Treading on Toes for the Sake of the Gospel by Mark Johnson
A Review Article: The Asrama System: The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution (by Patrick Olivelle, New York, Oxford University Press, 1993) by Dayanand Bharati
Book Review:
 Communicating Christ among Hindu Peoples (George David) reviewed by H. L. Richard
Parables of Sundar Singh
Poems of Narayan Vaman Tilak

Imagine the scene: the foreign apostolos giving the local presbuteros a plate of Christmas cookies.  The presbuteros stands on his doorstep and can hardly bring himself to accept such a gesture from the foreigner who has offended him so deeply.  How did it get like this?

Let me introduce myself.  I am a European apostolos attempting to bring the gospel to the people of an urban society which has a very strong attachment to its traditional culture.  When I first came out to this part of the world I thought I was open to cultural differences and considered myself broad-minded and flexible.  But it wasn't long before the customs of the host community challenged my self-concept.  I was, after all, thoroughly a man of my culture.  It was not just the way I liked my tea.  It was everything from music to the style of prayer.  It was hard to refrain from judging every custom that was different.  After all, it was because of a false worldview wasn't it?

But another current was beginning to stream through my subconscious.  It was hard to pin down but it involved the answer to the question, Why, after so much hard work for so many years by so many dedicated men and women of God, is the church in this part of the world so pathetically weak?  And about this particular locality, Why was it that nearly everybody who did join the church was from out of town?  It slowly dawned on me that those who actually came from the city and still relate to their wider community were incredibly few and far between.  I began to ask awkward questions about some of the rules that the Christian community had accepted as part of their new sub-culture.  Why, for instance, must a woman remove the mark of marriage from her face when she became a Christian?  The answer was, invariably, that these customs were steeped in the false religion from which they had repented.  If I managed to get any discussion going with one of the church leaders then it usually ended in the air- it was not that they were opposed to the idea of contextualisation, it was just that this particular custom (whatever it was) was going too far, something we just do not do.

I was moving slowly but surely towards a more radical position.  Up to this point there had not been any real conflict.  But it couldn't last like that.  The occasion was provided by my father's death.  After checking with some local friends I decided to wear white as a sign of grief, as is the local custom.  Can't be anything wrong with that, can there?  But until then I had not heard of any disciple of Christ doing this.  I wanted to demonstrate my grief in a culturally appropriate way.  But what I hadn't completely accepted yet was that I was trying to operate within two distinct communities at the same time.  Surely it is not so bad that we can talk about two distinct communities?  I had always held a hope that it was not so.  But I was wrong.  It took time but eventually I had a visit from two elders of the local church I attended.  Why, they wanted to know, was I wearing white?  Well, my father died.  "This is not good".  Why?  In a nutshell their argument was that I must remove my white clothes so that the church would not be accused of promoting false teaching.

Now, I could have just complied with the request.  But I had already told hundreds of friends that I intended to go the full year, as was the custom.  Moreover, if I complied with such a ruling when the heat was turned on then how could I help my friends who are also trying to keep their relationships with their community?  I decided to resign so as not to cause any more embarrassment to the church.

But that was not the response that was expected.  The leadership of the church now had their prestige at stake.  Are they just going to let this foreigner get away with such a break of discipline?  No.  The announcement was made that I was to be shunned.  No one was to have fellowship with me.  Word quickly passed around the Christian community.  "Who does this foreigner think he is trying to tell us what to do?"  "Doesn't he know anything about the culture?"

It was a stressful time but we decided we could live with the situation.  It was necessary to give a principled defense of our position.  I would finish out the year and if nobody would have fellowship with us we would have fellowship with each other.  But, alas, it was not to be.  Two of my co-workers were also part of that same local church.  How could they continue to have any ministry if they were also having fellowship with us?  It could not continue like that.  We discussed the situation at length. Another co-worker told me that he feared the team was on the verge of breaking up.  I reluctantly gave up the wearing of white after four months.

