Christianity is exploding in India. By some estimates, the Indian sub-continent now hosts 58 million Christians; by other estimates, 70 million. This growth is taking place mainly among the Dalits and other “untouchables.” Tim Stafford, senior writer for Christianity Today, explains:
• To be Dalit is much worse than being poor, for no matter how much education or wealth a Dalit accumulates, he or she remains polluted, a shame on the face of the earth. Dalits are like biblical lepers, except that in mainstream Indian culture, they cannot be healed. (CT, July 2011, 29)
In practical terms, it’s no surprise that Dalits would be attracted to the freedom, forgiveness, and cleansing of the Gospel. One former Hindu and now church-planter puts it this way:
• “The Gospel is a message of deliverance, not just for heaven. It is a message of freedom. The truth is that God made man in his image.” (32)
However, the Dalit embrace of Christianity cannot be explained by just the appeal of the message. Underneath the message is a self-sacrificing God who came to die for us. While the proud and arrogant refuse to look outside the box, Christ came for the poor, rejected and marginalized (1 Cor. 1:26-29).
One Dalit woman had been barren. A Christian mysterious showed up at her door and prayed for her. She subsequently conceived a son and daughter, and when her daughter was “severely jaundiced, passing blood,” the Christian once again appeared, prayed and the daughter was healed. She confessed to Stafford that,
• “I realized that Jesus is the living God…We used to drink and every day we would fight, fight, fight. Jesus Christ brought peace to our family. I have no fear, because I have come to know the living God. I trust in him.” (29-30)
It is through the lens of weakness and desperation that our priorities can fall into place. Weakness is a canary in a coal mine. It detects the presence of gas sooner than we humans. Likewise the despised Dalit knows that their hope isn’t in meditation, psychotherapy or in any other form of self-help. It is only the “living God” who can help!
It took me years to learn this lesson. Two decades of severe depression drove me to Israel as a Zionist. I had seen five highly recommended psychologists, and each had left me worse off than the previous one. I had convinced myself that once I had immersed in Zionism, I would find meaning and purpose, and this would pull me out of my depression. Well, it didn’t, nor did my pursuit of the ideal community or lifestyle.
It seemed that only God was left. Consequently, I plagued every religious person that I met with a series of question. Finally, one friend suggested that I spend some time with an evangelistic, orthodox community, which was completely devoted to God and to bringing confused Americans to Him.
Even there, no one could answer my questions to my satisfaction. Finally, a convinced follower assured me that there was a Tzadick (a highly esteemed rabbi) in Tel Aviv who could answer all of my questions and also prove to me that the Torah was the Word of God.
This sounded like just what I was looking for. The next evening found us awaiting the Tzadick to enjoy a private consultation – a great privilege! My heart was beating uncontrollably. We sat in silence for the first minute while he studied me. Finally, the verdict came:
• “You’re not ready to study the Torah yet. There is too much confusion and restlessness in your life. Find yourself a good orthodox Jewish community, study, live the life and relax, and then we’ll talk again.”
I hadn’t even opened my mouth, and the consultation had come to an abrupt end. Even though I thought he was right about my “confusion and restlessness,” I also knew that such a prescription couldn’t address my problems. They were just too deep. Evidently, I was a loser, and I knew that I couldn’t change myself. But it seemed that neither could God. The Tzadick was of the opinion that I had to first get my life together before God could help me. If that was the case, then there was no hope for me. I left totally dejected.
Thankfully, being a “Dalit” isn’t the worst thing that can befall us. In fact, I’m now proud of it! Years later, I learned that,
• If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:31-32)
My psychotherapists and the Tzadick had all been wrong. Life didn’t depend upon my transforming myself but upon an incredible Savior, who can reach down and rescue us from whatever “pollution” we might find ourselves. He is the “Living God.”
I love what God did in your life...
ReplyDeleteAnd what He is doing in the lives of the Dalits and Untouchables in India...
And what He is doing in the lives of the missionary harvest-workers faithfully sowing seeds in India and even dying for the Gospel in India.
Pax.
Thanks Truth!
ReplyDeleteI cried my way through that article.
Not surprising that the Christian faith is spreading fastest amongst those who are predominantly ill educated and ignorant - just like the early Christians.
ReplyDeleteAnd lets not forget that Islam appears to be the fastest growing religion in the world - I guess Allah and the message of submission that Islam brings is even more "true" than that of Christianity, correct?
That adherence to Christianity is reduced as education increases is a far more interesting data point, don't you think?
Havok,
ReplyDeleteIslam is spread primarily by compulsion and their birth rates.
