An article in Indolink today caught my eye because it examines something very familiar to most SM readers, Christian Evangelicals attempting to convert Hindus, except in a very different context than usual. The setting of these conversions isn’t rural India but American college campuses:
…there is increasing evidence that Christian evangelical groups are aggressively targeting Hindu students in American college campuses for conversion.
In fact, a sampling of Asian American-identified evangelical fellowship websites reveals mission statements targeting Asian and Asian American students for outreach and membership, while simultaneously affirming a non-race-specific evangelical identity.
There is evidence that large numbers of Asian American college students are turning to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the encouragement and support of national and local prayer and Bible study organizations. Alongside the large national organizations, there are numerous local bible studies and fellowships that are often sponsored by local churches and are ethnic specific…One reason for the present renewed aggressive effort is that, unlike other Asian Americans, Hindu-Americans have staunchly resisted efforts at conversion. Also, unlike other Asian Americans who are becoming increasingly associated with evangelical Christianity on college campuses, Hindu-Americans have their own campus groups such as Hindu Students Federation.
Nevertheless, evangelical “parachurch” organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC), The Navigators, and IVCF are soliciting large numbers of students to their weekly bible studies, prayer meetings, and social events. There is no doubt that Asian Americans – especially Korean and Chinese – are becoming increasingly associated with evangelical Christianity on the college campus. The hope is that Indian-Americans will follow suit. [Link]
I don’t particularly care if someone that follows Hinduism decides to convert to Christianity. The idea that someone is born into a religion has always seemed rather silly to me, as does a notion I have previously read on our comment boards which declares that “white people can be real Hindus.” Religion should be a personal choice. In the context of America you definitely can’t accuse Evangelicals of taking advantage of poor or illiterate people. College students aren’t typically poor (although most are now illiterate). The real reason I found this article interesting is that it contained strategy advice on how-to, and how-not-to convert a Hindu.
<
p>
“Do not criticize or condemn Hinduism. …. Criticizing Hinduism can make us feel we have won an argument; it will not win Hindus to Jesus Christ…Never allow a suggestion that separation from family and/or culture is necessary in becoming a disciple of Christ. …Avoid all that even hints at triumphalism and pride. …Do not speak quickly on hell, or on the fact that Jesus is the only way for salvation. …Never hurry. Any pushing for a decision or conversion will do great harm. …. Even after a profession of Christ is made, do not force quick changes regarding pictures of gods, charms, etc. …Do not force Christian ideas into passages of Hindu scripture. … Empathize with Hindus. …. Learn to think as the Hindu thinks, and feel as he feels…. Those who move seriously into Christian work among Hindus need to become more knowledgeable in Hinduism than Hindus themselves are…A new believer should be warned against making an abrupt announcement to his or her family, since that inflicts great pain and inevitably produces deep misunderstanding……” [Link]
That’s some good stuff. It’s like finding a general’s battle plans. 🙂
Christian evangelist Rajendra Pillai of Clarksburg, Md. adds a few more specific pointers:
Pillai observes, “We can effectively reach Asian-Indians by knowing a little about their culture, beliefs and practices. First and foremost, we need to learn as much as possible about Hinduism.”
And he offers the following pointers:
“The Indian culture is highly collectivist. This means that most Indians will consider their acceptance of the Gospel in light of how it will impact their families and friends. There is also a strong possibility of being rejected by family members if a person changes his or her religion. Chances are you will not get an immediate response. Be prepared to walk with and support your Indian friend if he or she wrestles spiritually.
“As Indians come from a collectivist society and yearn for community, many will be open to coming to church if it means being a part of a community where people are genuinely concerned about each other. You might start by inviting them to less-threatening events outside of a Sunday church service.
“Most Asian-Indians yearn for community. Coming from a collectivist society, they have a tough time adjusting to the American individualistic culture. This is where Christians can step in, and the church can become the community they are seeking…” [Link]
<
p>
<
p>
Nobody better try and turn the comment section into anti-Christian rants. That isn’t what this post is about. I find strategic plans fascinating whether they be military, political, or business related. I found this article educational because it shows a religious strategy laid bare. It is also something that many of us who walk across college campuses every day see in action.