It was hard to give it up.  People would ask me why it is so important to me to continue to wear white.  "After all," they would say, "it is not a part of your culture."  But that is what someone says who has not worn white.  Someone who has not tried to incarnate the gospel to the local people.  Someone who doesn't empathise with them.  I never ate rice as a child.  It was not a part of my culture.  But now I can hardly let a day go by without at least one plateful.  We try to adapt.  And in so doing we are changed.  It is just not good enough to say it is not a part of my culture.  But, my friends ask me, surely we mustn't offend the local Christians?  But what about the non-Christians?  It doesn't matter how often I bring up the offence that is caused to the majority community by the Christians who will not wear white; my fellow missionaries always want to stress the offence I have caused to the Christians.  Why is there so little empathy with the majority community?

So I have trodden on toes.  I am sorry for that.  But I would rather my brothers and sisters go to heaven with a few bruises than my non-Christian friends go to hell because the church trod on their toes.

     To Contents...

‘Sanyasis are parasites,’ said the then Vice-President Mr. B. D. Jatti in 1978.  The Indian Express reporting his speech said:

Who is better—the householder or the sanyasi?  Of course, the householder, according to Vice-President B. D. Jatti.  While the householder willingly renounces all that he earns to his wife and children for their love and affection, the sanyasi depends on others for his milk and fruits.  Parasites, who are a mere burden on society, are sinners.  If man has to progress, everybody must work.  This message was given by Mr. Jatti while inaugurating the 846th Basava Jayanti Celebration in Bombay on Sunday.¹

Patrick Olivelle observes that

the patient reader of this book will no doubt note that Vice-President Jatti was engaging in a debate that had been going on in Indian culture for a couple of millennia and that he was echoing rhetoric that is over 2,000 years old.  The Mahabharata already claimed that the householder was the true renouncer, the true "eater of what is left over".  The legitimacy of renunciation has been always at the heart of the debate on the legitimacy of celibate asramas in general and on the relative value of celibacy and marriage. ²

This book deals with the development of the classical asrama system as an attempt to resolve this age long issue of householder versus sanyasi as it came to light in early Indian society.³  Clearly no final solution was found, as the debate rages still; yet a fascinating synthesis emerged, and Olivelle uncovers lessons of invaluable worth as he works through the ‘history and hermeneutics’ of the birth of the classical asrama system.⁴

According to Olivelle, the present Varnasramadharma system (which according to Indian sociologist G. S. Ghurye is ‘almost another name for Hinduism’⁵) had a two stage development.  The first he calls the original and the second is the classical system.  The main reason for the development of this asrama system was to create a ‘structure for inclusion—for finding a place within the Brahmanical world to [sic] ideologies and ways of life that challenged many of the central doctrines and values of that world.’⁶

The role played by theologians in this process is of vital importance and must be studied separately from the socio-religious institutions (marriage, caste, sanyas) themselves.  Olivelle explains this distinction:

I am aware that social institutions themselves, such as marriage, are cultural constructs.  The distinction here is between such cultural constructs and their further theological definitions and evaluations.  The primary cultural construct, e.g., marriage, may exist as a social institution shared by all in a given society, whereas the theological construct, e.g., marriage as an asrama, may be accepted by only a subgroup within that society.  The one cannot be equated with the other.⁷

The failure to clearly make such distinctions, according to Olivelle, has plagued studies of the asramas:

the problem with many previous studies on the asramas is not their use of normative literature but that they confuse the asramas with the corresponding social institutions and attempt naively to reconstruct the history of these institutions using theological sources that deal with the asrama system.⁸

 For example,

even though the theology of the asramas did not take into account women or Sudras, we cannot conclude from it that women and/or Sudras did not participate in the institutions comprehended by that system.  As I pointed out earlier, we need to keep the asrama theology and the asrama system distinct from the institutions.  Clearly both women and Sudras got married and raised families.  There is plenty of evidence, moreover, to suggest that they also became ascetics….Their life in those institutions, however, was not given the specific theological evaluation and significance that come from incorporation into the asrama system.⁹

