our Private Faith- Why It Remains Private

In our most recent church newsletter, called Fellowship Journal, one of our associate pastors, Jay Thomas, writes about the concept of the changing church that has always been the idea of church. He cites the example of Redeemer Prebyterian Church in Manhattan that is comfortable in its multicultural, sophisticated setting and is thriving even as it holds to its orthodox Christianity. Jay also talks about the fact that the Wheaton area, long a Christian bubble, as our new senior pastor- Josh Moody- described it, is now experiencing a rapid change, with new ethnicities and nationalities coming in. He emphasizes the fact that the church that does not adapt itself to reach out to these people in its own backyard is the church that actually is changing, and in a negative sense- it is actually clinging to a tradition than to its mission.

Pastor Josh Moody half-jokingly talked about having breakfast with 5 honest pagans each week just to retain his edge in this Christian bubble. He was raised in secular England where you'd have 5 Christians among 700 non-Christians, and later went to Cambridge University and New York City, where conditions are not dissimilar. Jay is half-Indian and on-eighth Native American, while I'm fully Indian. Just to set things straight, I feel- and I'm sure he does as well- right at home in Wheaton. It is densely populated with Christians, but our church has been a sending church, reaching out to many peoples around the world with the gospel, medical and counseling care, Bible translation and other missional work. I have also felt at home in that while the churchmembers are warm and kindhearted they do not go overboard in welcoming us into the congregation on the pretext that we are Indian. I have often been on the receiving end of well-meaning but a little embarrassing outpouring of special attention in other churches, where they'd express amazement that we are Christians and Indians. After these pourparlers are done, we broach the familiar topics- do Indians still have "arranged marriages" (not that again!)? and "Isn't there more freedom in America?" and the now familiar "Just last week I talked to someone named Chris (but actually Krishna) in Bangalore about my credit card payments! If you're Indian, you are smiling wryly, having been there before. I haven't seen too much of that among College Church members, but I have seen seriousness of purpose in the Bible studies and other meetings, especially Sunday services.

Reverting to our theme, I recently went to the website of Dallas Theological Seminary and downloaded some lectures given by Dr. Mark Young, whose sermons and teachings I have been truly privileged to listen to in my short stay (8 months) in Dallas. Mark is a gifted teacher, besides being a Bible scholar and a Pauline figure by example and by his zeal, and it's a treat to listen to him. In these lectures, Mark too talks about the Latin phrase Missio Dei, meaning the sending or sentness of God. In these he passionately argues that mission is not only Biblicaly based, but the Bible itself is a missional book and that our God is a missionary God. The Bible demonstrates first God's missionary focus from Genesis through Revelation, God's purpose for his people- first the Patriarchs, then Israel, and now the church- to be missional so as to demonstrate his glory to all peoples and to draw all nations to Him. The Bible also says that we are created in God's image. Mark tells us that this can be also translated "as God's image", in that we somehow are God's agents to reveal his glory to all creation. The Bible also demonstrates Jesus' authority on Earth over sin and death, and everything there is, and how he shares his authority with us to revere Him and reveal Him to all humanity.

Mark's third lecture in this series insists that contemporary Evangelical ecclesiology is derived from the Reformation and may be incompatible for today's churches. He says that the Reformation saw an ecclesiology that sought to distinguish Biblical truth from certain errors that were practised, not with a pagan land, but within the context of Christendom. But this ecclesiology has changed little today. Our context is different. Christendom is no more, and we face vastly different environments in which to live and reveal God's truth.

We have a Hindu neighbour whose 13-year old daughter has been facing difficult issues at school and they have been looking for Christian schools to enroll her in. The two Wheaton are schools she contacted let her know that they take in only Christian students. She related to us later her puzzlement that this should be so. Her interpretation was that this was unjust discrimination, just as a Hindu school in India that exludes students of other faiths would be perceived as discrimnatory. Having studied at a Catholic school in India, she had good things to say about Christian education and institutions, but this experience left her bewildered. In a culture like India's such criteria for admission would not be even allowed.

