Gandhi anecdote about being refused entry to a Church

[SyroMalankara]

So when you referred to the Company you weren’t referring necessarily to the Company? And when you referred to the CMS you weren’t referring necessarily to the CMS? Is that it?

No. The Company was a government sponsored monopoly, no? Then later, there was direct rule from the Crown instead of through this intermediary Company, no?

It would be better if you simply withdrew your outrageous insinuation that the CMS was linked to the promotion of slavery. Both I and Contarini (whose evidence as a professional historian should weigh with you) have asserted that the CMS was in fact founded by the leading opponents of slavery.

So noted.

The campaign against the trade, and then against slavery itself, was led in Britain by Methodists, Baptists and Quakers, and by evangelical Anglicans of the Clapham Sect; indeed it was provoked by reports from missionaries — Methodist and Baptist missionaries mainly — in the West Indies.

Slavery, Abolitionism and Empire in India, 1772-1843 By Andrea Major states that abolition attempts began in 1833, but was not criminalized until 1862, and even then rarely enforced (p. 9). It also states that, while the West Indian trade was being criticized, very little was mentioned about East India slavery (p. 249).

theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/27/britain-slave-trade

Also:

In fact, eighteenth century Europeans, including some Britons, were involved in buying, selling and exporting Indian slaves, transferring them around the subcontinent or to European slave colonies across the globe. Morever, many eighteenth century European households in India included domestic slaves, with the owners’ right of property over them being upheld in law. Thus, although both colonial observers and subsequent historians usually represent South Asian slavery as an indigenous institution, with which the British were only concenred as colonial reforms, until the end of the eighteenth century Europeans were deeply implicated in both slave-holding and slave-trading in the region.
— Slavery, Abolitionism and Empire in India, 1772-1843

So what are you saying now? That British ambitions in India changed from the purely mercantile to expansionist imperialism? Of course. That the aim of the CMS was not the conversion of Indians to Christianity but rather the oppression of Catholics? Nonsense. Or, rather, show us your evidence.

The aim of the Crown, with the support of the church and the company/trade was imperialism, both religious and of course financial. The fact that the missions helped divide the Catholic region, and also create various sects of protestantisms only helped the Crown further it’s financial goals. Why else would these learned missionaries refuse to include the Deuterocanonical texts when they offered to translate the Peshitto into the native language? Why did they give financial incentives for the locals to divide the Syriac community, as well as create a western rite Anglican church in the Syriac community?

 

[Picky_Picky]

So noted.

Not good enough, I’m afraid. Nor is your material from the 18th Century of much relevance to the CMS, founded 1799.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not good enough, I’m afraid. Nor is your material from the 18th Century of much relevance to the CMS, founded 1799.

Not good enough for whom? I’m not a student in your course, so no need to grade by posts:

The original proposal for the mission came from Charles Grant and George Uday of the East India Company and the Rev. David Brown, of Calcutta, who sent a proposal in 1787 to William Wilberforce, then a young member of parliament, and Charles Simeon, a young clergyman at Cambridge University.[2] The Baptist Missionary Society was formed in 1792 and the London Missionary Society was formed in 1795 to represent various evangelical denominations.[2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Mission_Society

Grant opposed the Governor-General Richard Wellesley’s combative and expansionist policies in India, and later supported the unsuccessful parliamentary move to impeach Wellesley. Grant saw Indian society as not only heathen, but also as corrupt and uncivilised. He was appalled by such native customs as exposing the sick, burning lepers, and sati. He believed that Britain’s duty was not simply to expand its rule in India and exploit the subcontinent for its commercial interests, but to civilise and Christianise.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grant_(British_East_India_Company

 

[Duane1966]

Well, I have no standing in considerations of this kind, although I have to say I do think your argument is somewhat contrived. I am certainly in daily breach of the Great Commandment, and although I have no expectation that I shall find myself before the judgement of God for this breach, I might of course be wrong. If I am, I should be surprised to discover that God thought I was at enmity with him in my heart, since I am aware of no such enmity.