The asrama system in its classical development presents four stages in (high caste male) Hindu life.  But according to Olivelle this is a later development, and in the original system each asrama was conceived as a lifelong vocation and not merely a temporary stage of life:

With the formulation of the classical system we see a parallel change in the image used to illustrate the asramas.  We saw that in the literature dealing with the original system the dominant image was that of a path: the four asramas are four parallel paths leading to the same goal.  Within the classical system, however, the path is replaced by the ladder.  The four asramas form a ladder of four rungs, and climbing this ladder lets one gradually reach the highest goal.  A medieval text, in fact, cites one passage which depicts even the gods and the forefathers (pitarah) as attaining immortality by climbing the ladder of the asramas.¹⁰

This in itself is of great interest and importance, but the scholarship of Olivelle helps us to understand both the theological and historical context within which this classical asrama system was created.  In this fascinating study Olivelle takes the reader on a historical journey (based on theology and hermeneutics) that enables him/her to understand the tension between conservatism and the desire for change which are seen in every society and system.  For me chapter four is the life line of this book, where Olivelle ‘examine[s] the historical and theological factors that may have influenced the radical change that converted the original system into its classical formulation.’¹¹   He points out that

Brahmanism was essentially a ritual religion.  Ritual categories were at the heart of Brahmanical theology and its understanding of reality.  The logical, if somewhat paradoxical, result of this ritualism was that Brahmanism more than either Buddhism or Jainism, both of which had strong anti-ritualistic tendencies, defined renunciation as consisting of the abandonment of ritual activities.  Renunciation, for Brahmanism, is essentially a non-ritual state.

Significant practical and theological conclusions, moreover, derive from that premise, conclusions that have a direct impact on the asrama system.  The non-ritual state of renunciation, on the one hand, determines who is entitled to assume that state and, on the other, relates it to other non-ritual states that at first may not have been regarded as ascetic modes of life. ¹²

This Brahmanic ritualism was challenged; ‘the background against which the asrama system came into being was the conflict between the doctrines and institutions of the vedic world and those of an emerging new world with an alternative definition of reality.  Following the ideals of the one meant rejecting those of the other....’¹³  This is no novel idea but part of the traditional position as well.  Olivelle differs from the traditional position in suggesting that the new position was developed by those sympathetic to the ascetic trends:

A close reading of these early texts leads us to the conclusion that the asrama system was created not by the conservative mainstream in order to encompass in a stifling embrace new ideas and institutions that it had failed to suppress but by Brahmins who shared those ideas and ideals and who sought exegetical loopholes to introduce them into the Brahmanical mainstream.  From our examination of the debate on the asrama system within the Dharmasutras we can draw the following conclusions with some confidence.  (1) The authors of the system were Brahmins who were supporters of or sympathetic toward the ideals of celibacy and renunciation, and who belonged to what may be termed the ‘liberal’ segments of the Brahmanical community.  (2) Their purpose in creating the system was to legitimize the modes of life different from that of the householder by providing a place for them within the sphere of dharma, thereby stretching this central concept in new directions. ¹⁴

Theologians were vital to such developments, because

within Brahmanism the hermeneutical enterprise is at the heart of law and theology....Novelty in doctrine, institution, or practice was not recognized.  When new ideas and practices arose, as they were bound to, they challenged the hermeneutical ingenuity of theologians to find a basis for them in the known rules of Vedas and Smrtis.’¹⁵

It is a common phenomenon in religions that new ideas and institutions are hardly ever presented as something new.  One way of effacing their novelty is to relate them to central concepts of the old order through the hermeneutical labor of theologians and exegetes.  Even when entirely new symbolic worlds emerge, they maintain significant continuities with symbols and ideas of the ones they replace.¹⁶

the purpose of the asrama system was not to defend ‘orthodoxy’ against external assaults, principally from renunciatory institutions and ideologies.  Its purpose was rather to create a scheme within which the pivotal category of dharma could be extended to include religious modes of life different from that of the Brahmanical householder.  Its architects were—if I be permitted the use of modern political terminology—not the reactionary defenders of orthodoxy but liberal reformers bent on leading the vedic tradition in new directions.¹⁷