In America, it's not tough to understand why this happened. This was no instance of a "holy huddle", but the fact that public schools sometimes have students with value systems that are different or even contradictory to what Christian kids are raised to live by, as well as sometimes real and sometimes perceived agenda in US public education to turn kids into socially liberal causes such as being pro-gay rights, non-theistic evolution, refusing private prayers or religious societies within the school system being formed by students. Sometimes these may include rampant drug use, bringing guns to school, violence, sex, dirty language, loose morals, dress code and so on, besides a lower quality of education. Christian schools try to create a morally strong environment within their sphere of influence and would seek to keep out kids of other faiths based on these desires.

I was still sad to hear that there aren't schools which are Christian in character and mission that are open to everyone- like Madras Christian College was, and is. In secular (or Hindu, whichever way you look at it) India, this institution was created 175 years ago for the purpose of evangelization, and today, though that focus is no longer the driving force, the college still witnesses strongly about Christ to new students. It was there that the Lord found me, and how thankful I am for it!

In his third lecture (out of the series of 4), which deals with how the Missio Dei relates to the Populus Dei, Dr. Mark Young ends on a suddenly somber and divergent note. I can imagine him doing this, on a whim, after his theologically powerful and passionate lecture is through. He says" Frankly this idea (of the missional church) gives me nightmares. Somehow I think that at the end of my life, I will still be standing at a pulpit, saying these same things to a church full of people who just don't care."

We lament the privatization of faith in the US. Has it occured to us that we ourselves may be partly to blame?

On W the Movie

On Oliver Stone's movie on George Bush, "W", to bre released October 17th, the responses are mixed, according to this link.

Bush biographers mixed on script for Oliver Stone's 'W'

April 07, 2008

President George W. Bush is a foul-mouthed, reformed drunk obsessed with baseball, Saddam Hussein and a conflicted relationship with his dad. Naturally, what a director does with a script is how a movie is ultimately judged, but because this screenplay depicts a sitting president and the run-up to the war in Iraq, its authenticity is becoming a hotly debated subject -- not to mention the fact that any historical material Stone has touched has become controversial. Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run.

In fairness though, if this movie were released after the elections were over, then it would not find an audience. This is the only time, if any at all. But of course, the timing is no accident. It is meant to be political and a sharp arrow in Mr. Obama's quiver. Even if I find the description of this movie as an unserious look at the presidency of Mr. Bush, I will see it, if only to understand the new lows of American political discourse, this time paraded on the big screen instead of the small. Who can deny that the media, conservative and liberal alike, are clanging cymbals, full of strife, clamour and confusion, especially at a time when intelligent discourse would have changed the face of the election?

Thoughts on Order and Space

A country's physical infrastruture tells us a few things about the country. One, of course, is if the country was relatively wealthy. Although this is generally true, it may not remain true for much longer. Large nations like China (and probably India though the desire to do the same is not in evidence) can build shining cities with the collective wealth of a large population while the per capita income remains small compared to that of an advanced nation. The other piece of information we get is if the culture is used to thinking about space and architecture in way to benefit the daily demands of the society. Eastern nations have built great temples, as have Western nations built imposing cathedrals, but the architecture of the past 100 years- call it modern, postmodern, prairie-style, whatever- has by and large sought to understand how humanity could live, work and play optimally within the walls of a building- and hence we have skyscrapers, Ikea furniture, wall-beds, studio apartments, and so on.

Besides, the layout of the physical infrastructure tells us how a society can harness its leadership, creativity and resources to create a sense of order. Asian countries like Singapore have created order that is clinical and driven from the top down, no questions asked by anyone below the food chain. As film-maker Ang Lee once said about his experience in making Sense and Sensibility, in Taiwan the director is king- the underlings learn from him without a word, but in the West, the actors want to discuss things, give suggestions; and this made him feel he came across as a bad director. China is a recent example of building great order out of pre-'80s chaos.

In India the chaos is pervasive, the only places where this doesn't exist are the homes where concepts like Vaastu have taken hold. Private space is most respected, and public space is not. Therefore you have high sidewalks which are difficult to mount, full of trees that obstruct your path, billboards, hawkers and what have you. Homes in contrast are clean. Last year I was on the campus of a large IT service provider where the lawns were beautifully manicured and buildings wonderful. Just outside the gate, in Electronic City, Bangalore, was a potholed road, in disrepair for several years. That gives one the idea.

