THE CHURCH IN NORTH INDIA

THE CHURCH by S. L. PARMAR *

The title is somewhat

IN NORTH INDIA

I pretentious because I am not well acquainted with

the life and organizational structures of all Churches and denominational groups in North India. About half of the Christian population in this region belongs the Roman Catholic Church, which is completely excluded from this presentation. The weakness of the report is that I am generalizing from a narrow base and limiting myself to some aspects of the life of certain Protestant Churches. This paper could best be called ‘some reflections of a layman.’ Purists will frown upon the use of the terms ‘Church,’ ‘Churches’ and ‘Christian community’ synonymously. But in our situation it is not unusual for both Christians and non-christians to equate the Church with the Chris- tian community. This is a sobering thought. The image of the Church depends upon the image of the community. The life of the community is then the most significant witness of the Church. In North India the Church is seeking to acquire selfhood and a sense of identity. As a missionary movement Church it has reflected certain features of parent Churches rather than developed its own thought- forms, structures and mode of living. It is burdened by a number of negative legacies but can also find hope and sustenance from the positive elements of its heritage. There is a growing concern to understand the mission of the Church in contemporary Indian society and to be more relevant. However, as one looks around one does not see many encou- raging signs in the life of the Christian community. We seem to be in that stage of transition where confusion predominates. But this difficult stage could be the prelude to renewal. It is this hope that emboldens me to share some thoughts wherein the dialectic between our negative and positive heritage is indicated. Perhaps the negative side has been over-emphasized. That, however, is unavoidable if one looks at the existential situation.

I1

Christians constitute less than 1% of the population of North India, which is about half the all-India position, where Christians are 2% of

Dr. S. L. PARMAR, United Church of North India, is Reader in International Economics, University of Allahabad, India, and was till recently Assistant Director of the Ecumenical Institute of the WCC.

THE CHURCH IN NORTH INDIA 73

the population. Thus if the Church in India is a minority Church, it is even more so in the northern belt. On the North-eastem tip of India there is a small pocket where Christians from tribal backgrounds are in a majority, averaging nearly 70% of the population. As in the rest of the northern section, Christianity came to the tribal areas of north- eastern India through western missionaries. But the problems and possibilities of the latter are rather different from the rest of North India. Consequently the discussion in this paper excludes this pocket of Chris- tian majority. According to the census of 1961 the percentage of Christians in the total population of Uttar Pradesh (the State to which I belong) had declined sharply in comparison with 1951. Since there is no evidence of any significant “flight from Christianity” or reconversion to Hinduism, this peculiar demographic trend is intriguing. Two possible explanations could be considered. 1. Some census reporters purposely entered the original caste of Chris- tians in the census returns. There is, however, no evidence to support such suspicions. 2. Some rural Christians who have come from outcaste groups chose to give their pre-conversion castes to enable their children and dependants to get Government scholarships and special consideration in employment, etc. (As part of the process of equalization of opportunities the Central and State Governments of India give special assistance to erstwhile underprivileged groups. Christians are not entitled to these subsidies but outcaste groups are.) The second reason sounds more plausible though it cannot be accepted without adequate empirical study. But even if correct, it is difficult to say whether such action by certain Christians represents a decision of convenience or a firm opting out of the Church. Two other factors lend support to the second of the above explanations. 1. Some of the rural Christian groups coming from outcaste backgrounds have maintained a strange dualism in their way of life. They practise elements of the Christian religion and also of their traditional religion. This is evident both in worship and social ethics. Only those children and young people who receive education in Christian schools are able to break away from such ambivalent behaviour, and become more effectively integrated in the Church. The main cause of such dualism is the failure of the Church to follow up conversion by adequate teaching and nurture. 2. Socio-economic considerations had played an important part in the

74 THE ECUMENICAL REVIEW

conversion of these groups. Therefore, it would not be surprising if they camouflaged their present religious label under their original one in the hope of some economic benefits.

I11

The Church in North India owes its existence to the missionary movement. It has a history of nearly two centuries. Generally speaking, converts were drawn from three sources.

1. Individual conversions, quite often from educated, upper caste groups.

2. Victims of natural disasters like famines, floods and epidemics who were drawn to the Church by the services rendered by missions and Christians groups.

