Anantanand Rambachan
Testimonies from a Multifaith Hearing on Conversion, Lariano (Italy), May 12-16, 2006
I want to begin my contribution to this deliberation by noting the fact that most, if not all, religious traditions, despise the convert. Like a traitor in relation to the nation-state, the convert’s action is disparaged as treasonous. The convert elicits an intensity of suspicion and hate surpassing that which is directed towards the outsider who is different and never belonged.
The reasons for the depth of hostility directed to the convert are complex and many and include the convert’s attitude to the religious community that is left behind in the embrace of a new one. At a more fundamental level, however, the convert from our tradition to another disturbs and unsettles us and our discomfort finds expression in antipathy towards the convert and the tradition that becomes his or her new home. The convert disconcerts us because the act of embracing a different religious tradition sharply challenges our settled assumptions about the adequacy and self-sufficiency of our religious worldview. Conversion disturbs by holding out the possibility that our answers are not the only ones or the only satisfactory ones. We interpret the act of conversion as one of primal rejection and, because our traditions so deeply inform our identities, we perceive the act as one of disloyalty to ourselves and to our community. Conversion engenders the sense of personal rejection and betrayal in favor of that which is strange and alien.
Rejecting the challenges and opportunities for critical self-examination of self and tradition that conversion affords, it is not surprising that our principal response is also an accusatory one. We see the convert as disloyal, but also as a childlike and immature individual who is incapable of exercising independent choice and judgment. The convert, we prefer to think, does not cross religious boundaries because of any legitimate dissatisfaction with inherited tradition or anything of intrinsic worth in the values and insights of the other tradition. We find it much easier to think of conversion as the consequence of coercion, material inducement or seduction and not as reflecting anything problematic in our tradition or worthwhile in another.
Many of us who condemn the convert do so from positions of power and privilege within our traditions. Since we experience our religious traditions as good for us, we assume that it is similarly good for all who are born into it. Through circumstances of birth and opportunity we live without ever experiencing religiously justified oppression and violence that demean and negate our dignity and self worth. We do not or do not want to see how that which is good for us may not be good for others whose experiences within our faith may be quite different. It is instructive, for example, that the largest numbers of converts from Hindu traditions to Buddhism and Christianity come from the so-called untouchable castes. Yet, Hindu responses to conversion do not reflect any significant self-critical reflection on the fact that a tradition that espouses, at least in theory, a doctrine of human equality and equal value, will be attractive to those whose dignity and self-value are systematically denied by the religious legitimization of a cruel social system. Conversion presents a challenge and opportunity for religious reform and renewal. We need to be attentive to the complexity of factors that motivate persons to convert from one religion to another and not further demean the convert by regarding him or her as a childlike individual who needs to be always protected from the lures and deceptive practices of the other.
On the other side of the picture, the covert is welcomed and celebrated in his adopted religion in ways that contrast with the treatment of those who are born into the faith. The winning of converts is represented as confirmation of religious claims to superiority and as justification of arguments for the false and/or incomplete teachings of other traditions. The convert is publicly championed as the insider who reveals authoritatively the unworthiness of the religious community that he has abandoned. He is employed as an “expert” witness in the case made against his community and, in doing so, reinforces his ostracism and alienation.
Hindu traditions urge and commend adherents to share their wisdom and insights. The Bhagavadgita (18:68-69), for example, promises the highest reward for the person who fulfills this obligation;
When he shares this deepest mystery/with others devoted to me/giving me his total devotion/ a man will come to me without doubt.
No mortal can perform/service for me that I value more/and no other man on earth will be more dear to me than he is.
The motivation for such sharing love and the conviction that the teachings of one’s tradition are universally relevant and conducive to human wellbeing. One must hope that the consequence of such sharing is that the other is persuaded to embrace these teachings by awakening to their truth and beauty. In addition, varying truth claims are vigorously argued, advocated and defended among the multiple perspectives comprising the family of Hindu traditions. This original motive has nothing to do with empire-building or political ascendancy through increasing numbers. In the late nineteenth century Swami Vivekananda undertook the hazardous and pioneering journey from India to the United States inspired by the conviction that the message of the Vedanta tradition was needed by and good for persons in the West. His path continues to be followed by Hindu teachers.
Hindu traditions, therefore, are not unfamiliar with the religious motive of sharing one’s conviction and persuading others about its validity. To claim otherwise is not be faithful to important strands of Hinduism. While traditional, it has also generated missionary movements. At the same time the traditions of India evolved a certain ethos, largely unwritten, that guided the nature of their relationships with each other. The absence of institutionalization and centralization meant that there were no organized and systematic efforts to supplant different viewpoints. Discussions among the traditions that shared significant common elements and a common culture were, on the whole, dialogical and would even result in conversion to the other’s viewpoint. Even so, persons with different religious commitments belonged to the same larger religio/cultural community where boundaries were flexible and permeable. There was no inherent negativization of the fact of religious diversity and the latter was seen as a natural reflection of the diversity of human nature and experience. A widely shared understanding of the limits of human reason and symbols resulted in the understanding that truth always exceeded the comprehension and description of any one tradition and justified relationships of theological humility.