One must ask you, at the time of one of your daily breaches, do you know you are breaching the Great Commandment at that specific time? If yes, do you feel remorse for it later? Remorse for our actions, is repentance. Now if you are saying that you willingly, with full knowledge and consent, daily break the Great Commandment, and feel no remorse, then I do not see how you can say you do not realize that there is enmity for God in your heart. See, in the scenario that was given, the person did not repent, so there could be no remorse on the part of the person in question.

Similarly, your description of the holy man of the example as an enemy of God seems to me very odd. For either of us to assert categorically how such a description would seem to a just and loving God would no doubt be to commit an impertinence.

Hmmm. At the end of the day, can we say that holy man had love for God in his heart? For he certainly did not have love for God in that one instance, of which he did not repent. And Jesus said: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." How you can say: “This person gravely sinned, felt no remorse, and is not at enmity with God in his heart.” is beyond me.

How can a just and merciful God let this person into Heaven, when this particular law of God’s, this person does not believe in?

By the way, I never said that God viewed the person as His enemy, but when we commit a mortal sin, can we say there is love for God in our hearts, if we do not repent of the sin?

 

[pat]

I thank everyone for their interest. My original question was about the source for the anecdote - not if the anecdote was true. If the anecdote was authored by Gandhi, then it will have credibility to the extent that we believe Gandhi to be generally credible on encounters of this sort.

It matters to the extent that priests (or any homilist in front of a Christian audience) should make the foundation of a accusation of hostility by a Christian to a non-Christian on a source that may be spurious.

The editorial staff at “Our Daily Bread” (the source for the 1994 quotation) acknowledged my question but did not answer it.

On my own, I acquired a 1991 book “Gandhi on Christianity” which would be the right year to be Haddon Robinson’s source for the anecdote. I will, of course, let you know if the anecdote is sourced there.

 

[Darryl_B]

There is also the possibility that the encounters are a combination of truth and the hypothetically conceived persona as a means of promoting a deliberate idea.

The reason I present this possibility is because one of Gandhi’s “encounters” is incredibly similar in content to a common atheist philosophical argument written prior to Gandhi.

 

[Picky_Picky]

One must ask you, at the time of one of your daily breaches, do you know you are breaching the Great Commandment at that specific time? If yes, do you feel remorse for it later? Remorse for our actions, is repentance. Now if you are saying that you willingly, with full knowledge and consent, daily break the Great Commandment, and feel no remorse, then I do not see how you can say you do not realize that there is enmity for God in your heart. See, in the scenario that was given, the person did not repent, so there could be no remorse on the part of the person in question.
Hmmm. At the end of the day, can we say that holy man had love for God in his heart? For he certainly did not have love for God in that one instance, of which he did not repent. And Jesus said: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." How you can say: “This person gravely sinned, felt no remorse, and is not at enmity with God in his heart.” is beyond me.

How can a just and merciful God let this person into Heaven, when this particular law of God’s, this person does not believe in?

By the way, I never said that God viewed the person as His enemy, but when we commit a mortal sin, can we say there is love for God in our hearts, if we do not repent of the sin?

You overlook, perhaps, that I am a non-believer. I am aware of what the Great Commandment says, but as a nonbeliever I do not, of course, obey it, and I feel no remorse. I have no enmity with God in my heart.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Not good enough for whom? I’m not a student in your course, so no need to grade by posts:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Mission_Society

Grant opposed the Governor-General Richard Wellesley’s combative and expansionist policies in India, and later supported the unsuccessful parliamentary move to impeach Wellesley. Grant saw Indian society as not only heathen, but also as corrupt and uncivilised. He was appalled by such native customs as exposing the sick, burning lepers, and sati. He believed that Britain’s duty was not simply to expand its rule in India and exploit the subcontinent for its commercial interests, but to civilise and Christianise.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grant_(British_East_India_Company

Your quote describes a facet of the division between Orientalists and Modernisers I mentioned in an earlier post. It indicates, correctly, that the Modernisers wanted to “civilise” and Christianise Indians. It gives no hint of your dastardly plot to subvert Catholicism.

