Where's the Love, Arundhati?

In the wake of the Maoists' killing of 75 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in India, so many thoughts come to mind. What makes the difference between the shrill desperate voices of rebels and the powerful redemptive works of people like Paul Farmer and organizations like the International Justice Mission?

Writer Arundhati Roy said last year that the Maoists were justified in their violence because the government has been unjust to them. Ms. Roy, no stranger to controversy, has been consistent in placing the blame squarely on the government (and by implication the relatively better off society that supports it) for several ills- capitalism, free trade, military purchases and upgrades (notably on nuclear weapons), large private or government projects that displace thousands of people from their own lands without adequately compensating them, the Kashmir issue and the social and economic inequality in India.

A few weeks ago she published an article in the Guardian about her interview with the Maoists, the first time a journalist received an invitation to talk to them.

A fair reading of Ms. Roy's articles convinces us of the pain she feels in coming to acquaintance with the tragic history of these peoples and the injustice they have been victims of. A writer by profession and "activist" on the behalf of oppressed people by calling, she gets this information and does what she does best- write articles about it. These articles are clearly sympathetic to the oppressed people, and the people they kill are frequently the "emerging superpower" (full of hubris), policemen who are trained to kill in cold blood, fight like a guerilla, use high tech weapons and training from Israel and other countries against the poor.

I wonder, has Ms. Roy ever thought about talking to some of these police men and women, their spouses, their parents, their kids? Some of these are ex-Maoists who help the police in tracking down violent criminals, trying to redeem some of their terrible past. Who are these people who are engaged in a war with the Maoists? Are they simply paid vassals of big government, corporations, landowners, et al- in short, glorified thugs who are only to eager to draw blood? If they were not around, would those of us who are not Maoists exist at all? For it seems to me that the Maoist vision of India- as so many such revolutionaries of the past have envisioned in places like Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea and other places- that their vision of India is not so much cooperation but a reversal of dominance and power.

Ms. Roy often says that Maoist violence is triggered by events so horrifying that one cannot help but take arms against- case of rape, humiliation, murder, forced eviction and so on. I have worked with people in the slums and others who minister to them in large citites like New Delhi and Chennai. These people are largely peacable, going about their work but thankful for the opportunity to learn from the social workers I was with. We worked with the kids, giving them basic education, sometimes material benefits, support with getting jobs or setting up businesses, medical care and very often emotional and moral support. One of my most abiding memories is that of a little girl who had lost her mother to heart disease, refusing to come out of her tiny hut. When another kid let her know that we were there, she came out hugged one of our woman team members and cried for several minutes. Their trust and pain have changed me as a person. I see that the only answer to their pain is our love and commitment.

Back to my earlier question: what makes an organization like IJM or World serve go quietly about freeing bonded labourers in Tamil Nadu or sexual slaves in the Phillipines? Is it the rush of power that comes from leading them out of the unjust system? Or could it be the promise of a new world order in which every one could be equal?

Dr. Paul Farmer described his remarkable efforts in Haiti as the "Long Defeat"- a series of soul-wrenching battles which often seem destined to be lost. But hope, in his case rooted in his Christian conviction, gives us rumours of other glories and keeps us fighting.

One has to ask as the old Bud Light commercial used to ask- Where is the love, Arundhati? I thought once that you had the love. When you were heriocally and peacefully opposing the dam construction at Narmada. Besides your protest, I wonder what those long years achieved in getting the erstwhile residents of those lands to settle in communities that would have benefiited them. What have you gained for them that our society lost in the process of the dam construction? Yes, I know that the Narmada Bachao Andolan has materially helped them. Have you truly rallied the Indian people to be giving, to be generous and organize to help these people? No, you have simply raised a call to fight the good fight. Isn't it far easier to carry a placard and shout your platitudes from the rooftops than to actually sacrificially give of yourself to help people?

The Maoists can fight until the cows come home and achieve nothing in the process. The Phrase 'cooperation not competition' has been around in social networks for some time now- meaning that small communities organized together, doing things that build societies and economies will win the day. Those who simply want to fight the good fight will end up the way they have been ending up for centuries, whether they win or lose- create other inequalities which yet others will rise up to fight.

Syriana- A Late Review

I've had an overdose of political and espionage thrillers, thanks to Netflix's online streaming into our TV. I hadn't watched the 2005 landmark Syriana before, but I did a few minutes ago; and as usual I emerged with a feeling of having learned little.