By and large in Western societies the sense of order is not drive top down, but understood by the society as a whole to be the norm. But the kind of order than you have in Chicago can be understood to be less orderly than that you find in Shanghai. O'Hare airport is the busiest airport in the US, but also a very crowded one, the highways connecting it clogged during peak hours, and longstanding demands for upgrade have been so far unfulfilled. However this is not unfulfilled in the sense that one gets in India. This is not as much to do with inertia or corruption (although they exist) as with egalitarian priorities.

Virtual infrastructure though is becoming a panacea for many of India's headaches. A colleague who has been in IT services sales for many years recently described to me the horrors of getting an RFP from a government institution in India. This was many years ago. The announcement that an RFP was to be released would hit the news. On the morning of the day of release the sales managers would crowd outside the door or window where RFP hard copies would be handed out. There are always limited copies, so the most burly or aggressive of the lot would fight and get their copies, and those who couldn't get in first would go home emptyhanded. Today though, RFPs are released electronically, and the number of recipients has increased. This is not to say that all problems in India have been similarly solved. Standardized tests and group discussions for B-school admissions are still chaos.

One would imagine that the Internet and electronic sourcing, commerce and other tools have made order out of chaos. The fact is that these tools have simply achieved what the police or infrastructure could not achieve - to keep the people disciplined and orderly. The concept of standing in a line is today made irrelevant, and hence the clutter is cut down. But the rules of web applications and the protocols of the Internet, email and other electronic tools are defined by people who sought to create order from chaos.

Could an Asian country have defined these rules originally? Perhaps an Indian pioneer who was disgruntled with the state of things could have brought this about. Or a Chinese government employee, wanting to be conscientious or earn brownie points or earn a higher rank, could have done it. I think these highly improbable situations. I do not imply that Indians or Chinese lack creativity or motivation. For nothing good comes without these. India has seen volunteer projects like Exnora. China has seen cracked the rice genome.

I just mean that a society that can conceive of physical infrastructure in ways to benefit humanity is the society that can define rules for virtual infrastructure as well. Creativity in orderliness is the same underpinning for both these infrastructures. The mechanics of these may be replicated in other societies- some more successfully than others. But order is something felt internally, and the more it is true of the people, the more we see it outside of them.

Is it the Economy, Stupid?

This article in British paper 'The Independent' spins on so many levels. First it says Obama and McCain have differing stances on the economy and their approaches to solve the current crisis. Then it says nothing that a president does actually affects the economy- it says President Bush's policies had little to do with the current crisis and that President Clinton's deficit reduction had less to do with the boom than the dot com euphoria did. It then goes on to say that the suprising 3.3 percent second quarter GDP growth (which is good by US standards) was the result of the $140 billion economic stimulus package that President Bush initiated.

Clearly what a President does has an effect on the economy. President Bush made serious mistakes in his deep tax cuts although these took time to show up in the stagnant growth we are seeing today. After all, spending, individual debt, public debt, unrealistic and unsustainable housing prices were all clearly brewing all this while, coming now to a head where the prices crashed, the bad debts swelled, bankruptcies and bailouts hiked, investors are poorer, jobs got (and are getting) axed and industrial spending low.

Mr. McCain's continuation of the tax cuts of President Bush's administration compared with Mr. Obama's focus on taxing the wealthy do stand out in stark contrast. Under both systems tax revenue will increase, and under the circumstances the ones that drive the economy are people who will go out and spend money- viz. the less wealthy, not the ones who will invest the money in China (where they actually produce something and thereby provide returns that are not based on speculation but hard goods or services) or in their retirement plans; but the people who need the money to spend on things they need to have- clothes, food, cars, gas, education, mortgages and so on. This article blames Mr. Greenspan for the ills we now face, but taking the blame of the Republican administration is clearly not cricket. The later tax cuts have stimulated the economy, but the earlier tax cuts simply made it grow faster than it should have. There is a time for deficit spending and a time for deficit reduction. This is not the time to continue deficit spending. This is also not the time to seek to continue a war indefinitely. Despite the fact that the US must do right by our knell in Iraq, it is important to have a plan to exit. Mr. McCain's plan to bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq is troublesome.

