In a previous article, I considered three commonly held objections to the gospel in India. Here are three more of them, along with a Christian response.
#1 The Gospel Destroys Indian Culture
In recent times, the objection that the gospel destroys Indian culture has gained ground. The gospel entails conversion of a person to a new way of life. In turn, this is perceived as a threat to local culture. Therefore, critics view all missionary and evangelistic endeavours with suspicion.
The gospel does bring a spiritual conversion. God’s grace transforms rebellious sinners into obedient children. Once we were in bondage to sin, but the power of God converts us to joyfully and freely do what is spiritually pleasing to God. Thus, when God converts a sinner, he “translates him into the state of grace” (WCF 9.4).
However, this spiritual “conversion” does not destroy the Indianness of a person or Indian culture. An Indian who decides to follow Jesus Christ remains an Indian.
Christianity celebrates Indianness by seeing it as an expression of God’s cultural mandate and common grace (Gen. 1:28). In fact, it was Christians who promoted and preserved much of Indian culture. For instance, we may consider the contribution of Christians to Indian languages and literature.
The Jesuit missionary, Constantius Beschi, compiled the first Tamil lexicon. Bishop Robert Caldwell wrote a grammar of the Dravidian languages. Meanwhile, the Anglican missionary, George Uglow Pope translated Tamil works such as Tirukkural.
In North India, Henry Martyn and John Gilchrist led the promotion of Hindustani language, which gave us modern Hindi and Urdu. Gilchrist published a Hindustani grammar and dictionary, while Presbyterian missionary Samuel Kellog wrote what became the most influential Grammar for the Hindi language.
Likewise, the Baptist missionary William Carey and his team at Serampore propagated Bengali. All this was not without opposition. When the Lutheran missionary, Bartholomäus Ziegenbalg translated the Bhakti poetry of the Tamils, the Halle mission that sent him was critical of his supposed propagation of pagan culture. Yet, the Christians were dedicated to see the vernacular languages and literature of India flourish.
Professor P. L. Rawat of Lucknow University wrote that Christian missionaries “did a creditable act by writing text-books, dictionaries, and grammar in indigenous languages and India will ever stand indebted to them for it.”
In 1968, the Tamil Nadu Government erected eight statues of the makers of Tamil culture in Marina Beach. Out of the eight men, three were foreign missionaries. Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, who was invited for the dedication, commented on this saying, “It is a nice commentary on the popular view that the only work of missionaries has been to destroy native cultures.”
#2 Christians are Hypocrites, so the Gospel Cannot Be True
In his 1925 book, The Christ of the Indian Road, the American Methodist missionary, E. Stanley Jones recounted a conversation with Mahatma Gandhi. He asked him how best to naturalise Christianity in India. Gandhi responded, “I would suggest, first, that all of you Christians, missionaries and all, must begin to live more like Jesus Christ.”
In 1927, Mahatma Gandhi repeated the sentiment. The Harvard Crimson famously quoted him by saying, “I like your Christ, but not your Christianity” and “The Christians are the most warlike people.”
Gandhi’s comments that the unChristlike attitude of many Christians made Christianity objectionable must not be dismissed as insincere or false. His views came from his firsthand experience of facing labour injustice in England, racial discrimination in South Africa, and colonial prejudice in India from men who professed to be Christians.
It is no secret that among churchgoers who profess Christianity, there are many who are hypocrites. Such people profess faith without any Christian conviction or morals. Jesus himself warned against such false men saying, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21).
Jesus and the apostles even warn of leaders in the church who would be wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15; Acts 20:29). However, the presence of hypocrites does not nullify the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The truth of Christianity does not depend on the life of its professors, but on the historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The gospel does not call us to follow flawed men. It calls us to follow the perfect Son of God, Jesus Christ.
#3 It is Unjust for Jesus Christ to Make Atonement for Sinners
Many Indians regard the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ to be an unjust act. They think so because the innocent suffer for the guilty. Swami Abhedananda, the disciple of Ramakrishna stated, “The church dogma teaches the doctrine of vicarious atonement; it horrifies the tender feelings and loving nature of the Hindus; they do not interpret this act as an act of mercy or of love on the part of the heavenly Father, but they say it was an act of cruelty and injustice on his part to allow such a sacrifice of his innocent child.”
Due to the influence of belief in karma, many Indians believe that our actions invite reward or punishment. Therefore, if anyone is to atone for their sins, it must be the individual himself, by his good works. They consider it abdicating one’s personal responsibility to rely upon someone else’s good works. Therefore, the gospel proclamation of an innocent person who pays the penalty of a guilty person rings as a great immoral act that tears apart the very fabric of justice.
However, this objection hinges on the assumption that any man by his own endeavour could satisfy God’s justice. However, what if no man can satisfy the infinite moral debt they owe to an infinitely holy God?
In the 11th century, Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote Cur Deus Homo? (Why the God man?). He argued that the atonement of Jesus Christ is a necessity to satisfy the justice of God. He wrote, “the debt was so great that while man alone owed it, only God could pay it, so that the same person must be both man and God. Thus it was necessary for God to take manhood into the unity of his person, so that he who in his own nature ought to pay and could not, should be in a person who could.”
Christ Jesus, as the God who became man, is the only one who could perfectly satisfy the just demands of God. Since he stands as a substitute for sinners, it is entirely just for the holy Christ to suffer in place of sinners: “the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Pet. 3:18). In this, there is no injustice. For Christ pays the penalty of sin, which is death (Rom. 6:23).
The resurrection of Jesus Christ reveals the satisfaction of God’s justice by the atonement of Christ (Rom. 4:25). Thus, all who receive Christ Jesus by faith have their record of moral debt which stands against them, cancelled (Col. 2:14). They must no more face the judgement of God upon sin. Therefore, the atonement of the cross is the only just way for sinners to find salvation.
