Harriet Miers, 
the latest SCOTUS nominee, is involved with a Texas-based missionary church which trolls for souls in Madhya Pradesh (via SAJA):
… [Harriet Miers’] longtime congregation [is] Valley View Christian Church in Dallas… She also served on the missions committee and took a deep interest in its programs in central India, according to minister Barry McCarty, inviting him and an Indian mission director to lunch at the White House last March. Miers also served on the board of Pioneer Bible Translators, which has missions worldwide… [Link]McCarty serves on the board of Central India Christian Mission, which was meeting in Washington, D.C., in March. Miers knew of the meeting, and hosted McCarty and missionary Ajai Lall for lunch at the White House. [Link]
The Central India Christian Mission is part of the Texan-xtian nexus:
The primary task of the mission is evangelism and church planting… It is the need of the hour to train the native leaders in India as much as possible. The Mission Center… is located on about 15 acres of land in Damoh District of Central Province [Madhya Pradesh], India. [Link]
The missionaries, Indu and Ajai Lall and their Bible college-trained brood, are apparently the Johnny Appleseeds of Indian churches 
Over 400 churches have been planted in central and northern India, in the country of Nepal and along the northeast India/Bhutan border. [Link – PDF]
They use the buzzy language of military marcom:
The capital city New Delhi has been targeted since 1997 with several churches being established in this strategic location. [Link]
<
p>I can’t help but notice that the U.S.-facing marketing site omits the foreign-sounding name of the state. But I can’t hate on anyone who repairs cleft palates in dalit neighborhoods:
Dr. Lall had been trying to get a plastic surgery group into this area for many years. There are approximately 350 children and young adults needing cleft lip/palate surgery in the district of Damoh alone. [Link]
<
p>Yet even that site tugs at the heartstrings in the usual way:
Central India Christian Mission, CICM, is an oasis for the “untouchables”, the lowest cast members in one of the poorest countries on earth. [Link]
<
p>India is hardly one of the world’s poorest countries. It’s fourth in the world in GDP, after the U.S., China and Japan and ahead of Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Singapore. In GDP per capita, it’s in the third quartile and not in the 50 poorest. It is, however, one of the countries with the highest number of poor.
Franklin, you seem to have missed the bit that Manish put in about per capita, 3rd quartile. By your Icelandic logic, the fact that there are more poor people in India than anywhere else is similarl irrelevant–there are more middle class people too.
Yes Saheli (who I know by another name), that was exactly the point I was making in my postscript. Both numbers are completely and totally irrelevant. More than that, both cloud the issue. “India is hardly one of the worldÂ’s poorest countries. ItÂ’s fourth in the world in GDP” sounds much more impressive than “India is hardly one of the worldÂ’s poorest countries. ItÂ’s 154th in the world in per capita GDP”.
Such statements (those which serve no possible function but to potentially [and, in this case, no doubt unintentionally] mislead) are yet another pet peeve of mine.
Dude, have you seen the one where Cartman starts a church and ‘anoints the heathen in the naaaame of the lawd!’? That, is probably the most trenchant commentary on bible-thumping.
does it mention that ethiopia has been christian since the 5th century???
The thing is, Razib, much of the religious behaviour on the subcontinent is more a matter of practice than belief: so long as you show up and do the prescribed rituals, it doesn’t matter what the heck is going on in your head. Missionaries are probably right in their worry that allowing converts to retain their ancestral practices is an obstacle to them becoming sincere Christians: some missionaries insist that members of their flocks violate some old caste prohibitions as a way to demonstrate their faith. By the way, the Dalits I mentioned earlier were in no way ‘bireligious:’ they clearly thought their benefactors were retards, and were planning to take them for all they were worth.
Franklin, the difference is that the quote Manish gave showed only one flat, non-representative aspect of the statistical situation, while Manish gave us at least two which together form a better picture. Flattening statistical histograms out into single factoids is a bad habit, and Manish et al generally try to present at least two or three or four, depending on how you count, to give us an overall picture. Since he (and not the excerpt) went a bit of an extra distance to paint the picture out, quibbling with him for the inability of one or the other factoid to convey a good picture of the situation seems unproductive. That’s why he put out a few. Plus, he knows his audience is quite familiar with both Indian statistics and Indian poverty. His point is that the audience for this literature is not so familiar, nor so precise, and there are a number of measures by which the quote is simply not true. You truncate your quote of his statistical information so that it seems overly inflated, but he did not truncate his quote of the missionary literature. If you look at his “entire” graf, it’s not misrepresentative at all.
Razib, was talking only in the Kerala context. Maybe I should have said ‘Syrian Catholics’.
Yes, I know Vatican has been gung-ho about conversion, but the Kerala Catholic Church is pretty ambivalent about it. Let’s say we are more practical , considering the ground realities in India at the moment with regard to conversion. Most of us Syrian Catholics feel that these Protestant/baptist/bible-belt-funded evangelists are “bringing a bad name to us”.