Syriana is a brilliant film. It effectively traces connections between the Middle Eastern "Great Game(s)" and the strong motives behind US meddling in this region. If Clooney's goal was to inform Americans about their own culpability in the social, political, religious and economic lives of Middle Eastern people, I think he makes a good attempt at it. While it may not change minds (I'm reminded of a very dear Michigan pastor who in 2003 decried the idea that the US was possibly after Iraq's oil) it gives enough reasons to speculate on possible theories.

I'm no collegiate placard-holder one finds posting on websites like Democratic Underground. Some of my evangelical pals have surprisingly turned out to be among these shrill voices brimming with emotion and less with sense. But I can appreciate that the sinfulness of human beings, perhaps different in form in different cultures, are not different in essence. Greed here, lust there, pride elsewhere. They all originate from the same sources.

But the plot got me thinking. If sins are so endemic, why do we fixate on certain sins? For the above-mentioned bleeding heart liberal it may be a matter of US profit-motive. For a dyed in the wool neo-con the greatest sin may be someone's lack of love for America, as evidenced by her sympathetic opinions for the Iraqis. How often have I cringed on hearing the phrase, 'if they don't like (something the US did) they should live in Afhanistan'. How many times have I sighed on hearing the phrase, 'It's all because of Bush'. When these phrases come from Christians- and they have, from both sides of the opinion- they demonstrate a lack of love, both for the US and for the others.

Well- back to my question. The movie does portray the US as pulling the strings on every abominable deed. A cursory look at any ugly incident in the Middle East reveals that there are no good guys there- at all. Why then, the fixation? Perhaps because the US has more resources, influence, dominance? Perhaps because everyone (as the neo-cons say) hates us? Perhaps because we all think we are Americans and we have the right to criticize the US? Who knows?

So if Syriana made me think, it gave me no closure. In my theological blogposts I've mentioned that I like to stir the pot often even if I have no answers. But usually there are some overarching answers- like the truth of the Gospel, the reality of God's love and beneficence, despite seeming paradoxes. But besides a self-loathing attitude, I'm not able to penetrate the thinking behind this movie. Is it patriotica, in an introspective way? Maybe- but I'm missing something. There really is no gentleness in the narrative, no moral, no worldview that is apparent.

What I've always looked for is a worldview to inform our stories. As Muggeridge once said, it is far easier to feel righteous standing out on a street holding a protest sign than actually living a moral, righteous life. You see- I see a story without a worldview, and I see no human interest.

Gay Penguins and Our Response

A school district in Alameda, CA is in the news due to their curriculum that includes a book on two male homosexual penguins raising a baby penguin. School authorities are now trying to make it compulsory for all their students to attend the class. The age group for this class- 5 year olds.

Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.

As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.

In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.

But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.

Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.

No Purity of Purpose in Terrorism

[An edited version of this article was published first in Blogcritics.com]

The LTTE chief Prabhakaran's death in Sr Lanka made headlines yesterday and brought the 35-year old Sri Lankan civil war to an end. Several thousands of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils have been killed in this war, a nation has been divided, wounded and extremist elements allowed to flourish. India has lost over 1000 of its soldiers in the peacekeeping force of the late Eighties as well as a former prime minister to the suicide bombing tactics employed by the LTTE.

A few years ago this prime minister's daughter, Priyanka Gandhi, visited one of the killers, Nalini who is now in an Indian jail. Despite the support that LTTE has enjoyed from some Tamil politicians, the news of Prabhakaran's death seems to have caused nary a ripple in Tamil Nadu, though security analyst B Raman warns us that it is too early to be complacent. It seems now that the wounds (at least in India) are being painfully and slowly healed. For how long, noone is sure.

A cursory look into the twists and turns in this civil war brings out the worst in people. You hear opinions such as 'Sinhalese are congenitally racist, 'Tamils are congentially racist', 'Christians created all the problems by evangelizing the Hindu Tamil community', 'the Hindu Tamils are to be blamed for their identification as Tamils and not Sri Lankans', 'the British are to be blamed for dividing the country', 'the Buddhists wanted to institutionalize their beliefs and culture', and so on. There are enough instances in this nation's history to illustrate these points.

Granted that many factors contributed to the civil war, what stands out most clearly is that the best of intentions cannot sustain a terrorist undertaking. The LTTE had decimated many other Tamil nationalistic and militant outfits, engaged in a reign of internal terror, used women and child warriors and suicide bombers, committed horrifying human rights abuses, targeted and abducted many civilians, engaged in piracy, arms and drugs smuggling and carved out a relationship with the grand daddy of them all, al Qaeda. A look into history may even justify the origin of a movement to represent Tamils equitably in the xenophobic and exclusionary Sinhalese-dominated Sri Lankan government. But a militia like this was only bound to degenerate. There is no purity of purpose in terrorism. And thus the oft-repeated maxim that'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' is wrong. The LTTE was organized like a military, but it committed abuses that are in contradiction of the principles of nation-to-nation armed conflicts. Much less do we need to say about the allegedly 'stateless' entities in South Asia that practice terror.

