Paul Pathickal. Christ and the Hindu Diaspora. Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2012. See here to buy the book.
In Christ and the Hindu Diaspora, Paul Pathickal discusses
ways that evangelical Christians can share the Gospel with Hindus in the
Diaspora. Pathickal provides background about the history and religion
of Hinduism. He also talks about reasons that Hindus have migrated to
the West, their experiences as immigrants, and where many of them are
religiously. He bases his knowledge about where they are religiously on
surveys.
Here are some of my thoughts about the book:
A. The section that provided background information about Hinduism
was helpful and interesting. While I have learned about Hinduism from
classes and reading, the information that Pathickal provided helped me
to place what I knew in a context. This was particularly the case with
Pathickal’s discussion of three Hindu deities. According to Pathickal,
underneath the impersonal Brahman (ultimate reality, or universal
spirit) are three deities: Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu. Brahma was the
creator, and afterwards he was inactive, so Pathickal states that Brahma
is “the least worshiped of the three gods” (page 21 of the mobi
version). Shiva is a god of destruction, but he destroys to clear the
way for new creation, and Hindu ascetics are devoted to him because they
want their lower selves to be destroyed. Vishnu is a beneficent god
and (according to Hindu legend) has appeared in many incarnations
throughout history. This description corrected misconceptions I had
about Hinduism, placed things I knew in a context, and helped me to
understand Hindu beliefs.
B. Pathickal states that, for a number of Hindus, many Hindu deities
are not as powerful in the Diaspora as they are in India. In the
Diaspora, the belief goes, Hindu deities would have to compete with
other deities on those other deities’ turf. Pathickal talks as if this
is a widespread belief among Hindus in the Diaspora, even though his own
survey indicates that it is not the majority belief among the Hindus
that were surveyed. Pathickal may be saying this to argue that a
significant number of Hindus in the Diaspora are not overly attached to
the Hindu religion, and thus they may be open to something else (i.e.,
Christianity).
C. Hinduism is often seen as a tolerant religion, one that believes
that there are many paths to the divine. One of my favorite quotes in
the book is a passage that Pathickal actually argues against: “The firm
soul hastes, the feeble tarries. All will reach the summit snows” (page
116; Pathickal cites a work by Edmund D. Soper). I was thus surprised
to learn from Pathickal’s book that many Hindus are against Hindus
converting to Christianity. They are open to including Jesus in the
pantheon of gods, but they are against Hindus rejecting the Hindu gods
to become Christians. A factor that Pathickal mentions is the
responsibility of Hindu firstborn to honor certain Hindu gods and to
support the family’s ancestors. According to Pathickal, many Hindus
have a problem when the Hindu firstborn become Christian and no longer
practice these rites.
D. Why does Pathickal believe that Christianity is true and Hinduism
is false? Pathickal occasionally uses apologetic arguments, such as
the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. Mostly, however, his argument
appears to be that Christianity can meet people’s needs better than
Hinduism can. For example, Pathickal contrasts the rather bland, vague
(from a certain perspective) afterlife of Hinduism (after one has passed
through various incarnations) with the joy that Christians think
believers will experience in the afterlife. I take some issue with
Pathickal’s arguments. For one, the fulfillment of biblical prophecies
is disputable, or at least it is not as obvious as Pathickal presumes;
many scholars argue, for example, Ezekiel foretold that events would
transpire a certain way, but they transpired in a different way.
Second, just because a belief is unattractive, does that make it false?
Some Christian apologists would contend that a belief being
unattractive may show it is true, for why would humans make it up? Why
would that not apply to the bland, vague (from a certain perspective)
afterlife that many Hindus posit? At the same time, I have to admit
that there are features of Christianity that I think are fairer or more
humane than Hinduism: Christianity lacks the caste system, for example.
E. Speaking of unattractive beliefs, Pathickal talks about the
Christian belief in hell. Pathickal addresses the fear of ex-Hindu
Christians that their ancestors are in hell for not believing in Jesus.
Pathickal assures them that we do not know what their ancestors’
eternal destiny is, but he also says that people’s ties to their family
will not matter to people as much in the afterlife. Pathickal refers to
Scriptures to support this claim (i.e., Jesus’ statement in Matthew
22:23-46 and parallels that there will be no marriage in the
resurrection, and Jesus’ statement in Matthew 12:48 and parallels that
those who do his Father’s will are his family, more so than his natural
family). But that argument does not entirely rub me the right way. If
we are on earth to become more loving, as many Christians say, why would
God want us to be less caring about our families in the afterlife?
F. Pathickal wrestles with whether Hinduism is demonic, or a fruit
of the human search for the divine. He seems open to seeing it as
demonic, in one place in the book, though he says that, out of love, a
Christian should refrain from telling Hindus that. Overall, though, his
stance appears to be to treat Hinduism as part of the human search for
God. Humans want to bridge the divide between the human and the divine,
Pathickal maintains. Pathickal also states that some of Hinduism’s
claims flow from a recognition of the truth. According to Pathickal,
the Hindu belief in multiple reincarnations before one arrives at union
with the ultimate is rooted in the knowledge that humans in their
sinfulness cannot be in the presence of a Holy God. For Pathickal,
Christians have the correct solution to that problem (i.e., atonement
provided by Christ), whereas Hindus have a false solution (i.e.,
purification through reincarnations).
G. Related to (F.), Pathickal’s approach to reincarnation aims to
build bridges with Hinduism: to contend that Hinduism is aiming at
something true or has a valid insight, yet Christianity is true. While
some may see that as rather condescending, the book would have been
better, I think, had Pathickal used that approach more often. Rather
than saying that Jesus is better than Hindu gods and heroes, as
Pathickal does, why not say that the self-sacrifice and fight against
evil by Hindu gods and heroes are done more fully by Christ?
H. Pathickal’s suggestions on how Christians can interact with
Hindus and share the Gospel with them is helpful, overall. He talks
about how Christians can be good neighbors to Hindu immigrants, who are
trying to adept to their new environment. He informs Christians about
Indian customs: for instance, he says that Christians should accept a
drink when they visit an Indian house, since Indians offer guests a
drink as an act of friendship and hospitality. Pathickal states that
Christians should attempt to clarify Christian teaching and tactfully
correct any misunderstandings Hindus have about Christianity: a number
of Hindus, he claims, judge Christianity negatively on account of how
the British acted as colonizers of India. There is nothing wrong with
being a good neighbor, knowing others’ customs, and correcting
misconceptions. I am leery of the term “friendship evangelism,” which
Pathickal uses, because it seems to me to be friendship with an agenda,
or friendship with strings attached, or friendship that treats people as
projects. I read a quote that said “friendship evangelism is neither,”
and I can identify with that! Pathickal would undoubtedly deny that he
is promoting this sort of friendship evangelism: he wants to love
others genuinely, and to let people receive Christ when they are truly
ready. Fair enough. But friendship evangelism can run into problems,
if one is not careful.
I. The book is well-written. It can be repetitive, at times:
Pathickal would discuss a topic or respond to an objection, then he
would do so again later in the book. Also, the part of the book that
presents an example of how Christians can interact with Hindus had
strengths and weaknesses. The strength was that it presented Christians
being polite and caring. The weakness was that the dialogue eventually
degenerated into a lengthy monologue in which the Christian was
presenting Christian doctrine, with little interjection from the Hindu.
Overall, I found this book to be an enjoyable and informative read.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the
publisher through BookLook Bloggers, in exchange for an honest review.