Into this evolved ethos, aggressively proselytizing religions such as Christianity and Islam entered, in the main, as partners in political empire-building adventures. Because of this alliance with empires, these traditions came to be associated with the imperialist attitudes of the colonizer and the disdain for India’s religious expressions. Imperialist political claims were seen as finding echo in exclusive theological claims to truth, revelation and salvation and in the proclaimed hope to replace the traditions of Hinduism. Christian theology in relation to Hinduism was mission oriented.
The identification, during the colonial period, between the Christianity and the culture of the west, resulted in the experience of these as inseparable. This identity between religion and culture, along with the fear that converts may revert to ancestral practices, led to systematic efforts to define a Christian identity over and against the prevailing Hindu ones. Christian converts took on new names from the Biblical texts, renamed villages to reflect their new faith, constructed churches following the architectural models of Europe and adopted new musical forms. In many cases, converts also adopted new forms of dress and cuisine. Such forms of self-definition help a community, especially a minority one, to maintain its new identity. At the same time such deliberately sharp distinctions between self and other are a source of tension and resentment. This is especially so when the basis of such distinction is the claim also to religious superiority and when the other (Hindu) is seen as fallen and in need of religious rescue. The nature of the Christian church as a voluntary association with membership implied and necessitated boundaries and also a sharp distinction from Hindus.i This significant dimension of identity was absent entirely from Hinduism and engendered also a sharp sense of difference between self and other. Colonialism, exclusive theology, identific-ation with and adoption of missionary culture, and voluntary membership in a new religious community separated the convert from the larger community and intensified fear, resentment and suspicion. It is important that Christians take seriously the legitimate Hindu concerns about conversion and especially the concern about a Christian program for world conquest.
We can all agree that meaningful faith is not awakened and nurtured thorough aggressive proselytizing or exploitation of the vulnerability of others in conditions of tragedy and need. At the same time, the freedom to engage in religious inquiry and choice, traditionally honored in Hinduism, must be extended to other religions and the integrity of such choice needs to be respected. Although some of the long-established Christian churches in India have made theological and cultural efforts to address some of the sources of tension between our two traditions, it is also true that many of the more recent missionary organizations are conservative and evangelical in orientation and insensitive to the ethos of religious diversity in India. They perpetuate the identity of Christianity and western culture and reignite fears about colonialism with a religious face.
Concerns about proselytization have resulted in the implementation of legislation by several Indian states to prohibit conversions through coercion, allurement and fraud. In the words of the Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Bill (2006), “No person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another by the use of force, or by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet such conversion.” Although this Bill and others like it do not make the act of converting from one religion to another illegal, consensus on the meaning of terms like “force,” “allurement,” and “fraudulent,” is nearly impossible. The threat of “divine displeasure,” for example, is included in the definition of force. A tradition is unlikely to find any grounds for conversion legitimate if it lacks a spirit of self-criticism and considers itself superior in all respects to other religions.
The dependence on the state as the arbiter among religions in the matter of conversion is sad concession of our own failure to resolve the tensions in mutually acceptable ways. The empowerment of the state to intervene in matters of religious relationships, however, may, in the long run, work to the detriment of all religions. Religions it would seem flourish best when no particular tradition is privileged by the state and when they do not control or serve the state.
As already noted, Hindus can understand well the impetus to share one’s religious convictions and experiences with others since a similar impulse is commended in Hinduism. At the same time, this urge finds different expressions in the world’s religions. What particularly disturbs the Hindu is the evidence in Christianity of what seems to be an obsession with converting the entire world, a suspicion that this is the most fundamental of all Christian motives underlying all words and actions.
What we need, above all else, is a shared ethos that informs our relationships in communities of religious diversity. This ethos is one that will go beyond mere tolerance and promote active efforts to understand each other outside of proselytizing encounters. We need more opportunities to listen and to share, to ask questions and to be questioned. We need the humility and openness for mutual witness. We need relationships that can affirm the intrinsic value of the other in his or her religious uniqueness and not merely as a potential convert. We need relationships that inspire cooperative action to overcome unjust and oppressive structures of all kinds and that work to heal and transform communities through equal justice and dignity. We need relationships that reject violence and are passionately devoted to peace making. Through such mature relationships of mutual respect some of us may be challenged by the example of the other to a deeper way of being religious. Others may freely embrace another faith or reject faith altogether. In all cases we should be content and rejoice in our relationships of love and justice.
----------------------------
Dr. Anantanand Rambachan is a Professor of Religion, Philosophy and Asian Studies at Saint Olaf College, Minnesota, USA, where he has been teaching since 1985.
He is the author of several books and numerous articles and reviews in scholarly journals. A series of 25 lectures by Prof. Rambachan was transmitted around the world by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Prof. Rambachan has a deep and sustained interest in interreligous dialogue and, in particular, the dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity. He has participated in numerous consultations and meetings convened by national and international organizations concerned with interreligious issues. He has been very active in the dialogue programs of the World Council of Churches, and was Hindu guest and participant in the last three General Assemblies of the World Council of Churches in Vancouver, Canada, and Canberra, Australia and Harare, Zimbabwe.
-----------------------------
i I am indebted to Thomas Thangaraj for helping me to understand better the process of Christian identity formation in India. He traced some of the elements of this process in an unpublished paper entitled, “Who is the Other? - An Indian Christian Perspective,” delivered at a World Council of Churches “Thinking Together” Consultation, Tampa, December 2003.