Daycruz’s remark that
is again , being hotly debated in the current Kerala Catholic Church. There is a considerable mvement which decries such “excluvism of salvation”. (I have had two of my uncles who are Priests tell me that most of the clergy do not subscribe to this view now.) I cant find any links, but I have heard of official admissions that other religions have as much right to salvation as us. The mood now is “lets try to get our own folks to be better men first, then worry about anybody else’s religion.”
Agreed. I know many Malayalees (Jacobite, Marthomite AND Catholic) who share that viewpoint, as well as the “tsk-tsk-Johnny-come-lately” attitude. It’s hard to keep in mind but crucial to remember that the Christians in India belong to several diverse churches and some of those churches also have sects within, further dividing the pot. Kerala’s Christians are different, but then, Kerala is just plain different.
A traditional Jacobite/Orthodox Malayalee has little in common with a Pentecostal like Daycruz. No one in my Orthodox family really believes that the rest of India is going to hell and we find all of these attempts to convert Rice Christians distasteful. If you want to help your fellow man, do it out of the goodness within you, and love thy neighbor as thyself, do not bribe him. And like the bible says, love him quietly. I find a lot of this proselytizing, hand-waving and prophecy-mongering unseemly. Feel free to flame me for it, you’re not going to change my mind.
Most of us Syrian Catholics feel that these Protestant/baptist/bible-belt-funded evangelists are “bringing a bad name to us”.
i’ll grant that. i have read a fair amount of literature on the christians of the middle east, and i know that many palestinian christians resent the fact that protestant evangelicals pretty much ignore them (they are the “wrong side”). but to some extent, you take the good with the bad, right? being a christian at least means that other christians don’t laugh at you for worshipping an elephant-headed god or a monkey-god. unfortunately, identifying as a christian, even if you are of a particular denomination, means you have to accept you will be lumped in no matter how hard you try, they are brothers and sisters in christ after all. my understanding is that many evangelicals believe that traditional christian churches who have maintained a long history in non-christian lands have lost the “big picture,” but then of course, many of the missionaries will only spend a part of their life in heathen lands, so they don’t have to deal with the shit that comes about because of their soul catchin’ 🙂
A traditional Jacobite/Orthodox Malayalee has little in common with a Pentecostal like Daycruz. … in the context of christianity, but to outgroups (hindus, muslims, etc.) you are very similar, you even accept the council of chalcedon and its follow ups in terms of the exposition of the nicene creed (i don’t believe there are any nestorian churches among the kerala christians anymore, but someone can correct). you seem to be the type of christian that frankly, i as an atheist, would be comfortable with. and that there i think is the problem that some people would have, what kind of christianity is so live and let live?
p.s. yes, i’ve read the NT and know the varying interpretations…i’m just expressing what seems normative in the americo-flavored missioinaries who are rice christianizing right now.
daycruz.. “… If you saw someone drowning in a pool, you would do anything in your power to save that individual. …”
Question for daycruz. Do you think it would be un-Christian of you if you get deeply offended when I suggest the same to you for believing in what you believe in. Part about me doing all I can to save the lost souls who are pimping their beliefs on the street and indulging in downright rudeness.
Do you think it is appropriate for me as a non-Christian to do a Hindu/Muslim/Sikh version of “Promise Keepers” and call on the thousands (it does not take too much to gather a crowd in India) of men to attend and ask them to accepts “Bajrang Bali” in their hearts, that they will reach nirvana only if they get their hearts cleansed off of this evil Jesus business.
Do you think I should publish and distribute pamphlets here in USA that charter the progress of region that has been conquered (be defeating the Evil of Christianity) and the region that is still under the claws of evil evangelicals.
See, It was ok for early missionaries to prop their rosters and motivate their “troops” with the rhetoric of “the burden of the lost..”, but today this message is deeply offensive. And you cannot, in-spite of your professed sincere desire to not being offensive, not offend.
Daycruz, I think you are entitled to your opinion, and it should be treated with respect.
I do have a problem with what you expressed with –
“…as Christians we believe the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. Thus, there are missionaries working among the rich and poor of India spreading the gospel, because we have a burden for the lost…I hope to see all of them in Heaven once I die. Thus I tell them about the love of Jesus Christ…”
You see, while you might believe there is a heaven, that going to heaven is important, that there is only one key to heaven and that you have it, this is all belief. It can’t be said to be truer than something else or the only truth. All believers of beliefs are entitled to the notion of having the right answer, FOR THEM. To insist that you have the right answer for everyone is arrogance at best, and delibrate propogationist self-preservation tool installed by the founders of your beliefs at worst. I mean for the noble actions the missionaries carry out how dare they feel comfortable reducing fully-functioning, senient human beings to the status of ‘lost’ that must be ‘saved’.