//Not surprising that the Christian faith is spreading fastest amongst those who are predominantly ill educated and ignorant - just like the early Christians.//
They may be ignorant about the things that you value, but I have found the "ignorant" to be the most sensible of people. May God deliver you from your arrogance and blindness to the important things.
Christianity seems predominantly spread by coercion to the downtrodden and ignorant, not those who are willing and able to approach the topic rationally.
ReplyDeleteThe ignorant are often those that are credulous and hold some ridiculous beliefs simply because they're not equipped to think critically about such things. That Christianity has always, it seems, relied upon the ignorant to spread it's message says a lot, don't you think.
Mann: May God deliver you from your arrogance and blindness to the important things.
Bringing fictional characters into the picture while making what I'm sure you would construe as a personal attack doesn't speak well of your own position. May Gandalf the White guide you to wisdom! :-P
Havok,
ReplyDeleteAnd, of course, you are the quintessence of critical thinking and can look down on others.
You talk about "coercion," but where is your documentation?
Mann: You talk about "coercion," but where is your documentation?
ReplyDeleteHow is Christianity generally spread, Daniel?
Is it through intellectual dialog in much the way that scientific knowledge is gathered and passed along, and which appears to be the best way to pass on knowledge?
No, it's seems for the most part it's through emotional appeals and promises of punishment and reward, etc. You know, things that are likely to appeal to the ignorant and downtrodden, but which aren't conducive to promoting critical thinking and the passing on of knowledge.
I'll provide "documentation" when you back up with evidence the numerous other claims you've made on this blog :-)
Havok,
ReplyDeletePresenting the benefits that we enjoy in Christ has nothing to do with coercion. Jesus also talked about them:
• Matthew 11:28-30 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhile this report is somewhat controversial in nature, the methods of the Christian missionaries cited seem to lean more towards "coercion", wouldn't you agree?
ReplyDeleteHavok,
ReplyDeleteWhether it is accurate or not, I'm sure that there were missionaries who have crossed the line. However, I have been a Christian for 35 years and have never heard of anyone recommending coercive tactics. We all know that that would be wrong. Salvation has to come from within one's own heart as a gift from God:
• Ephes. 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast.
Mann: Whether it is accurate or not, I'm sure that there were missionaries who have crossed the line.
ReplyDeleteSo you accept my point.
I dare say your claims regarding Islam are somewhat hyperbolic as well.
Mann: However, I have been a Christian for 35 years and have never heard of anyone recommending coercive tactics.
Coercion can take many forms, some benign - it seems to be very rare that a religious charity provides assistance without strings attached. Whether it is enforced indoctrination, the stick and carrot of heaven and hell, or simply teaching children their parent's faith is false, Christian missionaries and charities don't seem to be as coercion free as you seem to imply.
I've also heard that "non-belief" (atheism, agnosticism, and similar positions) is the fastest growing "belief system" in the western world (if not globally), which is a nice counterpoint to your claims - educated people willing and able to assess the claims of Christianity are less likely to adopt it.
ReplyDeleteSays a lot for those claims, don't you think? :-)
Havok,
ReplyDelete//Coercion can take many forms, some benign - it seems to be very rare that a religious charity provides assistance without strings attached. Whether it is enforced indoctrination, the stick and carrot of heaven and hell, or simply teaching children their parent's faith is false, Christian missionaries and charities don't seem to be as coercion free as you seem to imply.//
It's all a matter of what you mean by "coercion." Of course, if someone receives Christ, then there is a better chance that the mission school will want to educate him, perhaps for ministry purposes. Some will call this "coercion," but this isn't the intent.
In contrast to this, the Muslim Malaysian government tries to buy off the chiefs of the indigenous peoples in Sarawak to become Muslim. This is another matter.
Havok,
ReplyDelete//educated people willing and able to assess the claims of Christianity are less likely to adopt it.//
It is true that educated people are more likely to adopt atheism, but I don't think that it's for the reasons you give. Educated people are more monied, arrogant, and have more opportunities to get the most enjoyment out of life. For them, Christ is an unwanted weight around their neck.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMann: It is true that educated people are more likely to adopt atheism, but I don't think that it's for the reasons you give.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, since you're unable on this very blog to make a cogent case for your particular variety of Christianity, it seems rather obvious that my point may have force.
Mann: Educated people are more monied, arrogant, and have more opportunities to get the most enjoyment out of life.
Educated people have more knowledge and are more willing and able to investigate things. They also seem less likely to grab onto any "lifeline" given them, regardless of it's content.
