Proselytization In India: An Indian Christian's Perspective

Sulekha ^ | May 22, 2003 | C. Alex Alexander

[akash]

Ping !!!

[akash]

Ping !!!!

[anniegetyourgun]

"Therefore, they should now raise their voices against the divisive activities of the evangelical Christians..."

And they do. Persecution and restrictions on the faith practice of Christians (which is not to 'covert, as only the Spirit of God can do that; but rather to proclaim the good news of salvation in Christ) in India is on the rise. They seem to especially hate it when Christians proclaim the gospel of hope to the hopeless in the lowest elitist-imposed caste system of their society.

The myth of 'pluralism' in India is, at best, quaint. At worst, it is a national beguiling by its cosmetic veneer of openness, that is actually dangerous to any hint of challenge to it.

[LiteKeeper]

Missionary SITREP

[keri]

Mark. Read later.

[Abe Froman]

Fine, I'll fire the first shot......

One of his early points is telling-----we should "forgive" him if his interpretations of Jesus' teachings are at "variance" with his. Forgive, no doubt, but that makes him no less wrong.

Despite his faulty notion of Jesus' "eastern mysticism", and finding numerous similarities between these wholly incompatible faiths, what were the exact words of Jesus? "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father but by me." Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, something that no other "prophet" did. If taken at his word, Jesus himself invalidated all other faiths but in Him as the divine savior of the world.

[Pete]

Regardless of their religious affiliations, all religious leaders of goodwill can find myriads of theological convergences if they are open to sincere and deep inter-faith explorations. While it is less threatening for the practitioners of non-Abrahamic faiths to undertake such faith-based voyages of discovery, the religious fundamentalists of the monotheistic faiths shun all such excursions.

We can look at Lewis' Tao, for example, for the similarities in a myriad of cultures (and religions) with regard to ethics. Such discoveries do not even require "sincere and deep inter-faith explorations".

However, to rest our hope of reconciliation on such similarities is a fool's errand. In fact, a sincere and deep inter-faith exploration will result in exactly what the current proponents do not want. That is the illumination of the differences that make the different religions different.

We must not rely on our chronological snobbery that assumes that past generations have failed where we will succeed. They recognized that the differences are significant and really the only attributes that matter. By removing the difference (by whatever means) we will not end up with better religions or even one religion. We will end up with no religions at all.

[JudgeAmint]

Ping...

[ConservativeDude]

there is so much to respond to in this article, it is almost impossible.

but one thing must not go unanswered... the OT does not command us to beat swords into ploughshares.

Rather, it says this:

Joel 3
9 Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare for war!
Rouse the warriors!
Let all the fighting men draw near and attack.
10 Beat your plowshares into swords
and your pruning hooks into spears.
Let the weakling say,
"I am strong!"
11 Come quickly, all you nations from every side,
and assemble there.

Bring down your warriors, O LORD !

The passage referred to by this ding dong says this:

Isaiah 2
3 Many peoples will come and say,

"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD ,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

5 Come, O house of Jacob,
let us walk in the light of the LORD .

In other words, when the LORD has finished His work, an inevitable fact is that of course swords will be beaten into plowshares, because He will have stamped out all His enemies. This conclusion is obvious.

But there is simply NO Biblical commandment to beat our swords into plowshares (or turn our missile silos into grain elevators or homeless shelters or whatever)in the abstract, apart from the LORD finishing His work.

This article is complete rubbish.

Read the Book of Acts. That will tell you what Christians must believe about spreading the Good News. We know persecution is inevitable. So be it. Riots in Ephesus [or New Delhi or wherever] are also inevitable. So be it.

We are called to live by faith which means obedience to the Great Commission, no matter what. Obviously the writer of the article can't stomach that.

[anniegetyourgun]

Gad, there are so many intellects here on FR.....I feel like a mental midget at times. READ: I appreciate all your comments here.

[ConservativeDude]

Furthermore, I would suggest that we all commit this passage to memory so that we are ready to roll the next time someone says, "doesn't the Bible say that we should beat our swords into plowshares".

Man, I love this passage so much, I think I'll post it again:

Joel 3
9 Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare for war!
Rouse the warriors!
Let all the fighting men draw near and attack.
10 Beat your plowshares into swords
and your pruning hooks into spears.
Let the weakling say,
"I am strong!"
11 Come quickly, all you nations from every side,
and assemble there.

Bring down your warriors, O LORD !

[Abe Froman]

"The notion that wars are inconsistent to the beliefs inherent in both the Old Testament's call for the beating of swords into plowshares[4h] and Jesus' own admonition to his followers not to resist evil has never been of concern to Christian rulers[4i]."

This guy really likes to pick and choose. How about these? (In Jesus own words)

Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Luke 22

35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

[ConservativeDude]

When one's fundamental commitment is to liberalism and then secondarily to Christianity, all sorts of wildly inaccurate results are inevitable.

But if you flush all the liberalism - and incidentally any secular conservatism - and read Scripture as best you can without your preconceived notions - then you are getting back to Biblical Christianity.

That is not to say that Biblical Christianity is simple or easily summarized...but I do know one thing for sure: Biblical Christianity is profoundly different from liberalism and it turns my stomach when the socialists try to capture Christianity for their evil purposes.

[gregwest]

The mistake "liberal Christians" make is centering around a gospel of social justice and getting along with others. Christ's teachings, although they bring personal peace to their practitioners, are intended to be divisive. Jesus was not a "consensus builder." Instead, he told listeners, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." His message and ministry provokes the hearer to committment that leads to eternal life, not temporal prosperity or security. The proponents of "liberation theology" place Marx and Jesus on the same pedestal.

It's not the intent of "non-liberal Christians" (I'm not a fundamentalist, but I'm not a "liberal Christian," either) to give offense. But you have to take a stand upon the divinity of Christ, which makes him more than a great teacher or even a prophet.

I like Bill O'Reilly's question posed to Patricia Ireland, who is now the head of the YWCA - a supposedly Christian organization. When he asked her if she was a Christian, she said she didn't know what he meant by that, that she had a Christian upbringing. He called her on that answer and said, you know what I mean--a Christian believes that Jesus Christ is God. She hemmed and hawed her way out of that one, but O'Reilly, bless his heart, really nailed her on that one.

I'm sure many here will agree that "liberal Christians" are those who simply lack faith in Jesus Christ. They draw near to him with their lips, but their hearts are far from him.

Greg West

[ConservativeDude]

very well put, indeed

[neither-nor]

Great post, once again. That's two in a row.

[TexasRepublic]

I guess he never read Jesus' "Great Commission" to evangelize the world.

[Blue Scourge]

Excellant post,

I agree almost completely. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton amaze me that they call themselves "Christians" and reverands none the less. I would say that a great deal of their beliefs contridict what the Bible says.

[aimhigh]

What a crock. Jesus himself appears to have condemned proselytization when he said,...

Jesus said to the disciples, "Go into all the world, preaching the gospel.." The author sure can twist words to his own bigotry.