So how will the presidential policies not make an impact? The article ends by saying that the economic positions of the candidates will make an impact on the electoral results, that it's back to "It's the economy, stupid". What is scary is that the economy should matter in this election, but it may not matter enough to the voters. Some effects of recession such as job losses in predominantly blue collar states are only beginning to take place. The closure of banks and government bailouts of many financial institutions may not make sense until it hits one's own pocketbook.

Fear and Loathing in India

As once again Indians are trying to comprehend the sadness and shock from yesterday's multiple blasts in New Delhi, it is important to remember that out of the nine bombs that the terrorists had emailed the police about, only 5 actually exploded. They found 3 and defused them, and one remains undetected.

Here is the story from Sify of how the three unexploded bombs were found in 5 minutes and defused. It is a story of courage that gives hope to Indians who are currently grieving and also clueless about the perpetrators. The command and control structure of the group called Indian Mujahideen is yet unknown, which makes it dangerous and unpredictable.

On Hindu nationalist blogs and forums on the internet, the usual questions are being asked. One of them was 'why aren't the imams issuing a fatwa against these killers?' The answer to that is simple: people who can issue fatwas against innocent people are the same ones who will issue any fatwas at all. A fatwa is taking the law into your own hands. This makes one little different from a terrorist. In any case the equivalent of a fatwa is informally understood by extremists of every stripe when it comes to taking revenge.

It is best to trust the courage of our people and pray that we would ourselves would not stay our hand if we were to face a situation like the police faced in the above link.

Palin, Obama, Divisive Issues and Christian Challenges- Random Thoughts

There are so many articles on Sarah Palin now, almost all having to do with lipstick (pigs, pitbull and other animals associates with it), hockey, moose, bridge to nowhere, private jet, pro-life, 5 kids, Sarah Barracuda, guns and to a small extend some ripping comments she has made about Obama. Her coming into national spotlight has also given John Mccain a lead over Obama that had been eluding him for ages. Reaction to this has been mostly knee-jerk, nervous, condemning and shifty. Theories abound in the Democratic and liberal circles which recall to mind the worst strategies of John Kerry's ill-fated run last election. The latest in the barrage of such responses is in Time magazine, titled Sarah Palin's Myth of America. This article tries to explain away this phenomenon by blaming the American public for swallowing a mixture of nostalgia for the better days and the myth of an American valhalla where racial heterogeneity, abortion, single parent families, same-sex partners and so on were not imaginable. The article says Sarah Palin is an iteration of this myth which is apparently what the Republican party has been feeding the people from Reagan on. In contrast, the writer says, Obama is the candidate people can most identify with because they agree with his stance on most issues. The writer lays out these issues:

The Bush Administration has been a disaster on many fronts. The McCain campaign has provided only the sketchiest policy proposals; it has spent most of its time trying to divert the national conversation away from matters of substance. But Americans like stories more than issues. Policy proposals are useful in the theater of presidential politics only inasmuch as they illuminate character: far more people are aware of the fact that Palin put the state jet on eBay than know that she imposed a windfall-profits tax on oil companies as governor and was a porkaholic as mayor of Wasilla.

Does it strike you odd that Americans who are by far one of the most advanced civilizations on earth are falling, if this article is to be believed, for a vision of the past, while there are serious problems to be fixed? It hurts their wallets that the gas prices are high. They know they will be taxed more, whichever candidate wins, the catch being that Mccain will let the rich be taxed less and Obama the other way around. Middle class America stands to pay more if Mccain were to come to power. Obama envisions a healthcare system which by 2012 will be so robust that it will guarantee universal coverage. We do not yet know the efficacy of his methods and he has not given us a guarantee of this timeframe, but the vision and the desire are there.