This study of Olivelle is a truly encyclopedic work on the asrama system.  Anyone who wants to know anything about this subject can collect all of the important information in this one single book.  In a casual way I counted 160 primary sources (all in Sanskrit) and 263 secondary sources.  Considering the time involved in this research (25 years!) I cannot think that he simply mentions them as mere sources.  The way he correctly criticizes even esteemed scholars who are considered authorities on Hinduism proves the way he has carefully studied.  In this process he does not even spare ancient theologians like Sri Samkaracharya, and says:

Samkara, for example, in his commentary on this passage (BaU 4.3.22) interprets the former [sramana] as a samnyasin and the latter [tapasa] as a vanapratha. It is always a temptation to read earlier texts in the light of later classificatory schemes in imitation of the commentators, a temptation that historians must clearly guard against.  The terms srama and tapas, as we have seen (section 1.1.1.), are often coupled in early texts to refer to two closely related sets of activities.  The derivative nouns, sramana and tapasa, very likely are similarly coupled in this passage.¹⁸

Regarding corrections of modern scholars it will suffice to quote a few examples:
 

Pandey (Hindu Samskaras: Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments, p.8) is clearly wrong when he says that ‘the Dharmasutras deal with the varnas (castes) and the asramas (stages of life).  It is under the asrama-dharmas that the rules about the Upanayana [initiation] and Vivaha [marriage] are given exhaustively.’  This is an example, as we shall see by no means unique, of reading into older texts classificatory systems from a much later period.¹⁹

It is thus improper to claim as many scholars do, for example, that the first two asramas are known from early vedic times; it is not these asramas but the institutions of vedic studentship and marriage that are so known.²⁰

The total absence of any primary sources that discuss the asramas within the context of the purusarthas make it clear that Brahmanical theology did not perceive these schemes in the same way as modern scholars do.  This much can be said with certainty: there is no historical connection between the scheme of the four purusarthas and the system of the four asramas.  At least in the present case—and, I suspect, frequently elsewhere—the juxtaposition of one set of four with another set of four is purely an act of scholarly imagination. ²¹

However, Hinduism is such a vast subject that even scholars like Olivelle who can discuss minute details and enjoy the luxury of hair splitting analysis can stumble when it comes to the ordinary details.  I found two such errors in this book.  The first is on page 41 where Olivelle, in discussing the role of the wife in performing sacrifice, quotes the Taittiriya Brahmana: ‘A man who has no wife is not entitled to sacrifice’ and illustrates this point in footnote, by the tale of Rama, who sacrificed with a golden image of Sita by his side during the period she was held captive by Ravana (Ramayana 7.91.25).’  But Rama performed the sacrifice (asvameda yajna) with the golden image of Sita after she had been sent to the forest by Rama himself (after the gossip heard about Sita from a washerman), not while she was abducted by Ravana.  (Olivelle gives the right reference, and clearly being in Uttara Kandha (part 7) it can only refer to this late stage and not the captivity in Lanka.)

The second error I noted is the footnote on page 189 in which Olivelle says ‘thus, after the death of King Pandu, his wife, Satyavati, and her two daughters-in-law became hermits (MBh 1.119.11).’  But Satyavati is not the wife of Pandu but his grandmother who is the step-mother of Bhisma and the wife of Santanu.  (On page 188 Olivelle rightly mentions Kunti and Madrii as the wives of Pandu.)  And, according to the Mahabharata as translated by M. N. Dutt, Satyavati went to the forest taking only one of her daughters-in-law (Kausalya, the mother of Pandu) after getting permission from another daughter-in-law (Ambika).²²