 

[Peter_J]

I thank everyone for their interest. My original question was about the source for the anecdote - not if the anecdote was true. If the anecdote was authored by Gandhi, then it will have credibility to the extent that we believe Gandhi to be generally credible on encounters of this sort.

It matters to the extent that priests (or any homilist in front of a Christian audience) should make the foundation of a accusation of hostility by a Christian to a non-Christian on a source that may be spurious.

The editorial staff at “Our Daily Bread” (the source for the 1994 quotation) acknowledged my question but did not answer it.

On my own, I acquired a 1991 book “Gandhi on Christianity” which would be the right year to be Haddon Robinson’s source for the anecdote. I will, of course, let you know if the anecdote is sourced there.

But what makes this particular story so important? Is it the fact that the usher did it (allegedly I mean) to Gandhi rather than one of Gandhi’s non-famous kin or kith?

 

[Contarini]

Generally I agree with this, although to say the difference between the missionaries and the Company was that the Company wanted to exploit the natives is … well, perhaps a little broad brush…

You’re right–I was describing what, to a Hindu, would seem the negative behaviors of each group. My point was that the EIC was interested in economic profit and so had no particular motivation to upset the “natives” by messing with their religion. I was not denying that many EIC employees had a very genuine interest in and admiration for Indian culture (as did some missionaries).

Your account was much more accurate and nuanced.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But what makes this particular story so important? Is it the fact that the usher did it (allegedly I mean) to Gandhi rather than one of Gandhi’s non-famous kin or kith?

Gandhi is, to many Westerners, an iconic figure embodying virtue (as is Mother Teresa). Hence, for Christians his “failure” to convert is something that needs to be “explained.” Telling stories about bad Christian behavior to Gandhi gives Christians a convenient explanation for why a figure they admire did not become Christian, while also providing occasion for jeremiads about how we Christians fail to live up to the example of Jesus.

I am speaking a bit cynically, but I think such jeremiads have value. We do need to keep reminding ourselves of how far we generally fall from the standard we profess.

 

[GKC]

Gandhi is, to many Westerners, an iconic figure embodying virtue (as is Mother Teresa). Hence, for Christians his “failure” to convert is something that needs to be “explained.” Telling stories about bad Christian behavior to Gandhi gives Christians a convenient explanation for why a figure they admire did not become Christian, while also providing occasion for jeremiads about how we Christians fail to live up to the example of Jesus.

I am speaking a bit cynically, but I think such jeremiads have value. We do need to keep reminding ourselves of how far we generally fall from the standard we profess.

This sounds both convincing and rather too familiar.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Your quote describes a facet of the division between Orientalists and Modernisers I mentioned in an earlier post. It indicates, correctly, that the Modernisers wanted to “civilise” and Christianise Indians. It gives no hint of your dastardly plot to subvert Catholicism.

The CMS in Kerala did openly subvert Catholicism and Orthodoxy. That is a fact.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The CMS in Kerala did openly subvert Catholicism and Orthodoxy. That is a fact.

When someone offers me a judgement and then states that it is a fact, I see no reason to be convinced.

 

[SyroMalankara]

When someone offers me a judgement and then states that it is a fact, I see no reason to be convinced.

Believe what you want.

Claudius Buchanan offers to translate the Bible into the native language, but interestingly omits to include the Deuterocanonical texts - the Peshitto is at Cambridge if you want to examine it to see which books were given.

You’ll want to learn Malayalam to hear if from Rev. Fr. Reji Mathew, ThD, Dean of Studies at the Orthodox Seminary in Kerala: youtu.be/qBiM2cHB9e8

CMS missionaries, along with the Col. Munroe, the British Resident of Travancore also gave financial incentives, for celibate monastic Orthodox clergy to marry, see:
Philip Tovey, “Abraham Malpan and the Amended Syrian Liturgy of CMS,” Indian Church History Review 29/1 (June 1995): 52
They further created the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, by splitting the Orthodox Church in Kerala by fiat; while also “missionizing” among the Syriac Christians to make many of them western rite Anglicans.

For further proof that the Bible used by Syriac Christians in Kerala was the same to all is found in the book by His Grace Mor Dionysius Geevarghese of Vattasseril in his book titled Quintessence of Religious Doctrine.