I do not think the Huck Finn fantasia that Palin apparently conjures up for some people is what is doing the trick. Clearly she is a divisive factor in US politics, because unlike Mccain she has a record that does not allow her to oscillate in some critical issues such as taxes, guns, abortion, education and so on. There is clearly a vote bank for that. Second, she has at least some of what Hillary had- a figure that working middle class women can identify with. Before we begin trashing this by comparing Hillary's 'fabulous' record with Sarah's miniscule one, let us remember that there was a lot of talk of many women being more willing to vote for Mccain than Obama when Hillary lost the Democratic nomination. Rightly or wrongly this crowd is one that can be swayed much more by identification with their gender than the issues. The liberal press is full of dismay that women could conceive voting for someone who "is against their interests", meaning her pro-life stance. Perhaps this is where they need to understand that not all women understand pro-choice as a good thing for women. Many vote for Democrats because of other issues as well. Noone is fooled that Palin is pro-choice. Americn women are overwhelmingly literate and they have read ad nauseam that Palin is pro-life and has demonstrated this in her own life by having a baby with Downs syndrome.

The writer goes on to lament that Obama cannot tell a story like Palin can. It says:

He has no personal anecdotes to match Palin's mooseburgers. His story of a boy whose father came from Kenya and mother from Kansas takes place in an America not yet mythologized, a country that is struggling to be born — a multiracial country whose greatest cultural and economic strength is its diversity. It is the country where our children already live and that our parents will never really know, a country with a much greater potential for justice and creativity — and perhaps even prosperity — than the sepia-tinted version of Main Street America. But that vision is not sellable right now to a critical mass of Americans. They live in a place, not unlike C. Vann Woodward's South, where myths are more potent than the hope of getting past the dour realities they face each day.

How poignant, but how ridiculous. Obama does have stories that will resonate with people despite his Kenyan half-ancestry. We heard some of these when he gave his speech after Jeremiah Wright's first round of divisive statements from the pulpit. We heard of how Obama could no more think of Wright as a racist as he could of his white grandmother as one, despite her many characterizations of blacks in everyday life that may be perceievd by outsiders as such. Obama did something we are not used to seeing politicians do- he made us think and he did this by giving us a glimpse into his life. Perhaps he simply isn't telling us more stories because he is all about issues. He is sincere in his intent to change American politics, society, economy and foreign policy. Americans like him, but they want to relate to him as well.

Besides all this, this article makes some disingenuous statements. These are nothing new, of course. Racial heterogeneity, abortion, divorce, same-sex couples. These are what the writer says make up the present and the revolutions that spawned them was what brought forth Obama. Christians like me like Obama for some things: his apparent sincerity, his desire to understand evangelicals (although it falls short), his inclusion of healthcare as a cause for our compassion to be engaged in, his sheer merit in propelling himself from a disadvantaged racial position and working class background to centerstage in American politics and his career, his ability to engage us in meaningful and thoughtful dialogue, his economic vision that is a change from President Bush's policies that have at best been shortsighted and at worst disastrous. They do not include his pro-gay marriage, pro-choice and a patronizing attitude towards evangelicals that has been a hallmark of the American left. I'm yet to see a presidential candidate on the Right or Left that has truly engaged conservatives intellectually, to explore issues they care about with the best of their scientific, theological and political minds. Instead, all we see are debates which engage in the cheap characterization of American evangelicals as loud, uneducated and bigoted people who need to be mollified with sops for the purpose of electioneering.

It is tough to disengage the touchy issues when campaigning to the evangelicals, but Obama doesn't gloss over them. He reaches out to us on other issues. By painting them all the same colour as the other issues, this writer shows us his own prejudices. He also belittles the concerns of the social conservatives that Obama has been working hard to reach through his debate in Rick Warren's church and other venues. His America, the one that is divided along a few issues, is what the present generation should avoid.

After all, issues like abortion and gay marriages which tilted the previous elections in President Bush's favour are simply leverages for political grandstanding. Has any pro-life administration seriously challenged Roe v Wade? At best the Republican stance has been to make abortion a state decision. On the gay marriage, we see the Democratic flip-flop. They want to make this a state decision. What makes these issues a Federal or State legislation? I can understand speed limits, agricultural subsidies, school curricula, local government initiatives like pollution control, preservation of parks and so on being state legislation. But issues like these? On what basis do administrators believe they could be best left to states? If convervative politicians had the guts to take on Roe v Wade systematically and with a plan, I would support the politician whole-heartedly in that endeavour. If they can stand against gay marriage nationally, I would support them in that endeavour. Statewide legislations simply make it easier for people to achieve in one state what has been denied in another, besides helping the political parties to divide states into red and blue.