Perhaps as a sanyasi myself I will be excused for extending this review by a paragraph or two to defend this institution which is attacked in my opening paragraph.  At least in the classical ashram system, though not always strictly implemented, it was commonly assumed that one can become a sanyasi only after clearing the debts (see note 4) with which one is born.  And after choosing that stage one cannot demand anything as a right of his institution or vocation, but has to depend on the mercy of the society (from which he cannot demand fruit and milk).  This dependency in one way is an indirect help to the householders, to clear their debts towards fellow human beings.  Further, if not all at least several major Indian scriptures were the contribution of sanyasis.  Veda-Vyasa is a good example, who is traditionally considered the one who compiled the Mahabharata.  At least from the time of Sri Samkara the sanyasis have left a considerable amount of literature, based on which still several writers and publishers are thriving and making a wonderful living.  Note that even a sanyasi is under a moral obligation to fulfill the commands of his mother, as seen in the case of Vyasa who (though a sanyasi) fathered children in his brother’s stead.

Coming to our times, sanyasis easily become scapegoats at the hands of politicians to cover-up their sins and corruption.  (While Chandraswamy was (rightly) arrested and put in jail, politicians involved with him are still not punished in any way.)  Worse still, our values (renunciation) and system are abused by people who refuse to seek an empathetic understanding.  For example, Vishal Mangalwadi fires a broad attack against our culture and values:

Our religious philosophy, in contrast [to Christianity], denies the existence of moral absolutes. Shankara's Non-dualism (Adwaita), for example, teaches us that dualism of good and evil is an illusion (Maya). Varnashram Dharma (four castes and four stages of life) teaches us that morality is relative to one's caste, to one's station in life, to the power one has. Renunciation is indeed a religious value in India. Our gurus do talk a great deal about ‘self-transcendence’.  What they mean by it, however, is ‘self-absorption’. For they insist that our ‘self’ is the Ultimate Reality.  Therefore, even our renunciation is not in public interest, but in our self-interest.  Our politicians are not able to put national interest above self-interest, because our culture has nothing like a cross, which would give us a philosophy of self-sacrifice for others. ²³

Instead of such all too common and clearly prejudicial blaming of sanyasis as parasites, it would be better to consider them as a yeast which can influence society either for good or for bad.  At least by remaining single we are indirectly helping society with population control.

Olivelle has again left a mark of indisputable scholarship in analysis of an important Indian socio-religious institution, viz. the asrama system.  In one precise volume he critically analyses the origin and development of this most important system which still holds it prominence in the life of Hindus.  Those interested in the subject need to toil (this is not an easy book) to understand both the system and the author’s hard endeavour which began in 1977-78 and ended in 1993.  This marvelous work of Olivelle will hereafter provide clear direction and guidance for any further study on the asrama system in general and about sanyasaasrama in particular in its relationship with the rest of the system.  Without referring to Olivelle any future study of the asrama system will remain incomplete.