[Deleted at the request of the commenter]
I do feel that identifying oneself with a particular faith requires the prequisite of geographic affiliation. Yet, a friend of mine who is borderline atheist revealed to me once that the reason he has no “faith” is because none of the religous texts he has read relate to his personal experience of what he terms the “truth of today”. His logic is based on two things: 1) the idea that these books are historical records of the various communities relationships with the divine as revealed (and later modified) with their interaction in the physical and ideological enviornments they pass through and 2) his aversion to letting any of that historical “baggage” lay claim to who he feels he is today.
In his rejection of all these collected understandings of what is and is not “divine” (right, true, real..ect…) he puts more value in his individual percpetion of the poli and sets his life “policies” according to how he feels he will benefit the most. But the crux of all politics is that nations and their constituent communties are cycling in and out of dominance..once you set a thought someone else has a counter to it,and to make that thought.. you used resources that someone else could have used.In my conversations with him I get the feeling he sees religous affiliation as some sort of salve for human conciousness..an explananation for the tension we feel between our ID/EGO.
“..my point is that experimental results from cognitive science point to the fact that abrahamic man talks a big game about difference, but that when you get down to it abrahamic man worships the same idol as non-abrahamic man, and that this might be do to the limits of human cognitive architecture..”
Civilizations who have existed in asia have a longer track record of physicial interaction with other groups than I think most western civilizations (east of the urals) have..despite their lust to paint pictures with a thousand words..westerner’s don’t get out of their suburban bubbles very much individually and experience “otherness” relative to their daily experience. To survive as a people..a de-emphasis of individual thought governing every day decision making has enabled the survial of “non-abrahamic” folks during their eurasian migrations….this could have polarized their ID/EGO policies cocnerning decsion making opposite those of my atheist friend.
Maybe its the need to have a “comfortable/recognizable balance” between our ID/EGO in our eveyday decision making that feeds a religous affiliation ontop of geographic…that despite living in a community of loners our awareness of this difference is not unfounded..
It’s not the origin of the term that’s at issue. It’s the extent to which the term has a meaning as a member of a religious community rather than simply being geographical (or nationalistic) and how that came to be. Maybe someone who’s studying pre-modern South Asian history can elucidate 🙂
extent is a function of modernity. preliterate agriculturalists in bengal, whether muslim or hindu, shared a lot in terms of their environment and folk-ways, and so operational syncretism was the order of the day no matter the labels. but once extracted from this situation and placed in more turbulent contexts, drilled in literate methods of categorization and systemetization, and a rise in post-village identities because you don’t live in the village anymore, you get a gulf between hindu and muslim. i don’t think this is a function of just the text (now that muslims can read commentaries on shariah they see that they should ostracize their hindu neighbors as dirty kufirs), but a tendency of ‘mass society’ to great mega-tribes around a few easy to remember codas or formulaes and outward markers.
preliterate agriculturalists in bengal, whether muslim or hindu, shared a lot in terms of their environment and folk-ways, and so operational syncretism was the order of the day no matter the labels.
this is probably true, but I wouldn’t go too far with this (as some well-meaning historians looking for peace on the subcontinent are inclined to do), for while in the Hindu framework heresy is for all practical purposes nonexistent, apostasy – the complete abandonment of the frameork, has certainly been taken very seriously. And this, I would guess, applied as much in the 14th century as it does today.
eddie,
but it wouldn’t be apostasy if you still aceded to the same verbal cues and accepted ritual marker differences. my point is simply that the atomization of ‘modern’ and urban life seems to have a tendency to cyrstalize and sharpen differences bretween putative ‘world religions.’ you can see the process in south asia and southeast asia, as well as china (see the relationship of the hui to the han majority).
to be clearer: the difference between a ‘hindu’ and ‘muslim’ is to some extent an explicit distinction based on different worldviews and outward ritual markers which are publically and consciously enacted. but basal ‘religiosity’ is more implicit, cross-cultural cognitive anthropology suggests that no matter the verbal-philosophical model of god(s) promoted by the elites the same general features seem to be internalized about the supernatural agents no matter the verbal profession (e.g., christians generally acede to some pretty sophisticated greek philosophy re: essences, substances and natures re: the trinity, but operationally it seems that they imagine the same sort of god-beings as jews, muslims, hindus,e tc.). in a rural preliterate village implicit basal religiosity plays a larger role for a variety of reasons. when one moves to the modern urban context explicit religious coda, formula and ritual markers loom larger, and it is in this realm that religious difference and perception of communal identity are clearest.