3. Products of group conversion (sometimes called “mass movement”). These were whole groups of people, usually belonging to a tribe or an outcaste group who, on the decision of the heads of their community, became converts to Christianity. Except in the first type where conversion generally resulted from a spiritual search, the motives in the other two situations were not purely “religious” or “spiritual .” Social and economic factors were strong determinants. A larger section of the Christian community in North India has been drawn from these two streams. If famine, social depri- vations, etc., have contributed to the expansion of the Church in North India, would it not be fair to label a majority of Christians as “rice Christians,” i.e. those who have been motivated by economic considerations only? Many non-Christian critics of the Church level this charge against us and say that the Church feeds on human misery. Without trying to score a debating point I would offer three arguments to refute such a sweeping charge.

1. It operates on an over-simple and naive correlation between poverty and Christianity. If poverty and socio-economic deprivation promote a surge towards Christianity, the bulk of India should have been Christian.

2. Even among the outcastes who have for centuries been victims of Hindu society, only a fraction have joined the Church. The majority remain within the Hindu fold.

THB CHURCH IN NORTH INDIA 75

3. Conversion demanded moral courage and material and social sacrifice, even from the poorest.

Thus, though socio-economic considerations were important in the growth of the Church, one cannot find the full explanation for conversions in them. Without saying that all conversions are the work of the Holy Spirit it must be recognized that they reflect a dimension which transcends our neat socio-economic categories. In the earlier phase of Christianity in North India national leadership came from individual converts. This changed with the passage of time and now leadership is spread over all three groups. It is amazing to notice the striking progress made by converts from outcaste and underprivileged groups within two or three generations. I would even venture to say that there is no example in our country of similar progress by any other group. Educational facilities available to Christians, liberation from various social and cultural limitations, promotion of a new sense of human worth, freedom from negative traditionalism, etc., are factors which have contributed to this dramatic breakthrough. This is, in fact, one of the potential strong points of the Church provided we have the faith and the vision to build upon it and not allow this new-found progress to dissipate into a quest for personal and group security. There is ample evidence to show that as Christians move up in the social and economic scale they tend to court respectability and social acceptance at the expense of their discipleship. The sense of mission is blunted by a desire for social recognition. Witness and service can prove socially embarrassing, specially for a community which has yet to acquire respectability according to prevalent social norms. It is in this context that the problems and possibilities of the Church in North India have to be seen. Certain limitations of the missionary movement, as also certain attitudes and thought-patterns emanating from difficulties of our early period, saddle the Church with a burdensome, negative legacy. At the same time there is a rich heritage of dedicated service, creative involvement in social change, pioneering work in education, health and social welfare, sensitivity to the needs of society around us, etc., that should inspire us to break away from the present apathy which characterizes the life of the Church. The next section picks out some aspects from our heritage to show the tension between the negative and the positive.


IV

The “ghetto” trap

Conversion, no matter of what type, generated tension and conflict between converts and their previous co-religionists. Leaving one religion for another was, and still is, looked upon as an act of betrayal. Conse- quently the convert, whether an individual or a group, aroused social animosities. Individual converts were often disowned by their families. Many faced grave risks to their lives from their own people who felt that the individual’s action had brought ridicule and disrepute to the family. Group conversions were no easier. The section which became Christian was socially ostracized. In India’s community-oriented society where individuals and families find the caste or religious group as their basic frame of reference, this was the severest form of condemnation. It therefore took considerable physical and spiritual courage for people to join the Church. This is the origin of estrangement between those who came into the Church and the society outside. Converts developed a sense of injury and injustice and were apprehensive of non-Christian society. The feeling of forced separation - forced on the Christian by the outsider - has coloured the attitude of many in the Church. For many people who joined the Church it represented an escape from dehumanizing values and conditions. Outcaste groups had been syste- matically exploited and kept down for centuries. Hindu faith provided little hope except in a cheerful acceptance of deprivation which would lead to a better life in the next birth. The fetters of Karma seemed to condemn these people to a state of unmitigated misery. Christianity provided escape from such an existence. From the very beginning, therefore, there has been a gulf between the Church and the world outside, for the outside world symbolized social and spiritual tyranny. Thus the Church became a refuge. Some of our present attitudes result from these beginnings. The Church is looked upon as providing shelter from the struggles of the world, and the outside world consisting of people of other faiths is assumed to be hostile. The Christian community tends to be self-protective and insular because of its earlier experience. Due to a hostile environment it was perhaps necessary in the early phase of Christianity in North India to have mission compounds where new converts could live in fellowship and security. In a very real sense the walls of the compound and the presence of foreign missionaries (who


enjoyed special privileges and prestige under the British Government) provided protection to the small minority against outside opponents. But this “fortress” existence engendered a ghetto outlook. Mission compounds do not exist in their old forms today and Christians are fully accepted parts of Indian society. But the mission compound mentality still prevails and subverts Christian witness. Both in our social outlook and our theology we see the impact of this separateness. The Christian community has been taught to think of itself as a community of the redeemed. Redemption from sin as also from social deprivation has certainly been a part of the Christian experience. But ‘redemption from’ is always ‘redemption for’. We have not been redeemed to wallow in our own sense of spiritual superiority and self- righteousness but to become vehicles of grace and to share the good news with all men. Unfortunately, while the Church has often been aggressively conscious of the first part, it has not seen that the first is incomplete without the second. Mission means openness to others, a willingness to risk something by making ourselves available to others, a sensitivity and responsiveness to human needs and yearnings. But sometimes we are so imprisoned in the “ghetto trap” that we fail to see how God is at work outside and how He is calling His people to stand alongside Him.

Self-preservation or self-giving ?

In a certain period of the development of the Church it was necessary to have structures which would separate, nurture and protect. But what started as a need gradually grew into a comfortable habit. Insu- larity vis-a-vis the rest of society became not only a style of living but also the basis of our attitude to and understanding of social processes. The Indian component of the Church (I say this to exclude foreign missionaries) tended to equate mission and witness with stability and self-preservation. Our ingrown existence is the biggest obstacle to renewal. In order to be a Christian presence in a non-Christian society the Christian community has to change its outlook from self-preservation to self-giving. Every minority group tends to acquire a minority complex. The Christian community in India is no exception. It sometimes harbours fears of the majority community. Occasionally incidents occur which validate such fears. In general, however, the Christian community enjoys full freedom in all spheres of activity. In many instances it wields an influence much greater than its numerical strength.


Certain irrational elements of our minority-complex are obstacles to witness and service.

1. An exaggerated fear of the outsider. This results from a lack of wider contact with people of other faiths. We have to discard stereotypes built up over the years.

2. An attitude of condescension and a false superiority. Association of Christianity with the West made Christians feel closer to the Western ruling class during the colonial period. Christians received favoured treatment and may have acquired a sense of being better than others. Now that such superiority by direct association is no longer possible, Christians, specially those in urban areas, display some externals of Western culture as a mark of self-importance. Our forms of worship, our social customs, etc., are modelled on some Western forms. This was natural in the pre-indigenization era of the life of the Church but appears artificial today. So often there is inordinate pride in perpetuating “traditional” (which for us means acquired through Western missions) forms and a stubborn resistance to indigenous forms of worship, devo- tional music, celebration of religious festivals, etc. These attitudes build barriers between Christians and other people.

Self-expression in a parochial frame In a society which is so strongly community-oriented it is not surprising that our minority complex leads to an abnormal attachment to the community base. This does not promote harmony and co-operation within the community. On the contrary it makes the community an arena for working out one’s frustrations. Mission compounds, residen- tial Christian enclaves, Church organizations, administrative bodies in institutions, etc., are notorious for inner tensions and conflicts. It is not uncommon in our situation to find all aspects of public life imported into the conflicts within our structures. Church politics are often run on party lines. I have it from many responsible people that politics within Christian organizations are at times extremely questionable. Groupism, power-struggle, nepotism, character assassination, etc., are not uncommon in the life of our organizations. Enthusiastic participation in parochial politics is matched by a striking indifference to civic affairs, national politics and the movement of social processes. Internal activism, of a rather dubious nature, becomes a substitute for responsible involvement in society. In our quest for selfhood we must see the


debilitating effects of our parochialism. It weakens the Church, enervates the community and distorts the Gospel. During India’s freedom struggle against British imperialism it was said, even by fair-minded non-Christians that Christians were keeping aloof or were openly unsympathetic to the national movement. In North India very few Christians were actively involved in the national movement. Generally the teaching of the Church discouraged participation in politics and social processes. To a considerable extent our insularity kept us out of the mainstream of national life. But during this period an interesting phenomenon, parallel to the national freedom movement, was manifest within Church structures and Christian organizations. Nationals were trying to assert their leadership in opposition to foreign missionaries. In a number of North Indian States there were two active and opposed groups within Christian organizations. One was called “mission party”, the other “laymen’s party.” The former supported missionary leadership; the latter opposed it. At this point no value judgement is intended about:the “rightness” or otherwise of either group. The “laymen’s party” gave a fillip to processes of indigenization but was at times negative and irresponsible. The “mission party” seemed to resist change but had many creative considerations in its approach. I have referred to this inner conflict of the pre-independ- ence period to illustrate how it reflected the larger national movement against foreign domination. Here again, our arena of “nationalistic activism” was internal rather than in the wider social setting. This was the time when the term “independent” was used in Christian circles to describe a person who was not dependent on mission sources for his livelihood. It was almost a badge of honour. Again, if is interesting that such “independents” are always eager to hold positions in Church organizations. That gives them the feeling of recognition by their own people. Another instance of self-expression within a parochial frame. To counterbalance some of the depressing features indicated in this section, one must point to certain vital and dynamic elements in the Christian heritage. North India has tremendous respect for the “missionary spirit” ; in fact, our whole country has. Pandit Nehru often challenged young administrators to work for the nation with a “missionary spirit”. It symbolizes self-giving, dedication, willingness to serve others. This is the rich legacy left by devoted Christians, both foreigners and nationals, who spent themselves in the service of the Church and of


India. Because of their lives our society still looks upon Christians as a serving community, willing to pioneer. But unless our actions conform to the high expectations which people have, we will be betraying the best in our past. Missionary spirit is anti-parochial and anti-self-preservative. This we must clearly recognize. There is no dearth of opportunities to bring the healing touch of the Gospel into difficult human situations. But unless we move out of our self-imposed imprisonment and meet men where they are, the good news cannot reach the needy through us. That will not stop the work of the Holy Spirit but it will certainly show that we have not given our obedience. The Church in North India has to transcend its fears and defensive attitudes by a faith which leads us beyond our own limited interests into the unknown, into risks which alone can release Christian creativity. A closed minority exists only for itself. It is inert, stagnant, puerile. The same minority imbued with a missionary spirit learns to live for others as an interceding and serving community. It then becomes a corporate expression of the “suffering servant”.

The welfare trap The Christian community has inherited a tradition of being cared for and provided for by mission organizations. Over the years the form has changed, structures have been reshaped, but the position of dependence persists. The relation between foreign mission boards and our Church organizations tends to be that of munificent givers and indigent receivers. There is no real sense of partnership. Such relationships undermine selfhood. In the earlier stage of the growth of the Church it was necessary to “take care” of members. Then as educational, medicaland ecclesio- logical structures developed, more resources became necessary. But welfare that leads to continued dependence and subservience is a negation of welfare. That is the problem the Church now faces. Economic and organizational factors are responsible for most of the strains between “parent Churches” and “younger Churches”. It is not my purpose here to apportion blame but only to indicate some negative effects on the Church in North India. 1. We continue to expect others to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves. This weakens the movement towards genuine autonomy and indigenization. 2. We operate on a wrong understanding of welfare. Rightly under- stood it implies use of social resources for general good. We must see


our responsibility in the task of resource mobilization domestically. Otherwise we become parasites, leaving production to others and selfishly enjoying the fruits of their labours. The sense of stewardship in the Christian community, in “giving” and in the responsible use of resources received, is notoriously poor. The slogan of “self-support” is often a smokescreen to placate donors. We have done very little to achieve it. We place great store by autonomy, but only in the use and spending of funds, not in raising them. This is an autonomy to perpetuate dependence. It is self-contradictory. 3. The task of witness and service is also left to “leaders”, which means foreign colleagues or the clergy. Leaders, both clergy and lay, are administrators first and bearers of the Gospel message only marginally. Important and keen laymen abdicate their Christian task to the clergy without realizing that this is a throw-back to the dubious welfare idea of being looked after. All this sounds harsh but it must be faced honestly if we wish to be effective witnesses. Organizational and attitudinal factors are amongst the most important obstacles to our mission.