Mann: For them, Christ is an unwanted weight around their neck.
For them (ie. me) Christ (especially of the variety peddled by folk like yourself) is a ridiculous, illogical, incoherent and fictional figure.
There seems no good reason to believe, and many reasons to not believe or to withhold belief.
In fact, studies seem to show that people seem to have a somewhat superficial attachment to religious belief.
ReplyDeleteThe more "secure" their lives are, the less they need belief in a higher power.
Havok,
ReplyDelete//Educated people have more knowledge and are more willing and able to investigate things. They also seem less likely to grab onto any "lifeline" given them, regardless of it's content.//
Although I would agree that "educated" people have this veneer, I think you'd be hard=pressed to prove your point.
Although I had worked with criminals for 15 years, and although the majority of them were from the lower socio-economic classes, I found that the people with whom I worked in the System were no more moral. They however learned to play the game with a higher degree of sophistication, without getting into trouble.
What evidence do you have that university education produces wisdom?
Havok,
ReplyDelete//studies seem to show that people seem to have a somewhat superficial attachment to religious belief.
The more "secure" their lives are, the less they need belief in a higher power.//
Even if you are right, you are just confirming what the Bible already says:
• 1 Cor. 1:26-29 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
Mann: Although I would agree that "educated" people have this veneer, I think you'd be hard=pressed to prove your point.
ReplyDeleteSo your counter claim is that an uneducated person is just as able to logically and rationally assess evidence as one who is educated. That seems quite an untenable position you hold.
Mann: What evidence do you have that university education produces wisdom?
You're introducing "wisdom", whatever you mean by that. I was simply standing by the claim that uneducated people have less access to evidence and are less able to rationally and logically process that evidence.
Mann: Even if you are right, you are just confirming what the Bible already says:
So you, the bible and I agree - Christianity is most appealing to those who are unable to assess the claims in a rational, logical and objective manner. I'm glad we could find some agreement.
I'm not sure that is something you should be proud of however :-)
Oh, and basically what you're saying, it seems, is that we should generally avoid education of people to make them more receptive to the Christian message. That position seems to be a throw back to the middle ages when it was only the priests who could read the bible, and the laity were kept ignorant and obedient. I'm not sure either of us would like a return to that sort of society (though perhaps I'm mistaken?)
ReplyDeleteHavok,
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with you that highly educated people have more evidences and tools to rationally critique the evidences.
However, this doesn't seem to translate into living a more moral life. Some of the most educated nations have cast the greatest destruction on this world.
Nor does it seem to translate into basic common sense and a wisdom for life.
I don't think that the problem is education, but what often accrues to it. Today, it is associated with secular, relativistic values that have hurt many. Depression has become an exploding problem on our campuses.
Also, the success that education often brings often produces self-righteousness, a dangerous form of denial.
I don't think that education is an obstacle for faith but the self-confidence and self-righteousness that inevitably accompanies.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWow--I don't often see this--real dialogue between obviously opposing viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate it so much when the tone of the comments remains reasonably above-board. Name-calling and cheap shots just turn me off right away.
I don't know what was in the comments of Havoc's that were taken off. I can only assume that Havoc crossed some sort of line. I encourage him to stay within generally-accepted civil bounds of conversation between reasonable people and keep on dialoging with Mann.
Once again, I enjoyed the dialogue!
Anonymous, my most recently deleted comment pointed out that Christian morality and Christian wisdom are irrelevant to the point and if/because Christianity is false, irrelevant generally.
ReplyDeleteThe previous comments pointed out that the negative view of evangelicals could be due to their vocal denial of reality (denial of solidly attested things like evolution, the age of the universe and the earth, etc).
I also pointed out that comparing a subgroup of one religion with the general population of another group didn't seem valid, and also that the greater visibility of evangelical Christians, given their greater numbers in the US than Jews and Buddhists would also skew the results.
Anon.
ReplyDeleteHavok is capable of engaging in constructive conversation but has often crossed the line. I hope that perhaps with your encouragement and also that of others he might stay on the right side of the line.
Havok,
ReplyDeleteFor the purpose of discussion, it is unprofitable to make generalizations like this:
//The previous comments pointed out that the negative view of evangelicals could be due to their vocal denial of reality (denial of solidly attested things like evolution, the age of the universe and the earth, etc).//
For one thing, I have never taken a stand on the age of the earth. For another thing, there are many atheists and agnostics who are also joining the chorus of doubts about evolution. It might be more profitable to contend about a specific feature or contention of evolution.
Mann: For the purpose of discussion, it is unprofitable to make generalizations like this:
ReplyDeleteI fail to see why, when the observation is relevant to the topic under discussion.