Today the process of healing between Sinhalese and Tamils in Sri Lanka is yet to begin in earnest. Hopefully the end of the war will mean an exploration into the beginning of hostility and an equitable solution in the democratic process.

Deafening Silence in Mumbai

In the aftermath of last week's carnage in Mumbai, the global media are exhibiting their usual callousness in reporting on the issue. There are some improvements: most (with some glaring exceptions) of the major newspapers are referring to the event as an act of terror and the perpetrators as terrorists. Except some who still keep the flag flying, they have given up on the term 'militants' in referring to those who kill civilians and destroy societies in India. This was not the case 5 years ago when a ragtag bunch of terrorists drove into the campus of the Parliament House in New Delhi, their car laden with explosives.

CNN covered the event consistently- which was another exception for the media and especially for CNN. Besides these there is barely anything that I can view without revulsion in Western media reportage on this event.

The headlines are quick to judge, condemn and at the least 'tut, tut'. This article in 'The Week' magazine talks about some of them. They are urging India to let the "new" Pakistani government cooperate with Indians, asking India and Pakistan to do some "non-reacting", noting that India as usual is accusing Pakistan prematurely and without evidence, rebuking India for fomenting religious tensions and creating "disenfranchised" Muslim youth, showing puzzlement why India would continue to gnaw at Pakistan's heels when the Pakistani government clearly said they were not involved in the event and showed their cooperative side by sending their spy chief to India to talk to the government. Others are talking of how this will affect the way foreign investors look at India's business climate, thereby inflicting a heavy wound on the economy. Some others are deriding (sic) India's handling of the situation. Others are claiming that this was an event perpetrated by Hindu extremists, notwithstanding the growing mountain of evidence as to the orchestrators of the act. All of them are asking India to begin dialogue on the Kashmir issue, to open it up to the US and other nations to solve multilaterally and to ensure that the Muslim community which is by and large economically and societally backward and undereducated, is given focus and care in being able to redeem itself. Some of the more honest ones speculate that this will divert Pakistan's attention to engaging India's anger when it should be focused on the Afghanistan border. After all that is more important than subcontinental tragedies that will inevitably be forgotten in a few weeks.

It is events like this that open one's eyes to the agenda, prejudices and stubbornness that characterize Western political minds when it comes to India. As Samuel Huntington observed in 'The Clash of Civilizations', India is the only major country that is isolated, alone and culturally set apart from the world. India has no true friend. The closes of its allies, Israel and the US, are proving to be opportunists as India has always suspected them to be. The most puzzling question is why India has not been as hardnosed and decisive as China has been in pursuing a tough, self-centered, independent foreign policy.

The other remarkable observation one could make (this is no surprise though, having been repeated ad nauseam in the past) is the alactrity with which Pakistan has removed itself from suspecting eyes. The Pakistani government is new, ostensibly helping the US find the last stalwarts of the Al Qaeda hiding in the Afghan border, and has washed its hand off the responsibility. It is a victim of homegrown terror and the media argue therefore that it must be trusted implicitly by India, never mind that the legilative branch of the government has no connection to the Executive, especially the military; and never mind the calls and emails of the terrorists traced back to Pakistan; and certainly not the confessions of the captured terrorist that he had trained in Pakistan with the terrorist group LeT to fight his dirty war. Some Pakistani journalists are making the case they have always attempted to make- that the solution to all of this is for India to clean up its own backyard. Granted that India has many societal problems, but how convenient to suggest that if only India started behaving, perhaps giving away Kashmir among other things, it would all be solved. Almost all these articles call for US intervention to investigate the cause. Clearly they are dissatisfied with the evidence that is coming out of India's cops interrogating the captured terrorist and the email/phone conversations traced to Pakistan from the terrorists' satellite phone, the contact names of LeT leaders on those phones and so on. And they seem to sincerely believe that India should disbelieve its own police force and trust the US to come up with a plausible explanation for the tragedy, which of course, must exonerate Pakistan.

The LeT had of course named former president Musharraf as its honorary head prior to 9/11. This was hastily removed later. Reports of the LeT and the ISI, Pakistan's spy agency being almost interchangable, are also of course old news and therefore to be conveniently forgotten. We must trust the Pakistani claims that the LeT has somehow fallen from grace and is now an enemy to Pakistan. the connections with the ISI and deeply rooted common individual elements in these two organizations must not be relevant any more, for whatever reason.

