Whether gospel is safe in our hands is more important question than whether Christians feel safe. In the name of false securities do we sacrifice the gospel itself? The difference between defining Christians to be a number of people believing in certain customs and traditions, and those following certain values based on the Gospel of Jesus is very significant and decisive. Identifying paths for new safety and security seems to be escaping from what the gospel is asking us. I have been noticing some arguments which represented a strange social fabric of the ecclesial vision. Accordingly, Indian Christians are only those who were baptized by St Thomas and their descendants. They must preserve and continue their traditions and customs, but not adding anyone to their group. Those joined the Christian fold during the time of the missionaries must return to their original beliefs, because their motivation was not right. Thus go the arguments. These were not the opinions of any Hindu ideology, but of many powerful social media groups of traditional St Thomas Christians. Here, ‘who are Christians?’ itself develop new definitions. But I also observed some strange views with regard to preserving family by girls marrying early, increasing number of children, even neglecting the need for education of girls. I am not sure whether our women must agree to it or whether this is what the Christian dignity would envision for girls. It is certainly possible that we may be able to manipulate the scripture and customs and make a tradition for them. But minimum education and remaining family-women contradicts the cry of the same community against social domination of other communities. Ultimately it is all about reducing the Christian community into an isolated and polarized number in society which the so called leaders can use for their bargain.
Evangelization happens by sharing one’s experience of the living presence of Jesus, and by the experience of others seeing something significantly sustaining one’s life. The initial mission has not been of intolerant domination. Faith became a definition to be believed when the emperor’s religion had to be the religion of the empire. Colonisers had it in their cultural-political interests. though some functioned as their agents, it is always notable that the missionaries stood against any form of injustice by the colonisers themselves. Those who understood the gospel of Jesus learned the good things in the lived values of people whom they met, and objected to what was against justice, truth and humanity. An arrogant proselytization would never be the mode of Jesus’ preaching of the Gospel also.
Pope Francis often spoke against proselytization, and he repeatedly says that true evangelization is by example or witness. There may be cases of imprudent cases where people are manipulated in the name of healing, economic benefit etc. But that accusation just for the sake of tarnishing Christian community is not right. Imprudent approaches may be provoking other communities, on the other side an intolerant approach is also on the growth among the fringe groups. Catholic Social approach is not being in isolation, a separate group. Some specific ideologies may be promoting such tendencies. But generally that is not the case. Genuine Christian approach cannot be pro-Hindu, pro-Jain, pro-Muslim etc. Nor it can be anti-Hindu, anti-Jain, anti-Muslim etc also. Similarly it cannot be pro-BJP, pro-Congress, Pro-AAP etc nor anti-BJP, anti-Congress, anti-AAP etc also. Basic dictum for our sociopolitical stand is to be valuing of the equal human dignity, because we are all the children of God. Any inhuman treatment irrespective of culture, religion, tribe, or cast, must pain a true Christian conscience. That is as s response from the beatitudes that Jesus offered.
No comments:
Post a Comment