Saurav,
Well, Guru Nanak famously said “There is no Hindu, no Muslim” when he began his mission in earnest, so the formal “labelling” of the group in a religious sense is 500 years old at least. But yes, you’re right in saying that someone with greater academic knowledge of South Asian history would be the best person to discuss the course of events in this regard.
Ok Rano Matthews is baiting He just asked me to turn the flame on. Shall I resist the temptation to go broader and flame his entire group from india or shall I flame him only Just in case if you wanna know who his group is, you know its the one that takes western first names as both first and last name often sticks with hindu first names(damn! from that evil philosophy)}
Or may be I should just wait till next time if such a person comes nearby with the C intention.
I will create a cool and calculated scene… I got to get a lighter and keep it w/ me and just make a note of where the toilet is(cause you never know when such assholes will sneak up on you).
I will show interest only to the point of obtaining literature in my hand, once from their i will run the show. I will take his literature and light it on fire, or flush it the toilet or urinate on it and say it with a loud and boastful tone while flexing my muscle and taking the bull stance “dude/duddette” “I love you. Its not u i hate but your hate of my spiritual force coming from my evil and empty philosophy.” and then rip out my 80s mp3 collection and play “love is a battlefield” and just remind him dude my ancestors fought the portuegese catholics over conversion tactics vile and venal. We lost for a while running into the western ghats, but came back with a vengence…Its time to do something similar.
but basal ‘religiosity’ is more implicit, cross-cultural cognitive anthropology suggests that no matter the verbal-philosophical model of god(s) promoted by the elites the same general features seem to be internalized about the supernatural agents no matter the verbal profession (e.g., christians generally acede to some pretty sophisticated greek philosophy re: essences, substances and natures re: the trinity, but operationally it seems that they imagine the same sort of god-beings as jews, muslims, hindus,e tc.).
Razib,
I always felt that if there was a primordial religion, it would be some variant of animism, in which supernatural agents are imbricated in the natural environoment, rather than abstracted and disembodied into the “God-in-the-sky,” (thats what we seem to be calling it on this thread anyway). Does that reconcile with cognitive anthropology?
Not to offend you, but, got a citation for that? I believe the sentiment behind it, given the origins of Sikhism, but I usually take all quotes from Jesus, Buddha, Guru Nanak, etc. with a grain of salt 🙂
Saurav,
i totally know where you’re coming from, but that sounds hilarious…its like asking, you got a citation for that crazy little thing called the Sermon on the Mount?
still i get where you’re coming from
much love!
Sorry, didn’t provide the answer,
other people more versed in Sikhi should answer but i believe the phrase Jai refers to is referenced in the Janam Sahkis. Its one of the more-cited phrases in the Sikh religion
much love
Sahej said :
Actually I do: Matthew Chapters 5-7 🙂
Saurav,
Sahej has correctly answered your question regarding the origin of that quote. However, it should be mentioned that, with regards to the Guru Granth Sahib (the Janam Sakhis are not a part of this), the Sikh Gurus wrote the scriptures themselves (ie. they were not compiled by third-parties and, unlike some other holy books belonging to other religions, they are not biographical accounts of their lives or, on the whole, descriptions of alleged historical events). Guru Nanak’s own writings are also included in the texts. The Guru Granth Sahib should be the first point of reference for anyone looking for “quotes” by the Gurus, as it is the most authentic source of their teachings and the final version was collated and authorised by Guru Gobind Singh himself.
However, canonical biographies of the Gurus’ lives do exist in the form of the “Sakhis”, and summaries can be found here (at least for the first 9 Gurus).
Quick addendum to my previous post:
Some other quotes and explanations of writings by the Sikh Gurus are detailed here.