In any case, since California legalized gay marriages, it is safe to say that the rest of the nation is headed in the same direction. These are issues that have lost support nationally. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, but has said he personally believes that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman. This to me is a ridiculous stance, in that he voted against his own beliefs about a social system that is now facing a challenge.

Christians must understand that their society has changed. Whether the 'Christian' America of the past was true or not, it must be acknowledged that unlike in the past, Christians are now at odds with the trend of culture, which is the way it has always been in most other countries and in the best times of the Christian faith. Christians in that sense are truly counter cultural. Some time ago, in Michael Card's podcast, he mentioned that Chinese Christians who meet in housegroups are persecuted, but they respond to their persecutors with a grace that we in America do not fully understand. While there is no comparison between the treatment they get and what we are used to, we in America lack the grace and forgiving spirit that makes the Chinese Christians a shining example of the light we acknowledge is that which the darkness cannot comprehend. We cannot fundamentally change a society by legislation. In tough times, God is asking us to be examples of Christian morality. It is a challenge but as it has always happened in Christian history, the worst times bring out the best and remove the dross from the church.

It would be foolishness not to take apart the conservative press for its own hyperbole about the Palin phenomenon. Here is Wall Street Journal's embarrasing pronouncements about the liberal dislike for Palin. Quote:

Her rising popularity across America has rudely confirmed that not all Americans care about the preferred presidential pick of the international left-liberal community. Barack Obama is their anti-American dream candidate, a man who is part of their project to bring America, the great Satan, to heel. After all, he never spoke about the possibility of victory in Iraq. Only American withdrawal and defeat. And thus America's humiliation........

All along, this international strain of anti-Americanism evident in Australia and beyond has been driven by a determined refusal to comprehend that peculiarly American curiosity: those who wear their God-fearing, love-of-America conservative values on their sleeves. In other words, people such as Sarah Palin who mean it when they say "God Bless America."

Does US withdrawal or even defeat in a war mean defeat for US values? Or is a withdrawal from Iraq actually a defeat? Will America collapse in such an eventuality? The last time around- in Vietnam- we saw nothing of the sort, and this is nothing close. The war effected a regime change in the country and they are doing well economically with a trade surplus of over $60 billion, while we are hemorrhaging tax funds to prop up this country. Second, while Palin may well mean it when she says 'God Bless America', it does not necessarily mean that all conservatives love America in the way the writer portrays. Questions about pork barrel, wasteful wars, healthcare, tax credits for oil companies and policies benefitting the wealthy will still remain to be answered by people who represent us, whose faith declares that the poor in spirit are indeed blessed. A little humility would go a long way.

The Ways of the way of life

How many times have you heard this statement: "Not a religion, but a way of life." Chances are, several times. I first heard this from my dad about Christianity. I've heard this of Hinduism, Wicca, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Islam and any number of shamanistic, tribal or animistic religions as well, Hinduism currently topping the number by a wide margin, most often implying that by virtue of it being a way of life it is somehow better to link your lot with it than any other worldview.

Which religion isn't a way of life? After all religions are worldviews and they all expound on the condition of man (sinful, unenlightened, ignorant, fulfilling Karmic law, unfulfilled potential and so on), the ways to change the condition (redemption, self-realization, cycle of births, acquiring wisdom, meditation), ways to live the earthly life (ethics, morals, laws, situational ethics, choosing the least evil), who God is (the Triune God, Allah, Brahman, Impersonal Reality, various deities), purpose of life (devotion to God, self-fulfillment, completion of just earthly duties). They may not all have a holy book but they all have sacred writings (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Upanishads, Buddhist treatises, Guru Granth Sahib), some form of organization (hierarchical, conciliar, congregationalist, loosely bound), key men who have founded or nurtured them (Jesus, Mohammed, Sankara, Buddha).