NOTES
1.  Olivelle, p. 237, from The Indian Express, May 8, 1978.
2.  Ibid., pp. 237-38.
3.  Olivelle spells out his purpose in more detail: "My aim in this book is fourfold: to uncover the origin of the asrama system, to trace its subsequent history, to describe its relationship to other institutional and doctrinal aspects of the Brahmanical world and its position within Brahmanical theology, and to assess its significance within the history of Indian religions" (p. 4).
4.  Among many interesting points this review cannot take up is the discussion of debts in relation to the asrama system.  Note this fascinating discussion:
An important feature of the theology of debts is that a man becomes indebted by the mere fact of his birth.  This stands in sharp contrast to the normal understanding that a debt is contracted by a deliberate action of an adult.  Sayana (on SB 1.7.21) recognizes the definition of debt in this theology when he says that ‘birth alone is the cause of indebtedness’ (rnate jananam eva nimittam).  The texts do not throw any light on the mechanism through which a man falls into debt at birth.  There is no myth of origin that would give us some clues.  Unlike the Judeo-Christian doctrine of original sin, the debts one incurs at birth, on the one hand, are not caused by some act committed by one's ancestors, and, on the other, affect only twice-born males.  The manner in which debts are inherited, furthermore, contradicts the ideology of karma.  While the doctrine of karma insists that people reap what they sow, the doctrine of debts asserts that twice-born men become burdened with debts without any deliberate act on their part.  Further, even though debts are incurred immediately upon birth, the tradition is unanimous that their payment can only be made when the individual is able and qualified to do so: the payment of the debt to the seers requires vedic initiation, and the payment of the debts to gods and forefathers presupposes marriage.
It appears, therefore, that the concept of debt was given a new meaning in this theology and that it was used to illustrate and define the obligations of ritual actors—namely adult males—in the context of their relationship to significant individuals who play central roles in the vedic world.  The inhabitants of this world—including gods, ancestors, seers, and other human and non-human beings—live in a web of interdependent relationships which create reciprocal rights and obligations.  The obligations of twice-born adult males, who are the principal actors in the social world, are here singled out and defined as debts (p. 50).
...the argument from debts would remain a powerful weapon against asceticism throughout the history of Brahmanical theology (p.89).
5.  Ibid., p. 3.
6.  Ibid., p. 4.
7.  Ibid., p. 24.  Cf. p. 245: ‘A historian, I believe, has to pay attention both to the changes and their causes that constitute history and to the exegetical and interpretive techniques through which those changes were appropriated by the society.  If we ignore the latter, we will miss one of the most significant and interesting aspects of human culture and history.’
8.  Ibid., p. 33.
9.  Ibid., pp. 81-82.
10. Ibid., p. 132.
11. Ibid., p. 4.
12. Ibid., p.122.  Cf. p. 175: ‘That a man must marry and beget a son before renouncing appears to have been the theological bottom line for conservative Brahmins.’ And p. 177: ‘The primary concern of Brahmanical theology, therefore, was not that one should faithfully follow the sequence of asramas but that the obligations of the ritual religion be fulfilled before a person commits himself to a celibate life.  A householder who has paid his three debts by studying the Vedas, begetting offspring, and performing sacrifices, is thus permitted to become a renouncer immediately.  Whether or not a person becomes a hermit prior to renunciation is not an issue about which these theologians show great concern.’
13. Ibid., p. 95. Note that
the challenges to the vedic world came not just from those outside the Brahmanical tradition, such as the Buddha, but also from people within that tradition…There appear to have been tensions and rivalries between the traditional Brahmins of the villages, who were the heirs and guardians of the vedic world, and the newly urbanized Brahmins....Most urban Brahmins probably remained within their tradition, but challenged and changed it from within.  It is these changes, and not primarily the threat posed by non-Brahmanical groups as assumed by many scholars, that I believe were the catalysts for the creation of the asrama system.’ (p. 59-60)  (‘By "urbanized Brahmins" I do not means Brahmins who actually lived in cities, but those who had come under the influence of the new urban civilization, irrespective of where they actually resided’ (p. 62).
14. Ibid., p. 96.  Olivelle also contributes valuable new insights by relating these changes to the socio-economic turbulence brought on by urbanisation, as noted in footnote 13 above.
15. Ibid., p. 8.
16. Ibid., p. 100.
17. Ibid., p. 100.
18. Ibid., p. 15, emphasis added.
19. Ibid., p. 25.
20. Ibid., p. 29.
21. Ibid., p. 219.
22. Mahabharata 1.128.10-12, Dutt, M. N. (tr.), Parimal Publication, Delhi, 1988, Vol. I, p. 182.
23. This is not the place to refute all of Mangalwadi’s accusations, yet is useful to quote Olivelle who has studied properly and deserves to be heeded:
Even though Samkara undoubtedly considered at least some form of renunciation to be beyond the modes of life comprehended by the asramas, he nowhere asserts that such renouncers are not bound by conventional morality or that theirs was a totally antinomian state—a view ascribed, as we shall see, to the advaita tradition in later theological debates.  It is, furthermore, extremely unlikely that he would have espoused such a radical view... (p.227)
And, according to Edgerton, ‘This somewhat dangerous doctrine [of relative morality] is, however, not typical, and is probably to be regarded only as a strained and exaggerated manner of saying that the truly enlightened soul cannot, in the very nature of things, do an evil deed.  If he could, he would not be truly enlightened; for "he who has not ceased from evil conduct cannot attain Him (the Atman) by intelligence." (Katha U. 2.24)  This is similar to the Socratic notion that the truly wise man must inevitably be virtuous’ (Franklin Edgerton, The Bhagavad Gita: Translated and Interpreted, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1996 [1944], pp. 24-26).