For it to be THE TRUTH, it must be ever-present and self-evident universally across time and space – a test that christianity and others that espouse “I have the ONLY right answer” fail. As someone else noted here, if it were true, everyone would know it already and follow it already. This notion of saving souls with whatever you do is a preservationist and expansionist response to the trying life and times of early Christian believers that founded the christian organized religion.
Believe in whatever you believe in, its your personal matter. But when it involves imposing it on others while demeaning other ideas, its entirely unacceptable to me.
here is survey daya from 1984, table 3.6 from the future of religion by rod stark and william bainbridge.
“We should not allow missionaries form non-Christian religions to spread their teachines in a Christian community.”
Missouri Synod Lutheran 35% Southern Baptist 41% Church of God 36% Church of Christ 41% Nazarene 41% Assemblies of God 55% 7th Day Adventist 23% Total Protestant 25% Roman Catholic 23%
also, that data is from the USA.
But when it involves imposing it on others while demeaning other ideas, its entirely unacceptable to me.
come on, let’s get real. i think daycruz’s beliefs are pretty nutty, probably nuttier than anyone else here, from where i stand. does that hurt daycruz? you crying? ideas don’t have feelings. all you are doing is imposing your own belief, that “All believers of beliefs are entitled to the notion of having the right answer, FOR THEM.” frankly, that’s a very hindu latitudinarian viewpoint that you are demanding be normative. as long as daycruz & co. don’t break your bones with sticks and stones, names can never hurt you.
Thanks, Saheli.
Actually, the gross GDP figure is quite relevant. It’s national purchasing power in a language Texan evangelicals understand and respect: satellites, subs and battleships.
Here’s another one they understand, G. Franklin: False start, offense, 5 yard penalty.
Actually, the gross GDP figure is quite relevant. It’s national purchasing power in a language Texan evangelicals understand and respect: satellites, subs and battleships.
If you want to say, “Hey people of Texas: yes, India is a very poor country but it’s also very large so the total amount of wealth ends up being big.” then I’d have no objection to that.
But if Bill Gates, Michael Eisner, and Ted Turner decided to buy an island and start their own country (with a population of 3) on it, then I don’t think we’d be seeing anyone talking about how poor Billionaireistan is even though its GDP would be lagging far behind even Malawi.
On a national level, they’d be impoverished. BillG can fund a moonshot by himself, but not a world-class military over time.
I am assuming that none of this is a slur on my homeboys in Austin.
Ok wow, quite a few comments. There is a lot of discussion in the CATHOLIC church about preaching the gospel and such. As Pentecostals we tend to treat the Bible as our sole basis for anything to do with our religion. Thus we follow what Christ told us: “Go out into all the world and preach the gospel” For many individuals in this forum, I can have a belief- but please keep it to yourself! My answer is this, you can reject my message if you want to. It is as simple as that. Someone asked about phamplets promoting other religions? Why not? Go for it. It doesn’t offend me if someone is trying to convert me into their religion. I just think they are horribly wrong and wont leave mine. So attacking my religion doesn’t matter to me. I’m not sure how I would be “imposing” on other people. Now what Kenyandesi said is a good example of “imposing” your belief on other people. What I do is, say “Jesus Christ is the answer” You can ridicule it and reject it. And the world goes on. KIT, in answer to your question. It would not matter to me at all. Islam has missionary movements all across America. Mormons try to convert everybody that doesnt go to their Church. Not a problem. We have a freedom in this nation to do that.
I don’t want to start a theological discussion here. But Kairali, if your orthodox family doesn’t believe those who aren’t Christians arent going to hell, What exactly do they believe? To avoid starting something like that here. Feel free to come over to my blog and comment.
Oh and razib.. I’m sobbing like a little girl right now… just kidding.. really! I’m KIDDING!
The kind of Christianity which recalls that the man they worship chose prostitutes and low-lifes as his friends.
also, let me add one final comment to clarify my point: i am not here to defend missionaries and assert that because they think they are doing good they are doing good. rather,
1) from a purely utilitarian perspective i can understand why dalits would associate with them, whether as converts, quasi-converts or not.
2) i am not particularly sympathetic to the idea that legal or social customs should prevent the free flow of ideas and attempts at suasion.
on point #2, i am not defending christian missionaries per se, i simply think that a “modern” mindset is rooted in a reflective rationality that can only flourish where a free movement of ideas, sometimes aggressively, sometimes not, is necessary. as some of you know, the rationalists of india can sometimes be very aggressive, and frankly blasphemous, in challening shamans ang magicians, whether they be christian, muslim or hindu. certainly they hurt the feelings of believers. that should not be the judge of whether something is acceptable or not, or at least i don’t think that it should be (in india the final judge is the india people and their democratic insitutions and liberal constitution).