For any media eyewash in the US, this issue has to take the cake o nbeing the most blatant. Their deafening silence in speaking out what is the obvious truth is telling. The US newspapers claim that India and Pakistan "mistrust" each other. This patronizing psycho-babble clearly muddles American minds. To India and Indians this will remain a deeply personal matter, and will only serve to further convict them of US opportunism. There may be no permanent friends in politics, but it will serve India well to remember that there are no friends at all in politics, only situations that they can manipulate. Machiavelli would be proud then, never mid Gandhi.

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.

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.

The Lost Art of Courteous Conversation

I was at dinner with relatives the day after Thanksgiving, and the topic of the 2008 Presidential elections came up. We discussed the pros and cons of the potential candidates on both sides, when out of the blue someone remarked, 'Even a chimp could do a better job than George Bush.' This statement was followed up by some similarly flippant remarks on his ability to articulate, his education and so on. Regardless of the fact that doing a better than George Bush cannot be a factor in the next elections (since Bush is not a possible candidate ayway), I didn't continue the discussion although a good critical look at many flawed Bush policies would have made good conversation at the dinner.

This brought me back to a column by Peggy Noonan about the courtesy to be observed in the give and take of political discourse, the gist being that we have lost the ability to dissect, disagree or criticize without being coarse. In it Noonan highlights Ann Coulter and Bill Maher in two separate incidents which made her wince- Coulter suggesting John Edwards was gay, and Maher mentioning a lot of lives could have been saved if Dick Cheney were dead.

Funny enough, when someone makes such a strong negative statement about a candidate, it makes me sympathize with the candidate a little. When Noonan herself sometimes goes overboard in her criticism of Mrs. Clinton it makes me want to understand her better, to believe that all this mud cannot be completely true of her.

Besides all this Ms. Noonan's column makes another interesting point. I quote it here:

Conservatives said they were chilled by Mr. Maher's comments, but I don't
think they were. They were delighted he revealed what they believe is at the
heart of modern liberalism, which is hate.

Liberals amused themselves making believe they were chilled by Ms.
Coulter's remarks, but they were not. They were delighted she has revealed what
they believe is at the heart of modern conservatism, which is hate.

The truth is many liberals were dismayed by Mr. Maher because he made
them look bad, and many conservatives were mad at Ms. Coulter for the same
reason.

I realized as I watched it all play out that there's a kind of simple
way to know whether something you just heard is something that should not have
been said. It is: Did it make you wince? When the Winceometer is triggered, it's
an excellent indication that what you just heard is unfortunate and ought not to
be repeated.

In both cases, Mr. Maher and Ms. Coulter, when I heard them, I winced.
Did you? I thought so. In modern life we wince a lot. It's not the worst thing,
but it's better when something makes you smile.

Good point, I think. We always feel chagrined when someone who claims to share our point of view misrepreents it by making a remark that you would always distance yourself from. It's good to remember that if you want people to listen you had better have something to give them than verbal abuse.

Bihar- India's Final Frontier

You can talk till the cows come home about India's cities, companies and people making progress in many fields. We always have another take from other quarters on our progress. The site of ancient civilizations, learning and cultures, the state of Bihar today is pitiable.

Sometime back there was the shocking news of a baby girl abandoned in rural AP that I had posted here. This new video on Bihar cops assisting a mob to attack a jewel thief is equally shocking.

Warning: This video shows a violent situation which may not be suitable for all to see

We have all known for long that the long arm of the Indian judiciary in Bihar is no match for the 'justice' meted out by the public. For an outsider to Bihar the extend of that brutality is not usually clear except from stories Biharis tell us. Now it's there for us to see and it's terrifying to see what a mob can 'democratically' do and actually think it's doing the right thing. Is there a stronger case for a impartial moral authority?

Lamb and Lion, God and Man- Jesus Christ the Meek and Mighty

About 10 years ago my friend Philip gave me a copy of the book 'Truth and Social Reform' by Vishal Mangalwadi. He'd been working with Mangalwadi, researching for some of his projects and recommended his works to me. I took a long time to read it, as Mangalwadi seems to be more of a scholar and researcher rather than a parable-teller, but certain things stood out. The cover illustration showed a painting which showed Jesus driving out the money changers and the shopkeepers from the temple at Jerusalem with a rope-whip, his face set by determination and a stern look in his eyes. The content of the book, among other things, was about the role of the church in creating Christ-life reform in its ecosystem, which has been long ignored by believers who placed the verbal sharing of the Gospel much more important than living it out for the world to see.

It's interesting that the facet of Jesus' personality- the divine anger for righteousness- has been recorded in the chronicles of his earthly life only once, perhaps to help us understand that this too is his nature, but to not overdo the point. There have been many explanations for this. The temple was meant to be a place where worship was to be conducted in a manner prescribed by God, where people took animals without blemish from their homes for sacrifice over long distances. The new markets at the temple made it easier for them and this wasn't what God wanted- just sacrifices that fulfilled the letter but not the spirit of the Law. At the very least we know that Jesus in his earthly example is not the sweet sacharine push-over some have thought him to be, but a man of righteousness that drives him to action.

I just thought about this a while ago when my Dad (who is now staying with us on vacation) told me about problems in his neighbourhood in Kerala. Driven by greed, some neighbours have ignored the safety and security of their once peaceful neighbourhood and built warehouses or "go-downs" on their properties. Trucks move in and out of these warehouses all day long and the truck drivers spend hours talking long into the night, speaking coarse and often foul Malayalam, loudly enough for neighbours catch snippets of their conversation. They are often a menace to the homeowners' cars when their trucks scrape past the smaller vehicles. As it happens, most cars in the area have been at least a bit damaged by these trucks. Most neighours have been passive and let these events pass without comment. Dad hasn't been passive and has several times clashed with them, threatening legal action and calling the police once. Unfortunately the neighbourhood is not united with him and things have not changed much. Some neighbours are moving out o the area while some others- my Grandma among them- prefer to close all windows afterhours and shut out all noises, despite the sweltering, humid heat! To be fair to the neighbours, most people in Kerala behave this way- they are the most non-confrontational people I have seen when it comes to defending their own against those blue-collar workers who use their muscle to make a living (head-load workers, truck drivers and so on). The governments in power in the state have always favoured them. But I think a little leadership would have helped unite the neighbourhood- if only someone who had charisma enough to pull people together, someone who had the diplomacy, level-headedness and knack for tact and negotiation, could rise to the occasion!

What would Jesus have done? I don't believe he would have shut the windows and remained there. I don't think he would have simply shouted at the truck drivers. I doubt he would simply have thrown up his hands and moved out. I think he would have driven them out with force, but with the support of people and never losing his legitimacy, i.e., never going overboard. He wasn't against sinners, but he was against sin.

Let's take another example. When President Bush won the last elections against John Kerry, there was a cartoon strip that portayed a son asking his father about global warming, the US soldiers dying in Iraq and myriad other problems the US was facing, and why in the face of all this Bush was elected. The father tells the son, "Yes, son- but we can be happy now that the gays can't marry!" Certainly Bush could be told off for several policy decisions that have been failures, but simply trashing his opinion against gay marriages does not cut it.

While I don't want to go into a discussion about gay rights, I do want to assert one point- people who oppose gay marriages are not necessarily being bigots. They believe that giving social sanction to gay behaviour is not simply allowing a group of people to do what they like, but to influence society as a whole with a thinking that any moral choice is legitimate. That's why I'm puzzled by John Edwards who claims that he opposes gay marriages personally but in official capacity would do nothing about it. Does being in a democracy mean that an office bearer can do nothing to influence society and the nation with his or her won values? If the righteous do not influence society with their values, wherever the values come from - the Bible, the school of hard knocks, wherever- then the unrighteous will. And they are clever enough to turn the argument around and say that to oppose their point of view is to prevent democracy itself from functioning. If your personal conviction doesn't inform your public policy then how good are you as an office bearer? Would I permit bigamy to be legitmized? No- though I know some people would, although they don't practise it.

In other words, is virtue simply the absence of vice? Isn't it also a real Presence? C S Lewis offers in The Weight of Glory:

"If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you had asked almost any of the great Christians of old, he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive...."

If Love isn't simply Unselfishness then we had better be careful of how we view Love. Love binds, as they say- and free love is a contradiction in terms. If Love says Yes to something or someone, then it follows that Love could say No to someone else or something else. The nature of truth is to exclude falsehood.

I think God left out some of Jesus' harsher sayings or doings for a reason. I don't think it was because he was rarely harsh. In fact we see some hints here and there, especially when He is juxtaposed with a shoot-from-the-hip Peter who got to hear both bouquets and brick bats aplenty from Him. I do think it's because God wants us simply to understand that righteousness is a deeper matter and needs to be displayed in many ways. We need His wisdom and His Spirit to understand when to use which.