Communicating Christ among Hindu Peoples

(by George David, CBMTM Publications, 1998)

reviewed by H. L. Richard

One turns with great expectation to a George David book on communication to Hindus.  Few (if any) are better qualified among evangelicals to write on such a theme.  Anticipation turns to trepidation on reading the note on introductory page v: "the material in this book is taken from a series of fourteen lectures.…"  Can a good book ever come from lecture transcripts?

Let it be said immediately that this book makes a number of points that desperately need to be made and need to be heard.  But the informal style of spoken speech, accompanied by what seems a cautious approach that fears to offend, leaves fears with this reviewer that many of these points will be missed.  For example, the author is very strong that the gospel must be presented within the Hindu jati (caste) system (pg. 19, etc.); yet he also often talks about "Christian community".  The reality that Christians immediately become new jati groups and so have rarely ever attempted to work within existing jatis is never pointed out, analysed or explained so that the author’s perspective could be clearly understood.

One wishes this were the main problem with this book.  In fact, the book is skewed throughout by strange interpretations of Hinduism, all too often taking the advaita vedanta school of philosophy as representative of all Hinduism, which it certainly is not as even this book affirms.  For example, we are told that for the Hindu "his ultimate goal is salvation, which is to come to the realization that the atman in him is Paramatma.  This is the basic frame of reference in the mind of most Hindus.  Not all Hindus are able to express it in these words, but these are their basic assumptions" (pg. 72).  This is later illustrated in a person who said "we are all going toward God."  We are told "by that they mean we are all seeking to become god" (pg. 74).  Such twisting of a person’s words to mean exactly the opposite of what they have actually said provides a good illustration of why Christian evangelism fails so badly; Christians do not seek to understand others, so why should others bother to understand Christians?

There are some shocking errors of fact, such as the statement that there are eighteen major and minor Vaishnava Puranas and another eighteen major and minor Saiva Puranas.  The Charvakas are spoken of as an existing philosophical school (they are ancient) who denied belief in the gods (true) but affirmed Vedic authority (false) and so are accepted as Hindu (anachronistic, and probably false as well).  In light of the advaitic bent of most interpretations one is nonplussed to read that Hindus believe the Vedas are given by the revelation of god (God?).  Most infuriating for the literate reader of this book are the outrageous errors of transliteration of Hindi/Sanskrit terms.  And pity the beginning reader who comes across the line "I also borrowed the book Rajio by Swami Vivekananda…"(pg. 136) and desires to find the book mentioned.  It clearly is "Raja Yoga", which the transcriber was unfamiliar with.  Clearly George David did not see this manuscript before printing or such transliteration/transcription howlers would not have appeared.

In a real sense, all the above problems and weaknesses are still only surface problems.  Two statements point to core issues that need to be addressed and worked through.  First, David affirms that "the kind of approach that I believe is most suitable for Hindus today is what is called a presuppositional apologetic approach" (pg. 110).  A detailed analysis of this is beyond the scope of this review, but let it be noted that this is the introduction of an alien and extra-biblical philosophical approach that contradicts the author’s stated desire to be contextual and incarnational.  Evangelicals will never understand Hinduism while holding to their presuppositional assumptions/affirmations about Hindu presuppositions.  Nowhere does biblical communication evidence a presuppositional apologetic approach, which is an elitist intellectualist activity far removed from the sensible life of the average person, Christian or Hindu.  Biblical communication, as affirmed in this book despite its contradiction in this theory, is person to person; warm and empathetic and holistic and contextual.

