Syncretism of Form: Hindu Mantra’s and Christian Worship

After a fourteen-hour train ride I was tired, sweaty and needed a nap. The compound where I am teaching in Nasik, India, is a retreat center. The buildings are old, some dating back to when the British built them over 100 years ago. The bungalow is rustic, but clean. After my bucket bath I had just one hour to rest before the teaching sessions began. But I couldn’t sleep.

Less than 17 meters (50 yards) from my little room a local church youth group, probably 30 of them, were having a retreat. For the entire hour they chanted, sometimes with fervor, then dying down only to rise again, Halleluiah, HALLELUIAH, HALLELUIAH, HALLELUIAH…you get the picture. I was astounded that was all they did throughout my attempt to sleep. With hands clapping, it seemed there was a competition the girls and boys on who could shout the loudest. For one solid hour it was Halleluiah, HALLELUIAH, HALLELUIAH, HALLELUIAH. Nothing else.

I asked to my host later, “What is it with all the noise going on in that room?”

With a wry smile he said, “Baptist call it noise, others call it worship.” He did admit, however, they were extreme.

Fair enough. I get the point. On further reflection, however, the “noise” that troubled my rest I believe has a deeper missiological meaning, one that I have observed in Africa as well as India.

Form, the way people do things, is often culturally determined. How people assemble themselves around the table for supper, give and receive gifts, conduct business meetings, marriage ceremonies or bury the dead, all have a culturally prescribed form. Like “loan words,” (vocabulary borrowed from another language for communication, e.g. “safari” for travel, “daktari” for doctor or universal technological words used by all languages, i.e., Email or Internet), form of worship is often borrowed. Much of the form of Sunday morning Christian worship around the world is borrowed from the West. I can close my eyes in some churches in Delhi and hear the same praise songs I hear in the U.S. Even if the language is in Swahili, Hindi or Spanish the order of service is usually music, announcements, offering, special song and sermon. Churches that try to contextualize the form often do not move too far away from traditional/historical patterns.

Syncretism, of course, is contextualization that has crossed the line and adopts form from the host. In the Roman Catholic tradition they are often accused of syncretism in places like India who put a statute of Mary, or one of the saints, outside their churches for people to offer prayers. Across the street the Hindu’s offer prayers to statues of Shiva. With the form being same, is there a distinction in praying to idols.

Though unintended, the halleluiah chorus across from my hovel was not that different from the mantra’s of the Hindu’s. The constant repeating of a word or phrase is common to any Buddhist at their temples or the priest reciting prayers to Krishna. Do the mantras have power? Do the worshippers or God move closer to one another by the incessant repeating of words? I contend the separation of mantra of the Hindu and the Christian is so thin one could hardly discern the difference between the two.

Shouting has always been associated with casting out demons and evil spirits. The witchdoctors have been doing it for centuries, as they believe that forceful speech is the only way the spirits will respond. Power is in the chants and the more vigorous the presentation the greater the chances for overcoming evil.

I am well aware that those who hold tightly to these forms of display will disagree with this post, just as those who maintain dead liturgy continue to embrace their form of worship. I am a proponent of contextualization, but I suggest that some of the forms used here in India look and sound too much like those who venerate the gods of stone.

Is Church Growth In India An Obstacle In Reaching The Masses?

In the most recent issue of Christianity Today, Tim Stafford writes about church growth in India. The premise of his article is that the growing church is primarily among the Dalits (formerly known as "outcastes" or "untouchables,"), Other Backward Castes (OBC's) and tribal people. Stafford’s article seems to lose focus as he ends up talking about a mission hospital in the North as well as the large population of Christians in the Northeast. There are interesting statistics but, like so many such articles, numbers are sometimes guesstimates rather than reliable data. I always appreciate, however, the focus on India and missions and encourage my readers to go to this CT link as well as the YouTube clip.

My problem with this, and so many articles about church growth in India, is that it misses the larger issue of Christianity in the sub-continent. Eighty percent of the population is Hindu, fifteen percent are Muslims. Reporting that there are possibly 70 million Christians in the country, though impressive and certainly something that we Christians rejoice over, still ignores the reality that MOST of the Indian population is not being reached and there is no real strategy on how to penetrate the Hindu, Muslim, Jain or Sikh population.

One of the comments to Stafford’s article sums up the problem…Hindu’s see Dalit conversion as exploitation and a Western approach to human rights. My landlord in Delhi for four years had a disdain for Christian evangelists, as he perceived their efforts as manipulation, not a seeking after truth. Even if an upper caste Hindu, successful business professional or an educated Indian was interested in the claims of Christ, they would turn away from further investigation because the face of Jesus, as a group of Christians professionals once confessed to me, is an image of a Dalit.

The only way that Christ will be accepted by the masses in India is through a truly contextualized approach, i.e. Christ following Muslims reaching Muslims, upper caste followers of our Lord being a witness to their Hindu friends and family. Progress on this front is happening, but at a much slower pace.