The kind of Christianity which recalls that the man they worship chose prostitutes and low-lifes as his friends.
and i’m glad that you believe in that sort of christianity, but jesus also could be ungenerous to the gentile and a prophesier of swords. there are many faces of god 🙂 unfortunately in the USofA daycruz’s christianity is more vital than yours. (all false in my opinion, but that is a different issue)
I second that. To say that you have to choose between Jesus or Eternal Damnation is , to put it politely, a distortion.
Karaili-
Jesus loved every human being- and he did hang out with those who used to do these things. But the Bible also states very clearly- whenever Jesus forgave sin- “Go and don’t sin anymore” Wow! I’ll stop myself.. I’ve just begun a theological argument..
To say that you have to choose between Jesus or Eternal Damnation is , to put it politely, a distortion.
i don’t think it is if you read the gospel of st. john, which is the one that protestant evangelicals tend to focus on (i’m speaking from hanging out at intervarsity christian fellowship as an undergrad to meet chix). like here. i’m not one of those people who think that any one interpretation of the bible (or koran, or whatever) is right. i just wish the latitudinarians would shout a bit louder and come better prepared with talking points. but as i’ve said before, moderates have their role, but it is i think left to un-abashed heathens to bring out the heavy artillery against all the idols (no offense :).
daycruz:
There are two ways to do this. Pull and Push. Let me explain…
Saheli,
It is a fallacy that Indic faiths do not convert people. They do. Conversion is as much an inherent trait in Hinduism, Buddhism etc as much as it is in Islam/Christianity. However, Indic religions use the Pull method of conversion. The guru/saint does not approach prospective Bhaktas – they approach him if needed. Since the Vedic times, the preferred method in India has been for the sanyasi/saint to come to the outskirts of the town and sit down under a tree in Padmasana posture. He waits. The word goes around that a learned sanyasi is in town. Interested people come on their own and bring fuits and other eatables. They listen to the man. They take some of it and reject some others. After a few days, the man moves to the next town. Sometimes he spends days without anyone coming to him. And at other times he is mobbed. Sometimes even the local king touches his feet and “converts”.
This is the Pull method of conversion. It is free, non-demanding, non-intrusive, and does not use the support of any Enforcer(State/Clergy) to spread and sustain itself. All Indic leaders, from the Vedic rishis to Puranic saints to Buddha, Mahavira, Shankara, Ramakuja, SikhGurus – everyone followed this method. Even today, SaiBaba and Amritanandamayi follow this approach with success and no ill-will to anyone. In the Abrahamic world, Jesus was the only one I know who used the Pull method. He did not go to people – they flocked to him(could it be he learnt this in Kashmir where he is rumoured to have learnt under Indic sages?). He did not use the help of any Enforcer(State) – in fact the Roman state and Jewish Enforcers ended up stopping him. It is another story that Christianity itself ended up becoming an Enforcer-based ideology. More on this in my latest article Deleted scenes and Alternate Ending on Sulekha and my latest comment therein.
The Push method of conversion is where you approach prospective converts irrespective of whether they ask for it or not. Most Christian saints a few centuries after Jesus adopted this method. Islam has spread by this method as well. This method has various degrees of push – sometimes approaching people and withdrawing when they reject(Christians in west today, HareKrishnas), enticing by tricks and miracles(missionaries use this against tribals the whole world), putting pressure on poor people(free schooling for converts, free hospital care etc), misusing someone’s misfortune(tsunami “relief” etc) and outright violence(Muslim/Portugese rule in India, terrorist in Kashmir/NE etc). This Push method is intrusive, conflict-ridden and uses State/Enforcer support for sustainability.
This Pull-Push method is also prevalent in other walks of life. When I need a stapler and I go to Walmart to buy it, it is the Pull method. When Walmart sends me its brochure in junk-mail, it is Push variety of the least intrusive kind since I can throw the brochure away(but it does require some effort on my part, not to mention the wastage of natural resources). When a Walmart telemarketing representative calls me during my dinner time, it is the more intrusive Push method – a rude interruption that I did not ask for.
Amway folks use the Push method as well – the amount of ill-will, lost friends/relatives that they have caused needs no mention. Prostitutes use the Push method as well(“Wanna have a good time, baby?”).
If a man goes to a strange woman and says: Wanna sleep with me? it is the Push method. What does the law permit her to do? Slap him? Press charges? How does the law punish him? Jail time? The same law should be applicable to all Push activities, and implemented rigorously. No other anti-conversion law is needed.
M. Nam
It is free, non-demanding, non-intrusive, and does not use the support of any Enforcer(State/Clergy) to spread and sustain itself.
my impression is that this is not totally true. did not the kings of south india endow lands for the purpose of supporting brahmins? did not jains and hindus battle each other in southern india? my impression is that prior to islam hinduism suffused the state, and the state suffused hinduism. the decoupling of state from hinduism was a byproduct of the hammering that the hindu superstructure (the state and elite) received at the hands of the muslims. hinduism survived by falling back on non-state local insitutions, the jati-caste system especially (zoroastrianism in general failed once the support of state was withdrawn after the fall of the sassanids).
in any case, i think your narrative has a lot of truth in it, but
If a man goes to a strange woman and says: Wanna sleep with me? it is the Push method. What does the law permit her to do? Slap him? Press charges? How does the law punish him? Jail time? The same law should be applicable to all Push activities, and implemented rigorously. No other anti-conversion law is needed.
this depends on where the individuals are. if you are in a seedy bar, or at a swingers party, she shouldn’t be shocked. if it is in a public space, it is probably inappropriate, but aside from public disturbance laws being interpreted liberally, what are you going to do? if it is in your own home, than it is a gross violation.
in the USA outdoor revivals and street preachers are part of the culture, and that’s why they transmit these sensibilities to the rest of the world. perhaps in india this isn’t acceptable, but i don’t think it is an issue of universal decency.
p.s. at my college there was a christian preacher who would shout once a year and yell at walking women and tell them they were whores and jezebels.
mine too! the two times he called out ridiculousness at me, i let him have it and told him that almost two thousand years ago, his people were beating each other about the head with sticks in the forest while my ancestors were worshipping the Lord whose words he perverted and twisted. always made for a fascinating lunchtime.
Razib writes:did not the kings of south india endow lands for the purpose of supporting brahmins?
But they endowed lands to everyone else as well!
did not jains and hindus battle each other in southern india?
Verbal duels? Sure. That’s part of Indic tradition. Jaina monks hurled invectives at Advaitins. Dwaitins hurled abuse at Advaita. Philosophy. Buddhist demeaned Dwaita in debates.
In the end, they all prostrated before each other’s idols and went home for dinner.
All in the spirit of debate. It was well organised, with specific ground rules to follow. Pretty much like SM!
Because Hinduism at its core is a non-State Enforced ideology.
p.s. at my college there was a christian preacher who would shout once a year and yell at walking women and tell them they were whores and jezebels.
Not sure about free-speech rules on specific college campuses, but on the street if you he did that he would be in jail.
M. Nam
daycruz
U r the pits man !!
U say that u have met “several” missionaries that are good. Granted.
But then the rest are rascals !!
Also, not to be disrespectful, who cares what your religion thinks as being the way to heaven. Live and let live man !!
And I am so surprised that u presume that u will find a place in heaven…if such a thing exists.
And frankly whats wrong with hell then ??
There are too many ifs and buts when it comes to discussing religion. Therefore your blanket statements as to what the bible says is one authors interpretation of what someone heard jesus say. There are no known records or transcripts of what was said at that time.
And dont we have enuf poor in india, so then whats the need for your uncle to go to africa. Shouldnt we clean house first before helping neighbors.
And then u post all this shit on your blog making yourself out to be a hero.
Am sorry that i am fuming away. I generally dont like to get personal and deviate from the topic, but i find it ridiculous that someone can bullshit away so well and think that he has the spoken word from God to do it.
Conversion is not something necessary. As another commenter mentioned, religious identity is not necessary. If someone does not like their religion, it does not mean he or she has to like another one. Its not like food….which if not consumed will lead to death.
Christian missionaries came to India and were allowed into the country with good faith. See what they landed up doing…converting left right and center.
I can think of another corollary, where another set of indigenous people…the Parsis set foot in India much before the christians but never went about forcing their religion down everyone’s throat. Dammit if we had done it, we wouldnt be so few in numbers. Ok i stop bcos now I am digressing.
SaiBaba does that by giving idea to people that he can fly :-))
Sorry couldnt resist. I had heared this from an actual SaiBaba follower who mentioned about that “ability” of SaiBaba 🙂 This is the Neuvo SaiBaba we are talking about. Sorry If I have offended anyone.
But they endowed lands to everyone else as well!
my impression is that there was a distinct heirarchy. priests of the sanskritic tradition were tops. local priests had less prestige and less support. my point was that hinduism did have state support and backing at various times (you can look at southeast asia, though you might not term that hinduism in a genuine sense). i mean, muslim rulers sometimes also endowed non-muslim places of worship, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a strong bias toward islam on the part of the state. but, i’m not indicating an equivalence, the muslim relationship with the polity is tighter than the hindu relationship, simply that a black-white dichotomy needs to be nuanced (and to some extent, talking about “muslim” and “hindu” is orthogonal since muslims espouse a precise creedal formula, while hindus are a broad church of various professions and practices).
Verbal duels? Sure.
no, i mean wars between jaina and hindu kings in the karnataka around 1000.
Not sure about free-speech rules on specific college campuses, but on the street if you he did that he would be in jail.
you have to get permits.
Christian missionaries came to India and were allowed into the country with good faith. See what they landed up doing…converting left right and center.
india was directly ruled by a christian power for nearly 100 years (england has an established church). and last i checked, christians were like 2.5% of india’s population, and a large chunk of that is the indigenous christian community in kerala. let’s keep our perspective (granted, you basically conceded you wanted to rant).
Dammit if we had done it, we wouldnt be so few in numbers.
also, you would be 0 in numbers, since the reputed settlement of parsis was conditional on them not-rocking-the-boat.
.
Very many Hindu kings supported Brahmanas AND Sramanas (Buddhists, Jainas, Aivikas)and even heard out Lokayatas (materialists) –recall Ashoka’s edicts and his insistence that rival sects retain their civility.
The locus of Brahmanic traditions–like Vedic chanting–and of much orthodox tradition generally, was the village; it did not necessarily depend on the state. The patronage of a rich merchant or farmer caste often sufficed. The villages were generally outside the gaze of the upstart nabob. Further, the traditions were decentralized–one Brahmana village didnt necessarily know what another was doing. That helped a lot.
is survey daya from 1984, table 3.6 from the future of religion by rod stark and william bainbridge.
“We should not allow missionaries form non-Christian religions to spread their teachines in a Christian community.”
Missouri Synod Lutheran 35% Southern Baptist 41% Church of God 36% Church of Christ 41% Nazarene 41% Assemblies of God 55% 7th Day Adventist 23% Total Protestant 25% Roman Catholic 23%
Another perspective– I offer Newsweek’s latest survey, which shows that 79% of Americans believe “salvation” can be attained outside of Xianity. Americans are becoming curiously latitudinarian, in a word, Hindu 🙂
And I would not dismiss the influence of neo-Hinduism on American views.
On Belief Steven Waldman
http://www.belief.net
The Pearly Gates Are Wide Open A new Newsweek/Beliefnet poll shows a stunning level of acceptance of other people’s faiths.
One of the central tenets of evangelical Christianity is that to be saved—to earn admission into heaven—you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior. At football games, it’s not uncommon to see Christians wearing T-shirts with the numbers 3:16 on the back, a reference to the Gospel of John passage in which Jesus says the Father can only be reached through the Son. Yet 68% of “born again” or “evangelical” Christians say that a “good person who isn’t of your religious faith” can gain salvation, according to a new Newsweek/Beliefnet poll.
This is pretty amazing. Evangelicals are among the most churchgoing and religiously attentive people in the United States, and one of the ideas they’re most likely to hear from the minister at church on a given Sunday is that the path to salvation is through Jesus. Apparently, rank-and-file evangelicals have a different view.
Nationally, 79% of those surveyed said the same thing, and the figure is 73% for non-Christians and an astounding 91% among Catholics. The Catholics surveyed seemed more inclined to listen to the Catechism’s precept that those who “seek the truth” may gain salvation—rather than, say, St. Augustine’s view that being “separated from the Church” will damn you to hell “no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living.”
For a few thousand years, wars have been fought over this point; countless sermons have been given—by people of all faiths—to prove the opposite point. It is one of the main ways that clergy of any given faith can explain why it’s important for people to show up at their particular church and read their particular sacred text.
How could so many Americans be tossing aside such a central element of theology? I think the Newsweek cover story that grew in part out of this poll has the best theory. Americans have become so focused on a very personal style of worship—forging a direct relationship with God—that spiritual experience has begun to supplant dogma.
Other results from the poll indicate that the appeal of religion is more spiritual than cultural. Thirty-nine percent said the main reason they practiced their religion is to “forge a personal relationship with God” while only 3% said it was to be part of a community. This would help explain why many people report having a regular prayer life but not attending church. Seventy-nine percent said they pray at least once a week compared to 45% who said they went to worship services during that time. In addition, 40% said they felt “most connected with God or the divine” when they were “praying alone or meditating” compared to 27% who said they had that sense when they were in a house of worship or praying with others.
The poll also showed a more basic point that may be obvious to Beliefnet readers but not others: spirituality is crucial to most Americans. 57% said spirituality was “very important” in their “daily life” and another 27% said it was somewhat important. Their behavior seems to back up this notion. 79% said they prayed at least once a week and 55% said they read a sacred text — Bible, Koran, etc — at least once a week.
The Newsweek/Beliefnet poll produced a number of other fascinating findings:
One quarter of Americans have veered from their childhood faith. When asked to compare their current faith lives to that of their childhood, 68% said it was the same or mostly the same, while 24% said they’d changed faiths mostly or completely or become an atheist or agnostic. The spiritual approaches that seem to be gaining fans were evangelical Christianity and atheism, while Catholicism and non- evangelical Protestants lost ground. Nevertheless…
How many of us believe in intelligent design? Read more >>
Most Americans describe themselves as pretty traditional. We tried to get at that question a few different ways. First, we asked directly— if they consider themselves traditional or not. Twenty-five percent said they were either “not traditional” or “on the cutting edge,” while the remainder said they were either somewhat or very traditional. Then we asked whether they were “spiritual” or “religious” or some combination. Twenty-four percent said “spiritual but not religious” while 76% said either “religious and spiritual” (55%) or “religious but not spiritual” (9%). We also asked whether they were likely to borrow bits of spiritual wisdom or ritual from other practices. Thirty-two percent said sometimes or often while 66% said hardly ever or never.