A second core issue statement that must be faced is that "the teachings of Hinduism are so contrary to the teachings of the Bible" (pg. 79).  Contrast this with R. C. Das’ observation: "All thoughtful people know that Hinduism with all its faults is very much nearer the true Christianity of Christ than [is] either Islam or western materialism."¹  One might well fault both these statements as overly hyperbolic in an attempt to make a point; yet which yields a mindset useful for fruitful interaction with Hindus?  Should bridges be built over the truths of aspects of Hindu thought (Acts 17 approach) or stones be thrown at errors in other aspects of Hindu thought?  Evangelical confrontationalism towards Hinduism does not arise from the Bible and sensitive study of Hinduism but rather from the western cultural and intellectual heritage of evangelicalism.  Until this bondage to foreign ways of thought and life is broken there is little hope of serious Hindus listening and responding to evangelical Christianity.  (It must be noted that whether what would result from such a breaking could/should/would still be called "evangelical Christianity" is very much an open question.)

The reviewer sincerely hopes that George David will take up a discussion of at least these last two points; his response would surely find a place in this publication.  In the end his book is another evidence of the total incompetence of evangelicals when faced with the complex phenomena of Hinduism.  It is imperative that George David respond to the travesty of this publication with a studied and accurate presentation of Hinduism and of issues in the challenge of biblical ministry among Hindus.  A book worthy of David’s spiritual and intellectual stature would be of great value and it is tragic indeed that this present publication is so far short of that standard.

NOTES
1.  From R. C. Das: Evangelical Prophet for Contextual Christianity, H. L. Richard (ed.), CISRS/ISPCK, 1995, pg. 49.
 
 

* Although fish spend their whole life in the salt water of the sea, yet they do not themselves become salty, because they have life in them; so the man of prayer, though he has to live in this sin-defiled world, remains free of the sinful taint, because by means of prayer his life is maintained.

* Just as the salt water of the sea is drawn upwards by the hot rays of the sun, and gradually takes on the form of clouds, and turned thus into sweet and refreshing water, falls in showers on the earth (for the sea water as it rises upwards leaves behind it its salt and bitterness), so when the thoughts and desires of the man of prayer rise aloft like misty emanations of the soul, the rays of the Sun of Righteousness purify them of all sinful taint, and his prayers become a great cloud which descends from heaven in a shower of blessing, bringing refreshment to many on the earth.

* Just as the waterfowl spends its life swimming in the water, yet when in flight its feathers are perfectly dry, so men of prayer have their abode in this world, but when the time comes for them to fly aloft they pass from this sin-polluted world and arrive without spot or stain at their everlasting home of rest.

         (From At the Master’s Feet, CLS, 1965)
 

The Lord my Father-Mother is;
Naught can I lack, since I am His.
Then wherefore should I wealth desire,
Or after empty pomp aspire?
For this world’s gold is all alloy,
Its honour but an infant’s toy,
Its fame an unsubstantial trance,
Its wisdom only ignorance.
Then, save Thyself, my God and King,
Is nothing left for coveting!
Do Thou this only gift impart –
Dwell Thou forever in my heart.
Saith Dasa, Thou Thyself O Lord,
Art Thy disciple’s sole reward.

(tr. by J. C. Winslow, from Narayan Vaman Tilak, pg. 93-94)

Say, if it please you, that all faiths are one;
  Say, if you will, they differ each from each!
I care not for these idle questionings,
  And stand beyond such wordy warfare’s reach.

To us Thy Kingdom hath appeared, O God, -
  That Realm which all religions doth comprise;
With Christ we died, with Christ we have arisen,
  And live in Thee the life that never dies.

(tr. by J. C. Winslow, from Narayan Vaman Tilak, pg. 106)

To Contents. . . .

---

Home                  Mars Hill