Mann: For one thing, I have never taken a stand on the age of the earth.
There is no "stand" to take. The evidence indicates that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old. I suspect that if you felt the bible required a different figure (say 6,000 - 10,000 years), you'd dismiss the evidence. Am I mistaken?
Mann: For another thing, there are many atheists and agnostics who are also joining the chorus of doubts about evolution.
I really don't care about who doesn't accept the theory of evolution.
The point I was making above is that Evangelicals are predisposed to dismiss strongly supported science which doesn't agree with their ideological commitments, as many do regarding evolutionary theory, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, etc.
Mann: It might be more profitable to contend about a specific feature or contention of evolution.
The sorts of features of contention which evangelicals tend to bring up are simply false. Not only that, but their replacement explanations are completely lacking (creationism and ID are quite simply non-explanations).
Daniel, do you deny that you do or would dismiss scientific evidence if (when) it conflicts with your ideology/worldview/beliefs?
ReplyDeleteHavok,
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent question. It's one that not only impacts evangelicals but everyone who holds to a paradigm that is contrary to new evidence or the present scientific consensus.
Einstein resisted Heisnburg's "indeterminancy principle." Was it because he was locked into an old, worn-out paradigm, or because he correctly perceived that this new paradigm was opposed to so many already well-established principles/findings of science?
I'm not a physicist and therefore can't answer this question. When it comes to evolution, I can speak a little more freely. I resist it, not only because it challenges many bedrock well-established spiritual principles but it also challenges many scientific principles as well.
At other times, the responsible course of action is a wait-and-see position. We hold several opposing positions/findings until perhaps they can be resolved.
Havok,
ReplyDelete//The sorts of features of contention which evangelicals tend to bring up are simply false. Not only that, but their replacement explanations are completely lacking (creationism and ID are quite simply non-explanations).//
Not everyone sees things in such a way. For instance, agnostic mathematician David Berlinski writes in his book The Devil's Delusion.
"One of the reasons that people embrace Darwinian orthodoxy with such an unholy zealousness, is just that it gives them access to power. It's as simple as that: power over education, power over political decisions, power over funding, power over the media."
I'm not sure how broadly this assessment should be applied, but many have sounded the call that evolution is an alternative religion.
Mann: Einstein resisted Heisnburg's "indeterminancy principle."
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, Einstein didn't resist QM as such, but the interpretation, hence his famous "God doesn't play dice" quote, meaning that he believed there must be a classical theory underlying QM.
In the end he was won over by the evidence - things such as Bells inequality, which demonstrate that (certain) hidden variable theories cannot be correct.
Mann: When it comes to evolution, I can speak a little more freely.
Why do you believe that?
Mann: I resist it, not only because it challenges many bedrock well-established spiritual principles but it also challenges many scientific principles as well.
What scientific principles does the unifying theory of all of biology, which has been refined and expanded upon for 150+ years, and has withstood any and all empirical and logical tests which it has been subjected to?
I expect your answer will be a complete non-issue, scientifically.
Mann: At other times, the responsible course of action is a wait-and-see position. We hold several opposing positions/findings until perhaps they can be resolved.
This would be a valid position to take regarding some questions in cosmology, and some questions within the theory of evolution/biology, but is not a valid position to take towards evolution as an overarching theory, as well as various sub-parts, such as common descent.
Mann: Not everyone sees things in such a way. For instance, agnostic mathematician David Berlinski writes in his book The Devil's Delusion.
ReplyDeleteBerlinski's claims regarding evolutionary theory have been completely discreditied.
Mann: I'm not sure how broadly this assessment should be applied, but many have sounded the call that evolution is an alternative religion.
Many have sounded that call because they're unable to discredit evolution scientifically.
You'd be better getting your information regarding evolution from someone who knows what they're talking about. Try Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God". I've heard good things about it (Miller is a devout Catholic).
Havok,
ReplyDeleteAbout evolution as a religion, even the atheist and evolutionist Michael Ruse writes,
“Evolution came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity…an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality... Evolution is a religion.”
Regarding Berlinski: Evolutionists claim that they have discredited and of the ID arguments also. However, there's a list of about 800 PH'D scientists who attest to the fact that there are major problems in the ability of evolution to explain diversity. I don't want to get into a quote-war, but just as a pre-emptive measure, here's one parting blow:
“Evolution’s influence has not been gained by displaying a knowledge of the fundamentals of modern science but by propaganda of a rather subtle nature.” A.E.Wilder-Smith
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete