Christmas, Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

A wonderful cartoon from Daryl Cagle’s Political Cartoons

link: http://www.cagle.msnbc.com/news/ObamaNobelPrize/images/allie.jpg

Police Commissioner Bans Gandhi Jayanti Celebration (From the archives)

October 2 is Mahatma Gandhi’s Birthday. It’s a holiday. We know it. We love it. Today, no Indian Police Commissioner would dare ban any Gandhi celebration. But there was a time when celebrating Gandhi’s birthday was an offence and was banned by the (British) Indian Police Commissioner of Madras, a few years before India won her independence. In those days, some people even fought to celebrate Gandhi Jayanti! At least that’s according to the excerpt from The Guardian, the Christian newspaper published during the Indian independence struggle that I’ve been reading over the past month. The following excerpt is from an editorial written in 1943, after the Quit India movement started. And it tells briefly how the British Government wanted to ban all Gandhi Jayanti celebrations. Today (October 2) we have the freedom to celebrate, but that celebration is usually left to officials. I want to celebrate Gandhi’s birth by posting this for others to see and remember.

October 2 was the birthday of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi Jayanti week celebrations… have been an institution for many years. the Commissioner of Police, Madras, has prohibited processions and meetings arranged in this connection. The organisations that jointly arranged these are well known in the City and the programmes they planned did not savour of a political campaign. The topics of lectures for the week were ‘Gandhi and Harijans’, ‘Gandhi and Unity’, ‘Gandhi and Khadhar’ and such like. The occasion is usually availed of to review what the life and leadership of Gandhiji has meant to India. It relates to many other fields besides politics and men of all communities and races join in paying homage. To the Government and the Commissioner of Police, Mahatma Gandhi is only an undesirable political figure and they may see sinister meaning in the notice taken of a man whom they have found fit only for the prison. They law and order maintained by prohibition of this kind is only apparent. It is an exhibition of authority which will not win the respect of the people. Students turned away from this programme are collecting funds for Bengal Famine Relief.

No author (editorial), “Notes” The Guardian, October 7, 1943. p. 469

Indian Christian Politics: Chenchiah’s vision for Social Revolution (from the archives)

In continuation of my attempt to resurrect some articles from The Guardian,, the following is an excerpt from an article titled “Indian Christian Politics” in The Guardian, October 11 (1945) 325. The scheme for ’social revolution’, which Chenchiah proposes, was actually formulated at the Bangalore Conference Continuation held that year, 1945 (note the pre-independence date). Here’s the concluding part of the article:

At the Bangalore conference Continuation held last summer a group of Christians who had the tragedy of our political life on their minds pondered deeply over the issue of their deliberations ended in a call to the youth of the country to lead a social revolution as well. They formulated a programme of action and recommended the technique of ‘cells.’ This has the advantage of putting action before talk and service before power. It links religions in patriotic endeavour. It puts the revolutionary leaven right into the masses. In their scheme the cell is the actor and not the audience. This scheme is as follows:

1. No caste–members of the cell should express their renunciation of caste by eating together, openly.
2. No class–members of the cell, those who are in position to do so, should set apart a portion of their net income as a fund to be owned by the members of the cell in common for meeting unemployment and ill health.
3. Productive work. Every member of the cell to devote himself every day to the production of food by gardening or of cloth by spinning.
4. Common Ownership–The essentials of life, food, clothes, should be lifted from the category of private ownership and experiments should be made in the enjoyments of these as common property.
5. Cooperation–The members should extend the principle of cooperation to every friend of economic activity.
6. Replacement of Money–Money should be replaced whenever possible by the social and moral effort which it represents.
7. Religious Unity–Members to secure harmony among followers of different religions by bringing to bear their religious inspiration on the furthering of social revolution.

This article is written in the hope that the adoption of this programme will bring all cates and classes into a fellowship of brotherhood and break the ground for larger programmes of the people’s government. Should we desire to avoid the bloodshed and red trail which revolutions find inevitable in their opponents, we have to prepare the people for the changes that are decreed and ordained for the political evolution of the world.

Death of Praise and Worship? (article watch)

The following are excerpts of interesting articles on praise and worship today, which even though primarily from a non-Indian perspective, still deals with issues close to my heart. Follow the links below to read the whole thing (and also read the comments, they are quite helpful as well.

I have witnessed the death of praise and worship twice now. Once in the 80s and more recently around four years ago. The first time around, there was an explosion of authentic “scripture songs” in the 70s that were central to the rise of the charismatic movement. Since this was the first contemporary praise music, no one had taught courses on “how” to create a worship song. Most of the songs were taken straight from the scriptures. In the late 70s/early 80s, contemporary Christian music (CCM) came along as well. At first it seemed a match made in heaven. Not only did you have juggernauts like Keith Green tearing it up – inside every Petra, Evie, Amy Grant, Allies, and Russ Taff album there were scriptures listed to “support” each song’s message…

read the full post here: http://samnunnally.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/the-death-of-praise-and-worship/

The other article called “New Song and American Idol(atry)”

…But what does the Bible really say about “new songs”? In the Old Testament, “new song” was “always an expression of praise for God’s victory over the enemy, which sometimes included thanksgiving for his work of creation.1 In Exodus 15:1, Moses sang a new song of praise to God because God saved Israel from Egypt. In Psalm 40:3, David wrote a new song because God heard his cry for help. Psalm 33:3, 96:1, 98:1 and Isaiah 42:10 command God’s people to praise him for his marvelous works in creation and salvation, while Psalm 144:9 and 149:1 tell people to sing a new song because of God’s victory over his enemies…

For whole article click on the link: http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=2162

Why this ‘Indian Christian’ Nomenclature (from the archives)

In continuation with the effort (in this space) to resurrect some hidden gems from The Guardian, here’s a short article by V. N. Sharma (a Christian writing in 1951) who critiques the use of the term “Indian Christian” and vociferously calls for abandoning it altogether. I especially liked the part where Sharma says, “we… are Indians first and Indians last and our faith in the Lord paves the Way to behold the Truth and gives us the courage to live That in our own daily life.”

Why this ‘Indian Christian’ Nomenclature?

I have been wondering why the followers of the Christ in India allow themselves [to be] called ‘Indian Christians’ when we see such a nomenclature is unknown in other lands, Christian or non-Christian. A Christian living in Germany does not call himself or herself a ‘German Christian’, and the same rule applies to the followers of the Lord in other lands either in Europe, America or other continents. This nomenclature is particularly peculiar to our own people in India; the historical origin of this might be that the Christian missionaries who propagated the Gospel of our Lord wanted that the sons of the soil would come under the category of ‘Indian Christian’ as apart from their own kith and kin. Those historical events do not exist now and there is no necessity to follow this ancient path at present, if I dare to call this an ancient path at all. Whether we follow the Catholic way or the Protestant way, we are only Christians, born in this ancient land of India and working for the realisation of the eternal truths which this great land of our birth proclaimed in the world at large and for which the Lord stood in His earthly life. As such we, the humble followers of the Christ are Indians first and Indians last and our faith in the Lord paves the Way to behold the Truth and gives us the courage to live That in our own daily life. This, I feel, is our mission ins this life and through this alone we can secure His blessings for His glorification on this earth.

Let us not be enamored with false classification of ‘Indian Christians’ as if we are different form others that we need the state legislation to uphold this slavery of false nomenclature. I have been discussing this question with a number of friends and most of them agree with my thesis that this is a state of false protection so as to separate ourselves from other communities in India. Let us, if you all agree, raise up against this ante-diluvion classification. Let us ask the Government in power to classify us only ‘Christians’, and not ‘Indian Christians’. There are no ‘Indian Hindus’, ‘Indian Jains’, ‘Indian Buddhists’ as they go only under the denomination of their own religion. I know even the Muslims in India prefer to call themselves as Muslims and not ‘Indian Muslims’ even though some of our Muslim friends prefer to call themselves on reasons which I need mention on political grounds etc.

I do hope the elders of the Christian community will bestow some thought on this fundamental matter and set right the greatest harm this artificial designation so far done to us all.

Mylapore. V. N. Sharma

Source: “Why This ‘Indian Christian’ Nomenclature?” V. N. Sharma, The Guardian, October 18, 1951, 477.

The role of the Christian Community in India (from the archives)

Of late I have been delving into the archives of The Guardian, a newspaper run by Christians in the early part of the 20th Century. The newspaper was a weekly that would talk about issues related to Christians in India, especially political and social issues. Some of the articles are really excellent, both as examples of early history of Christianity in India, but also as examples of how Christians in India can also think. Time to time, I hope to put up either excerpts or the full articles. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I have.

The following excerpt is from an article written by J. R. Chandran. It talks about what the role of Christians in India should be, especially in relation to Communalism. It was written in 1956, so while some of it is quite applicable even today, some of it is quite dated, like the mention of Government service (which in that day was a very valuable thing, unlike today). I particularly liked his appeal to resist desiring sops from the government, just because you are of a particular (Christian) religion.

Christians in New India

We [Indian Christians] should avoid the error of communalism. When our national leaders are fighting against communalism, we should not add to their problems by making special claims for our own community. It is natural that we should think of the economic stability of our community and be concerned about the educational facilities of our children and the employment of our young people. It may be that if there are communal minded people in responsible positions, we may not always get justice. We should not concern ourselves too much about what happens to our children and our young people. We are to be concerned about the whole pattern of justice. We should not expect any exclusive privileges for ourselves, nor should we seek to get all our children absorbed in Government services. We should become more industrious and seek means of employment in private business and industry so that our dependence of Government services will be considerably reduced.

Source: J. R. Chandran, “Christians in New India,” The Guardian, August 9, 1956, 317.

A vote for the BJP is a vote for the RSS

…or at least that’s what’s clear from the happenings in Indian politics over the past few days (August 2009). For further explanation on current RSS – BJP link click here.

It’s interesting that since the BJP love complaining against Congress that they have a weak prime minister who is controlled by Sonia Gandhi… they have their own Sonia Gandhi… ie. the RSS. They clearly go to it for all their problems, and the RSS, even influence who will stay in power and who will not!

While I don’t agree with puppet governance… ie. I believe that the Prime Minister must rule as the Prime Minister rules (and not as a party-member determines). It’s sad that even the BJP (like the Congress) are puppets to a higher power. Perhaps even more dangerous that Sonia Gandhi (or the Gandhi family).

Dangerous because the RSS has not refuted violence. They have either been violent, in the name of Hindutva, often encouraged/supported violence, and even have not spoken out against violence (done by Hindus against any community).

I am not insecure about my position though. I don’t believe I am a minority. I am an Indian, and thus part of the majority. And I am not worried about my ‘religion’ (christianity) being targeted. Who cares, whether those reports are true, or whether I will be the next victim.

The point is rather that any organisation that seeks to build itself on violence follows an extremely dangerous path (as Congress found out in the anti-Sikh riots). And whether against Christians, Muslims, or Hindus themselves, are victims of violence… it is totally nationally morally religiously unacceptable.

Will the RSS ever say that? Probably not. And so I don’t trust BJP. And so I don’t trust RSS.

Preaching on Independence Day

I just preached a sermon for the Indian Independence Day (August 15), and I must say that it was the worst sermon I had ever preached (not that I have preached much). But this one was really bad. The night before I had three sermon ideas, a few hours prior I decided on the fourth, and then when I woke up an hour before the actual service, I changed to the first idea I had! So obviously, the sermon was haphazard, all over the place, disjointed… But there was a message. And I still stand by it (even if it was poorly delivered) and here it is.

Nehru gave a “Tryst with Destiny” speech at the night we received independence. I pointed to the key portions of the speech, particularly the optimism. But I also pointed to my own (and my countrymen’s own) cynicism. If anyone talked like Nehru today, we’d laugh… and certainly not believe him.

But going to the Bible, I drew attention to Romans 8:18-25:

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

I noted a similar hope and optimism, one that heralded a new dawn (rather than being aware of 2000 years of historical baggage). Today it is easy for Christians to look at that text and feel it applies only to an unseen future. However, Paul was filled with optimism about the hope that was ALREADY here… and only just beginning.

Like, Nehru, therefore, we needed to capture a new optimism about our country, and about our faith. And more importantly an integration of our faith with our love for our country. That integration of vision, must be a hope for our country, and a hope for a better world… all within the hope that we have in Christ Jesus. Because of Jesus, we share in Nehru’s vision. And because of Jesus, we still have hope.

So that’s the basic gist. I won’t get into the details of how I messed it up. But the sermon ended with the song of hope… Blessed Assurance. And if that song applies to something that we have today, then it was truly the perfect ending to the message… and I had nothing to do with it!

Turning back

Lord, help me turn back to you. There are so many distractions in my life right now, so many things that are keeping me from a true contact with you, a contact of which I know exists, but a contact which currently I feel so unaware of at present. I know there are so many things to thank you… things which remind me that you are “always by me”, for instance the way you protected my daughter when she fell, the way you answered my prayer yesterday, the way I was able to make some progress yesterday with my work… and even the way I am here, right now, with you. So thank you, for these mercies, thank you for this grace. May I be ever mindful of you.

Two ways of approaching God: (according to Paul Tillich)

Of course quotations as well as their reductionist renditions of complex truth are simplistic. And yet, they sometimes function to inspire, shape or even challenge thought/life. So here’s an “interesting” quotation… something worth thinking about:

One can distinguish two ways of approaching God: the way of overcoming estrangement and the way of meeting a stranger. In the first way man discovers himself when he discovers God; he discovers something that is identical with himself although it transcends him infinitely, something from which he is estranged, but from which he never has been and never can be separated. In the second way man meets a stranger when he meets God. The meeting is accidental. Essentially they do not belong to each other. They may become friends on a tentative and conjectural basis. But there is no certainty about the stranger man has met. He may disappear, and only probable statements can be made about his nature. — Paul Tillich, Theology of Culture, (1964), 10