Most American families have experienced religious diversity up close. We attempted to assess a typical American’s exposure to other faiths or spiritual approaches. In all 42% of Americans either have a different approach from their childhood, saw a sibling shift approaches, or married someone of a different faith. These overall numbers don’t explain how these changes might have affected them but it does mean that a large number of Americans have had very personal and direct experience with some religious approach that’s different from their original spiritual practice.
We are all intelligent designers. Eighty percent of the population believe that the universe was created by God; only 10% do not. This would seem to indicate that many of those who advocate the teaching of evolution in school do, nonetheless, believe that the universe was created by God.
We are selfless pray-ers. Most people do not spend the majority of their prayer life trying to get God to do something for them. The most common purposes of prayer were “to seek God’s guidance,” to “thank God” or to “be close to God.” Only 9% said it was to “improve a person’s life.”
Evangelicals love big churches and small groups. Much has been made of the rise of large stadium-sized churches for evangelical Christians. But 61% of evangelicals said they participate in some sort of religious activity outside traditional church at least once a week (compared to 35% for non-evangelical protestants and 35% of Catholics).
There’s a big generation gap. In general, younger people are more experimental, less traditional, less Christian—and less passionate about their spiritual lives. While 63% of people aged 40-59 said spirituality was “very important” in their daily lives, 44% of those ages 18-39 said so. Ninety percent of the older group said they were Christian, while 77% of the younger group did. Before the older folks get too worried about kids today, remember that people tend to get more religious as they age.
despite differences in details with moornam, i think he has hit upon the crux of the issue. it seems there are two main ways that religions get expressed and communicated. there is the public, aggressive and forceful manner that one can find in some expressions of the abrahamic religions, traced i think all the way back to the prophet jeremiah, and the more relaxed and unobstrusive form of proselytization which is the norm in the rest of the world religions (that is, those of india and east asia). ultimately, the crux is not conversion, but communication, and how that occurs. but that brings me back to the initial issue: what exactly are christian missionaries doing that is offensive? if, for example, they are standing on street corners shouting about the devil-ganesh, that is quite clearly offensive. but, if they invite people in for a free meal, during which they show a video on jesus christ, is that offensive?
individuals may differ. i tend to take an expansive american view of speech and public civility (or lack off). the evangelicals who are being backed by american churches have roots in the most aggressive and market-oriented christian culture in the world. you can see its apotheosis in the megachurches. i can see the argument that this is not viably exportable to india (and christians in the middle east complain that it isn’t exportable there either, and not only is it unproductive, but it endangers them). nevertheless, though i can see how the extremes are shaved off, i am skeptical that the majority of christian missionaries are quite that vulgar (self-interested and christ-promoting in an unsubtle and insensitive fashion perhaps). i will do some reading, i don’t have much to say without more data….
Conversions–unfortunately perhaps–are about more than individual spiritual preferences. The culture of individuality (which someone here equated with ‘modernity’) works very well in a state with creedal, cultural and (for all intents and purposes) linguistic unity like America. What is at stake in far more fractious India? The survival (arguably) of a very resilient, ancient culture and perhaps–if you sympathize with the Hindu nationalist view–the future of India itself.
Having longstanding democratic rights and institutions, India cannot go medieval and snuff out Christians or abrogate its citizen’s rights of expression. So ultimately its up to Hindus themselves to create institutions that provide for their own, and to engender internal reforms within the religion.
At the moment there is great assymetry, because Christianity, Inc. simply has more money. This is perhaps why Hindus resort to the ‘moral’ argument, ie., exclusivism is unsavory and unrighteous–and frequently get laughed at.
So Hindus will have to rethink their tactics.
There is a Buddhist parable about a bodhisattva who encounters an evil dragon. The bodhisatva tells the dragon that he should not kill anymore and instead adopt the five (Buddhist) precepts to care for all life.
The dragon does so, and local children who once trembled in his presence lose fear of him–they pull on his tail, stuff dirt into his mouth and sit on his head.
The dragon complains to the bodhisattva: “You told me if I was compassionate I would be happy, look where that got me.”
The bodhisattva replied, “Besides compassion, you must have wisdom and intelligence. That is the way to protect yourself. Next time the children torment you, show a little fire!”