Rather Interesting observation here. During my time in Australia as a student, many times the JW’s turned up at my door on saturday mornings… Nice people.. pretty whitewashed with their own ideals of saving the world thru the one and only salvation of Jesus Christ. Good Idea. Their motivation is pretty strong. Behind that smile of theirs, lies an idea of saving this heathen behind the doors from the fire of hell.
Fine.
I kinda noticed that even in Australian campuses, the christian outreach is very active.(90% of Aussies are non believers)but this small majority shows up everywhere like a full blown puffer fish. I have witnessed Indian exchange students converting to christianity. All I can afford to do is smile. For each will find their own place of peace. It a miracle how the cosmic energy worls the mind. Then the horror starts, they start befriending you just to pull you into their new found glory. Everyday without fail they would come with that little gideons in their hands and explaining the torture that is waiting for me. They way their preachers stunted their mind with all these horror stories would put clive barker to shame. Trust me on this.
Everyday, I would face Paul Saminathan and Alexander Prasad ( check their names out)in the canteen talking to chinese and indian students. Soon their number grown in size.. and for a few hindus like me… it didnt matter. What was my action??? I did the inevitable. During my semester break… i had 2 versions of the bible in my room and i wanted to study and see whats its all about. THE KJV and RSV. I realised, something is very very ackward about this hold thing. Being a business student with science background, i cannot help to notice that Joshua could kill 50,000 heathens using the jawbone of an Ass… and god (whatever it is .. no christians have a clear idea who it is) held the sun still for 3 days so Joshua could kill kill kill. Bahhahahhha…
I completed the entire bible in 1 week. Front to the back and all over again. And I asked Paul about the validity of the calim made in Joshua. To my shock, he actually believed in it.. and the funy thing.. he never believed that man ever walked on the moon. It is all a lie made by atheists to disillusion the mind of the children of christ. Thats it.
I took them personally this time. The JW’s came in and i invited them asked them many many questions that I have bookmarked in BOTH bibles. Funny how they had this blank look in their face” Show me where it is written in the bible.. I shall get back to you after consulting our head pastor”.. they never got back. I would walk past by Coles supermarket every sunday morning and could see the look in their faces.. I would go near and cough ” BullShit” loudly. Albert, my room mate ( an expired catholic) was instrumental in teaching me the bible.
As for Paul and Alex, they are now pastors i think.. somewhere in Toowong. they never went back to India.
And for a Malaysian like me, I am kinda glad, that I am free to do whatever I like, as long as I do not harm any living beings or hurting anything with or without my knowledge. I have no fear of hell fire, because simply i do not believe in the garbage that is spewed by self appointed sons and prophets of god or gods. Everything has a reason. ANd thats how the world works the way it wants to without our intervention.
There is an old saying, ” it is no use trying to defend yourself from a attacking army, but what is useful is how you can best prepare your own self to face the attack” Let the world decide. We keep our horses tied and ready.
Regarding the origin of the word “Hindu”, I believe Razib is correct; the term pre-dates European arrival in the subcontinent by many centuries and was derived from a Persian term referring to everyone in India who lived east of the River Indus (ie. Sindhu).
Err.. no its wrong. Whitemans account of the origin of hinduism is flawed as much as their Aryan Invasion theory. Persians never gave the name Hindu because there are people living on the otherside of the indus river bank. They Aryan invasion never took place as much as they would want to claim it. Aryavardhanam is a place stated in the vedas where it all took place. The seed of the civlization in india. It is no more there today.
A hindu is a person who believes in the first and most important rule of vedantic belief, that every soul is part and parcel of the cosmic energy. I would not use the the term “GOD” Because God is a wholesome humanlike character filled with all the emotions of a human being.
Hindu or Inthu are specifically used in the vedas, meaning “Atman”. The inner Inthu or atman is what makes a person a Hindu by definition. Hindus believe that. the term is probably used thousand years before any kind of invasion took place in india.
I got all this from a learned person who happens to be neurosurgeon and a practicing vedantist. Also sources from Dr. Parthasarathy’s book on vedantism.
oohhh burn on me!