Jesus was more popular with the outcastes (tax collectors, lepers, the blind) than the acceptable and respected religious leaders of his day. Some things don’t change. The caste system in India is a cultural prison that the privileged will always embrace over honest dialogue. While we are grateful that Christ is indeed the answer for the oppressed, understand that progress among the few does not translate into a mass movement to all.

The Mari People of Russia

During Soviet times the city of Yoshkar Ola in the region of Mari El was “closed,” to outsiders. Because of the sensitive work of military projects, only Russians on special assignment could enter the area and, of course the residents were locked in. After church recently, myself along with my colleagues, visited a small Mari village ten miles outside Yoshkar Ola.

The living area of the home we visited is sandwiched between the car garage on the right and a storage/utility courtyard on the left. The first floor of the house is the living area, wood plank floor, small couch, dining room table, refrigerator and bookcase. Gas and water pipes run across the walls, as well as electrical outlets. The cooking stove was in another room below the platform living space; a staircase leads up to the sleeping area. The window sill had an assortment of potted plants and as we looked across the street we were told that the snow was so high this year that they could step outside their window and walk across most of the village.

The Mari people of the Volga region of Russia have a population of roughly 500,000, a Finnish-Ugric people who are sometimes characterized as the last practicing European pagans. The Joshua Project states that there are few, if any, evangelicals among the Mari, but we were honored to have Sunday lunch (buckwheat and liver, potatoes and mushrooms, bread, pickles, cheese) with a Mari family who were believers and attend a local Baptist Church in Yoshkar Ola.

As a quasi-anthropologist I am fascinated with the culture of the Mari. Within this people group there are clans divided between the “low” (those who live in the Volga Valley) and “high” (hill) Mari population. The wife of the family proudly brought out a traditional dress of their clan and, in times past as well as traditional holidays today, clans are indentified by the different patterns of dress. I asked about marriage restrictions between clans and they said there wasn’t any, but I still wonder as all cultures have incest boundaries.

As a missiologist I am interested in what cultural boundaries can be crossed in presenting the Gospel. The Tatar people, the Mari neighbors to the east, are resistant to Russians but are more welcoming to Ukrainian’s. The Mari’s have no problem mixing with Russians but do not easily interact with Tatar’s. The pastor of the Baptist church we attended on Sunday was from Moldova.

With less than .20% evangelical Christians among the Mari, I felt privileged to be in the home of a Mari Christian family. Through rough translation we learned the eldest brother (center) came to the Lord first, who in-turn led his brothers (our host, left). While the church worldwide spends a lot of energy on programs the reality is that most people who come to Christ through family lineage and friends.

Crossing cultural boundaries in presenting the Gospel is a study of people groups. Through my partnership with Craig Ludrick and CLDI we are making in-roads in facilitating the church in understanding that the Great Commission is not just to the nations, but to every ta ethne groups in the world.

Keeping the Cynical Heart in Check

The other day a friend wrote me with a question. This person for many years was in the business world, and now is on full time staff of her church. She asked, “After so many years in ministry, how do you keep from being cynical?”

My answer was simple; I have been and remain cynical. Not only of the ministries of others, but mine as well.

I have been in full time ministry 41 years, first as a pastor in Texas, then a pioneer church planter in Kenya and now, over the past 20 years, a teacher and consultant for cross-cultural workers in several countries. I’ve seen a lot – the good, the bad and the ugly.

But wait, church work, missions and Christian ministry are not any different from any other profession touched by man. Companies are rife with waste and mismanagement; business leaders, government workers and the secular workplace are not immune from sloppy or unethical practices. I would suggest that, all things being equal, there are more reasons to be cynical of those who work outside of ministry. Churches, pastors and missionaries are an easy target for criticism because, in the mind of some, ministry should be above reproach, no, indeed perfect. There is a bit of arrogance by some outside of ministry work that somehow they “earned” their money and those in ministry are on the dole from the hard labor of working people. Though they, like all of us in this world, depend on others for their job, contract or subsidy, those who are in ministry should be more accountable.

How does one keep from being cynical in doing God’s work? I thought about this last week when in Ukraine. It was cold, I was tired and wondered, again, what is this all about? Is the work I do pleasing to the Father, or am I just doing this to justify my existence in ministry? In the grand scheme of things I wonder what impact my little efforts are having in a world of secularism, polytheism and Muslim radicalism. Cynical that anything I, or anyone in this world does, I found myself cynical of God’s management in all of this.

And then I read Hebrews chapter 3. The children of Israel were cynical of God and the leading of their pastor, Moses. As a result of their cynicism they allowed their heart to become hard, turned away from Him who delivered them from slavery and followed other gods. As a result of their cynicism they did not enter in God’s rest. Chapter 3 is all about warning against cynicism and trusting God, in spite of the situation we find ourselves. Why or how God works is not for us to judge.