And so this pithy polemic that they are ways of life is best left unsaid. Indeed Christianity in its earliest days was not known as Christianity but simply as "the Way", clearly referring to the Jesus' definitive statement, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". But this did not mean simply that it was A Way, but that Jesus himself was The Way.

Hinduism is on trial this week in the Indian state of Orissa. If indeed it is not a religion but a way of life then it is very loosely defined. Is the violence being unleashed on Christians part of this way of life? Most Hindus would disagree though some may disingenuously say that the violence was just the natural response to the slaying of a respected Hindu leader and not normal Hidu behaviour. One must be careful whe one uses this statement. After all the proponents of Hindutva insist that they are being taken for a ride because they are a peace-loving people. History does not prove that exactly, what with the wars among the Hindus before the Muslims invaded India. Indeed the explosive birth of Buddhism in India was precisely in the aftermath of one of the bloodiest battles of the ancient world, Kalinga (ironically enough, in Orissa), fought among Hindus. Besides the long history of discrimnation, reprisals and brutality based on Jati and Varna (known to the world as the Caste System) reduce such notions to nought. And one must ask the question, if indeed Hinduism is a religion of peace, how does one account for the current cycle of violence? Blaming "forced conversions" is a fig leaf for the insecurities that social ills engender in Indian society that contemporary Hindus feel and do not want to acknowledge.

How is a convert forcibly converted? From Wikipedia, "A forced conversion is the conversion to a religion or philosophy under duress, with the threatened consequence of earthly penalties or harm. These consequences range from job loss and social isolation to incarceration, torture or death. Typically, such a conversion entails the repudiation of former religious or philosophical convictions".

But these kind of conversions are not the forced conversions alleged by Hindu nationalists against Christians. These are not reprisals for not converting but positive reinforcements (implicit or explicit) for converting. A poor tribal Hindu is in need of a job. Christian social workers and missionaries not only preach the Gospel to him but help him get a job. The local Hindu Nationalist leaders are agitated. They are losing a lower caste Hindu from the ranks of their indentured servants; and they are threatened by the advent of a faith that challenges their supremacy. Besides they see economic progress coming to a convert from whom it had long been denied. They bogey of forced conversions is then raised.

Perhaps a more reasonable question could be asked: Do the missionaries deny the assistance to a poor Hindu that they give a poor Christian convert? If the answer is yes, then shame on the missionaries! God causes his rain to fall on the wicked and the just. How could we then distinguish between two human beings on the basis of their faith, much less their character?

A missionary helps people in need but especially those he comes into close contact with. A new convert has the opportunity to interact much more with him than a non-convert. Why is it so hard to give him the benefit of doubt in such a situation? Besides, even in such a case the response of the nationalist leaders gives their game away. An organized political resistance to such preferential and unjust treatments would have gone a long way, and indeed Hindus have a history of organizing themselves well against social evils. Even in their current response they are organized well, and this could have been applauded but for their evil intent and methods- violence, intimidation and terror.

The current spate of violence is being understood among the nationalist circles as the response to the killing of Swami Lakshmanananda. The mob has its own twisted notions of justice. But keep in mind that the government, the police and the nationalist leaders themselves have nothing to say or do to contain the violence. Even the questions being raised in the Orissa state assembly seek to understand from the incumbent party why Hindus are not being protected. There is no mention of the Christians who are being slaughtered in the aftermath. Have the lawmakers forgotten to serve the people who are in most need? Every Christian leader has unequivocally condemned the killing of the swami, burying for the moment their deep grievances about his actions against them. Is there noone among the Hindu leaders to shed a tear for the victims of the nationalist rabble? While the more bloody Gujarat riots are recalled to mind, it is important to know that the evidence for implicating leaders is not so much evidence for instigating the rabble but that for standing by and doing nothing.

It is time to ask a basic question: if Hinduism is indeed a way of life, then whose way of life is it? Will the real Hindu please stand up? Is he the face of the mob in Orissa? Or the complex avatar, Ram, often called the perfect man worthy of emulation (Maryada Purush)? In both cases, the answers raise more doubts than solutions, and present that ancient way of life as one not worth following.