Tyranny of institutionalism Christian institutions have rendered outstanding service to India and continue to do so. But our community tends to look upon them as means of employment for Christians, or as giving prestige to the Christian community, or as means of acquiring importance and power within Church structures. We are then absorbed in running the institutional machinery for our limited ends. On reading the findings of certain recent surveys about Christian institutions, one is staggered at the growth of institutionalism. When institutions become ends in themselves they lose their Christian purpose. I believe that Christian institutions can play a vital role in nation building. But for this they need to recover their earlier dynamism and pioneering spirit. They contribute to the economic strength of the Christian community and have to render this function for some time. However, their fundamental objective is not to provide welfare for Christians but to strengthen Christians to serve the larger community of people.

Burden of inherited stmctur~ Nationals have been in the leadership of the Church for at least two decades, if not more. Changeover from missionary leadership to that of nationals is described as indigenization. But this can be a superficial


change unless our structures, attitudes and thinking are also indigenized, that is, related more closely to our conditions. Paternalism, hierarchical Church structures, dependence on foreign resources, wide economic gulf between missionaries (leaders) and others, etc., were some of the weak elements of the old pattern of which nationals have rightly been critical. But most of these remain even after indigenization. Because of some material advantages the leadership seems to have developed a vested interest in a continuance of old patterns. When mission boards suggest change in our structures to simplify them or make them more self-supporting, the opposition is from our national leadership, often in the name of autonomy. Our theology (which is largely acquired from the West) needs to be related to the issues of life. The most dynamic feature of the “early” Church in North India was its willingness to be involved in society’s problems. In many ways (e.g., through work among exploited groups) it challenged the conscience of Hindu society and functioned as a catalyst. Conversion and social transformation went hand in hand. But this revolutionary dimension was soon lost. A foreign-led Church could challenge Indian social structures but hesitated to question colonialism. It could involve itself in social processes if it meant “Christianizing and civilizing” the heathen, but apparently saw no such task of civilizing, if not Christi- anizing, the imperialist. Thus did individual pietism, acceptance of temporal authority, support for order, etc., become essential elements of Christian teaching. We continue to accept them as such even today. Indigenization should also mean an attempt to understand the Gospel in terms of existing human situations ; not to make it a “social Gos- pel” but the Gospel for society.

‘Dialogue’ and ecumenism

In communicating the Gospel to people of other faiths the Church in North India has been judgemental and has engaged in monologue. This, of course, is a trait of the missionary movement we have not yet outgrown. As the Church seeks for selfhood it is realizing the importance of openness and dialogue. But some of our acquired attitudes stand in the way. Insularity is an obstacle to dialogue. This is as true of insularity with the “outsider” as between denominations. Church unity is an important first step towards effective dialogue with the world. Denominational differences are not natural to India. A person belongs by accident to the particular denomination of the mission board which


worked in that area. There is no history of split and separation within the North Indian Church. Hence Church union should not be difficult. One feels that the delay in achieving it is more due to organizational factors than to theological ones. If different denominations use their autonomy to strengthen links with the “Parent Church” or a World Alliance of that denomination and take that as ecumenism, they will be obstructing Church unity. This is a problem with some of our Churches. We are hoping that organizational unity, perhaps a little wider than in the Church of South India, will be possible in the North by 1970. This would be a vital step in the process of selfhood. Unity must lead to witness and service. We are called upon to be one in order that we may offer our common obedience to our Lord. And this obedience cannot be in isolation but only when we are in unity with all men. The struggle to rid the Church of its negative legacy of self- preservation and insularity should, therefore, be intensified now. One sees some signs of renewal in the life of the Church in North India. But it is necessary to awaken the whole Christian community to its calling.

V

It may be felt that much of this analysis is based on the past and does not give due weight to the present position of the Christian community. Most members of the Church today are Christians by birth not by conversion of the kinds referred to earlier. They can look back to several generations of Christianity. Christians occupy places of importance and influence in secular life, and a decreasing percentage is dependent on Christian institutions for its livelihood. A number of our people are active in the political and socio-economic life of the nation. Our young people are better educated and more outreaching than before. All this is true ; it gives ground for optimism. But I submit that the negative elements of our heritage, some of which have been identified in this paper, continue to exercise a considerable hold on our thoughts and actions. They may have been pushed from the conscious to the sub-conscious, but they colour our perspective and condition our behaviour. The Christian community and the Church must be free from this imprisonment to the past. Only then will we transform our poten- tiality into power - the power of a creative minority.

THE CHURCH IN NORTH INDIA

Documents

Transcript of THE CHURCH IN NORTH INDIA