 

[SyroMalankara]

A brief, but pretty accurate and well-cited summary:
chroniclesofmalabar.blogspot.com/2012/05/syrian-church-of-malabar-under-british.html

 

[Picky_Picky]

Believe what you want.

Claudius Buchanan offers to translate the Bible into the native language, but interestingly omits to include the Deuterocanonical texts - the Peshitto is at Cambridge if you want to examine it to see which books were given.

You’ll want to learn Malayalam to hear if from Rev. Fr. Reji Mathew, ThD, Dean of Studies at the Orthodox Seminary in Kerala: youtu.be/qBiM2cHB9e8

CMS missionaries, along with the Col. Munroe, the British Resident of Travancore also gave financial incentives, for celibate monastic Orthodox clergy to marry, see:
Philip Tovey, “Abraham Malpan and the Amended Syrian Liturgy of CMS,” Indian Church History Review 29/1 (June 1995): 52
They further created the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, by splitting the Orthodox Church in Kerala by fiat; while also “missionizing” among the Syriac Christians to make many of them western rite Anglicans.

For further proof that the Bible used by Syriac Christians in Kerala was the same to all is found in the book by His Grace Mor Dionysius Geevarghese of Vattasseril in his book titled Quintessence of Religious Doctrine.

The dispute over the status of the deutocanonical books is well known. That an Anglican clergyman should have taken a particular view of them in translation is not surprising, and does not supply evidence of any conspiracy against Catholicism.

The rest of your comment looks more interesting and I shall attempt to follow it. Thank you.

 

[GKC]

This is not a subject I have any background on, unlike other subjects which I pontificate on, all too readily. So I had to use the poor scholar’s source: google. Which is appropriate; I’m no scholar in this area, at all. But I ask:

Was this translation the one I read of: Buchanan agreeing to have it done, by the College of Fort William, for a group under Metropolitan Dionysius, who were not in communion with Rome? Around 1807?

Believe what you want.

Claudius Buchanan offers to translate the Bible into the native language, but interestingly omits to include the Deuterocanonical texts - the Peshitto is at Cambridge if you want to examine it to see which books were given.

You’ll want to learn Malayalam to hear if from Rev. Fr. Reji Mathew, ThD, Dean of Studies at the Orthodox Seminary in Kerala: youtu.be/qBiM2cHB9e8

CMS missionaries, along with the Col. Munroe, the British Resident of Travancore also gave financial incentives, for celibate monastic Orthodox clergy to marry, see:
Philip Tovey, “Abraham Malpan and the Amended Syrian Liturgy of CMS,” Indian Church History Review 29/1 (June 1995): 52
They further created the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, by splitting the Orthodox Church in Kerala by fiat; while also “missionizing” among the Syriac Christians to make many of them western rite Anglicans.

For further proof that the Bible used by Syriac Christians in Kerala was the same to all is found in the book by His Grace Mor Dionysius Geevarghese of Vattasseril in his book titled Quintessence of Religious Doctrine.

 

[Picky_Picky]

This is not a subject I have any background on, unlike other subjects which I pontificate on, all too readily. So I had to use the poor scholar’s source: google. Which is appropriate; I’m no scholar in this area, at all. But I ask:

Was this translation the one I read of: Buchanan agreeing to have it done, by the College of Fort William, for a group under Metropolitan Dionysius, who were not in communion with Rome? Around 1807?

Not my field, either. My period, and I’m familiar with a few of the actors, but not my theatre. Makes it intriguing, though.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is not a subject I have any background on, unlike other subjects which I pontificate on, all too readily. So I had to use the poor scholar’s source: google. Which is appropriate; I’m no scholar in this area, at all. But I ask:

Was this translation the one I read of: Buchanan agreeing to have it done, by the College of Fort William, for a group under Metropolitan Dionysius, who were not in communion with Rome? Around 1807?

That is correct; I’m not certain on the exact dates. However, in and out of Communion with Rome a few times, then for about 100 years in Communion with the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, who interestingly went in and out of Communion with Rome.