Here’s the problem with rants… After the first few lines.. they stop making sense. Are you saying Christians shouldn’t go to India or shouldn’t they? Look I’ve already said that you can disagree with me if you want to, so you don’t need to apologize to me. I’m saying this from my basis of the Bible. You can certainly think it’s wrong. Why is that such a huge problem. I don’t understand why so many commentors on this blog get so angry just because I say a belief that differs with their’s. Look you may think that conversion is not neccessary. But you have no right to deny conversion to those who seek to convert. And that’s all we’re saying. As you can see, I’m avoiding a bitter arguement here. All I see myself as saying is.. “Here’s the way- you can choose it or reject it” You reject it? That’s ok, let’s go out and have dinner. I have numerous Hindu friends who I have told the gospel to. And that’s it. Too many people make blanket statements about other people thinking that no one wants to hear these things. Actually there are quite a few people out there who are willing to hear something new and something different. I am so done with this. And on my blog, I can not speak for the commentor. I did not intend to try looking like the hero. But as you can see from the thread here, I have established myself as the only Pentecostal Malayalee here and I have recieved several comments attacking me for that. I personally think Razib, Saheli, and few others have made the most well thought out comments on this post. I’m done. Have a nice day… and God Bless! Ooops… I thought someone sneezed. Yeah.. sneezed.. thats right..
daycruz said
Good riddance !!
Arzan.. I meant that I’m done on this topic.. I’m always around here.. sorry buddy 🙁
Day Cruz, This Pentecostal mullu stands by you brother. Tell it like it is. I’m pretty sure Graham Stains and his children http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-9-2003_pg4_14 would have disagreed with all the bigoted ideology that’s being spewed here by those who would deny conversion.
Question: Why don’t missionaries ever try to convert poor people in the U.S.? I’m sure there are plenty of Americans who are godless, poor and in dire need of some divine intervention. Are the impoverished here harder to take advantage of?
GC, actually they do. Do a little research in your local city and you will find many organizations that preach the gospel and help the poor. My church youth group went downtown the other day to help the Union Gospel Mission pass out food, clothing, and other things to homeless people in our city. You will definitly find other ways to help out in cities across America. I encourage you to give it a try.
Please keep things in perspective : Christians make up less than 3 % of IndiaÂ’s population.
The insinuations by a commenter above that the future of India itself is endangered somehow if Hindus are reduced in number is misplaced. Christianity has a long history in India and we donÂ’t need to prove our Indianness to anyone.
There are certain separatist movements in Christian majority states like Nagaland, but that is a complex dispute, not related solely to Christianity (although that is a factor, Hinduism is seen as the oppressor and imperial religion in the North East).That being said there are separatist movements in Hindu majority Assam, Tripura etc.
Some would argue that Christianity has a longer history in India via Kerala then the Hinduism practiced today which was basically codified by Adi Sankara (8th century). Conversion is a natural process. There were periods in Indian history where Buddhism and Jainism were the dominant religions in various parts of India. Presumably, Hinduism re-established itself through some form of conversions,
Hinduism is a tolerant religion in terms of dogma but socially it can be very oppressive towards low castes and tribal people. If another religion offers them dignity, equality and a chance for salvation, whatÂ’s wrong with that? As a dalit or a tribal ( it is debatable if tribals are Hindus in the first place), on one hand you are faced with daily depredations from your Hindu co-religionists. On the other hand, you are offered food and education. Even in a purely mercernary sense, it is natural for many marginalised communities to wish to convert. This of course discounts the numerous cases of genuine conversion for the love of Christ.By the way, a Dalit loses all reservations in education and jobs when he converts to Christianity.It is in fact counterproductive for them to convert .If people are still converting, please give them the benefit of the doubt.Just becuse people are poor, it does not make them naive or stupid.
The earthy wisdom of these people is probably superior to the average white Hare Krishna neo convert who embraces ISKCON I never see Hindus complaining : The Caucasians are being converted by force or allurement. Why ? They are white so are intelligent enough?
Conversions by force are the biggest bogey of the Hindu right. What force ? Can a community that makes up less than 3% of the population force people to convert when all the institutions of power are controlled by the Hindus? This is a blatant falsehood.
Let me make it clear that I am Catholic from Goa and there is a lot of debate within our community and many are not in favor of the aggressive style of American evangelical missions. The vast majotiy of Indian Chrsitians DO NOT BELONG TO the American evangelical churches. We ceratinly do not claim that Hindus and heathens going to hell or anything of the sort. Please understand this.
However the right it freely practice, and propagate ones religion is enshrined in the Indian constitution and I defend the right of Christian or any other missionaries to freely preach their religion.
oh, spare me your righteousness. i’m sure they would’ve disagreed with your fumbling use of their tragic end, all because you were too lackadaisical to craft a cogent argument. i know i’m disgusted by it.
yes, there’s so much horrific bigotry here. you have an atheist muslim arguing christianity better than you can. look, disagreement is not the same as denying conversion; if they are sensible, and the vast majority of the people who frequent this space are, they are denying retarded methods, i.e. push vs. pull. i know, it takes all the fun out of playing martyr, doesn’t it? pooh.
GoanDude – a clear headed contribution. Thanks!
Two words for you GC: Salvation Army
nothing like a little religion, conversion, etc to get this comment section rolling.. just had to be 100…