Hebrews 3 is a reminder that we are not to micro-manage God. The Israelites didn’t like the way God was leading so they turned to other gods for a more hands-on approach for their lives. I can quit tithing to my church because I don’t like the way they are using “my” money; I can discontinue doing my ministry as a missionary, quit making appeals for donors to support our efforts in world evangelism because I can’t see its impact in reaching the 3.6 billion who have never met a Christian. Or, I could change my strategy; doing ministry that appeals to the fashion of present day missions that is tailored for more bang for the buck; gaining the approval of others rather than keeping to the task I believe He is leading.

When the heart becomes hard due to cynicism one will never know God’s rest when the really tough trials of losing a child or grandchild in a tragic accident, or losing every material thing in an instant due to natural calamities. We don’t have, or will we ever have, all the answers. And, while I will continue to be cynical of motives and ministry, there is a balance of the heart that must be guarded. I won’t follow other gods because I think I am wiser than Him. Skeptics die in the desert, those who continue to follow Him will enter His rest even while they are in the desert.

Vision Leadership: When Is It Too Big?

I have been working with Indian churches, agencies, colleges and seminaries for nearly 19 years. People in the states often ask me about this or that ministry on the sub-continent. I am guessing they want to know if the leader is ethical, honest and if the ministry is effective. This evaluation is specific for the Indian context, though it can certainly apply to other ministries in the other countries as well.

CAN THERE BE TOO MUCH VISION?

I asked this question recently to a board member of a significant ministry in Asia. He seemed to be genuinely surprised with the questions and answered with an emphatic “No.” The president of the organization is a gifted visionary leader and the ministry is extensive. While I celebrate visionary leadership, often, in my opinion, the vision is greater than it is able to sustain. Strength over used becomes a weakness. Vision without a means to make the vision a reality becomes a burden.

I speak from experience as I once worked for a visionary. This person is extremely gifted and his vision was insightful and even cutting edge. His foresight, however, was never able to translate into viable and efficient mission organization. I see this repeated numerous times in India. A vision of grandeur that is common here includes starting churches, training schools, colleges, orphanages (is there any India organization who doesn’t have an orphanage?), hospital, clinics and social programs to serve the poor. Any one of these things is good within themselves. The vision becomes a liability, however, as it is unsustainable. Great vision that is untenable are primarily for two reasons.

Peter Doesn’t Have Enough for Paul

The first reason for vision failure is the matter of finances. Unless the organization has a powerful fund raising system it will struggle to keep the many programs afloat. Sadly, a lot of vision ministries rob Peter to pay Paul, i.e. to keep the clinic functioning, money for the orphanage is short-changed. To pay for the school, the evangelists, who are on a stipend, don’t get paid. Several of the multifaceted operations I have seen are poorly run, with staff not being paid an adequate wage, buildings are in disrepair and even the food for students is poor. If the vision isn’t properly funded then it shouldn’t be in existence, at least, that’s my opinion.

The cynical part of me (which often dominates my thought processes) thinks that the vision for multiple programs is a scheme to draw funds from different streams. One hook catches one fish, many hooks will catch a mess, or so the theory goes. While potential donors may not be keen on supporting evangelists, they are all about “brick and mortar,” and willing to pay big bucks to donate to something they can see and touch and perhaps have a plague honoring their donation. In some cases Peter is the building project (church, or school), but Paul (the radio ministry) will survive, thanks to Peter’s windfall.

Only Chameleons Can See In Two Directions

The second problem I see of too great a vision is a divided focus. If you have too many hooks in the water (staying with my fishing metaphor), there is a tendency to look at the line that has a “nibble” while ignoring other lines in the water.

Some years back I was asked to teach in a particular college. After completing my assignment I told the principal I probably would not return to teach. Why? Because the president of the organization did not see the seminary as a priority. He certainly believes in higher education, but the many other ministries consumed his time. The result was the school was not well organized, the students were in a state of confusion and the staff grumbled about the lack of resources and bickered among themselves on who was in charge. And, since no decision of any consequence could be made without the presidents permission and he was engaged in other things, the whole campus had a feel there was no real importance in what they were doing; they were was just a part of the vision ministry and staff and students were there merely to do their job. A divided focus is a precursor of apathy.

On the positive side, I have been with organizations that had only one thrust -- church planting, training or education. Because these groups do one thing well, which is a vision within itself, the programs are effective and efficient. These ministries have their financial challenges, to be sure, but it does not have the feel that they are on the brink of disaster that I see in the programs that are trying to do everything under one grandiose vision.

The story is told of Cam Townsend, who was the founder of Wycliffe and whose vision was to do one thing well. Because of Townsend’s vision, SIL has translated the Scriptures into hundreds of languages. Personally, I am drawn to one vision done well than I am of a multifaceted vision that is done poorly.

In God’s sovereignty He can make even a sow’s ear into a silk purse, though He is unlikely to do so. It is true in multifaceted missions that orphans have come to Christ, churches have been planted and people do earn degrees in their colleges. However, I am concerned that the church in India, and indeed in many parts of the Christian world, that their divided focus in ministry makes it less likely that they will reach their nation with the message of Jesus Christ and His salvation. The vision that is a mile wide and an inch deep is not a strategic hope for a lost world.