Gandhi anecdote about being refused entry to a Church

[Picky_Picky]

To be frank, I think the demands for evidence are kind of silly. Why would there be evidence of such a thing? Ushers don’t generally take note of every individual they ask to leave a church, especially not in those days. There’s no reason to think that any sort of evidence should exist… If he’s telling the truth, it’s awful that that was done. If he’s not telling the truth then shame on Gandhi for lying. Either way, we can’t really know. Honestly, given the nature of British colonialism in India at the time, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

The evidence required is simply some evidence that Gandhi recounted an incident of this nature. If it’s from his autobiography, as apparently was alleged, a direct quote from his autobiography, with normal reference material, would certainly more than satisfy me: I am disposed to believe the Father of the Indian Nation unless there is proof otherwise.

But in the absence of such evidence I remain sceptical.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The evidence required is simply some evidence that Gandhi recounted an incident of this nature. If it’s from his autobiography, as apparently was alleged, a direct quote from his autobiography, with normal reference material, would certainly more than satisfy me: I am disposed to believe the Father of the Indian Nation unless there is proof otherwise.

But in the absence of such evidence I remain sceptical.

AHHH, I misunderstood the evidence being requested. I thought you were asking for evidence that the event actually occurred, not that it was in his autobiography. My bad.

 

[Brassring]

Good answer.

Yes, and that is not fair is it? Every people-group has bad examples of the group’s beliefs.

I stopped thinking in terms of fair or not fair when I turned 12.

 

[Eliza10]

I stopped thinking in terms of fair or not fair when I turned 12.

I just don’t ever stop thinking about that… justice… I admire especially St. Joseph, the just one.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I just don’t ever stop thinking about that… justice… I admire especially St. Joseph, the just one.

Justice and fairness are not necessarily the same thing. Consider two people who are dying. One led a life of objective evil, sinning constantly and rejecting God. Yet, on his deathbed, this man see the life that he has wrought and repents. He turns to God and seeks forgiveness. After a good confession the man dies. After a lengthy stint in purgatory, he is welcomed into Heaven. The other person was a holy man. He spent his life loving God and working to do His will. He only ever faltered one time, and committed a mortal sin. He never repents of this sin, either from fear or embarrassment. It is the only mortal sin he ever committed in his life but, due to the lack of repentance, when he dies he is damned.

I doubt that very many of us would say that this is fair. But it is just.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Justice and fairness are not necessarily the same thing. Consider two people who are dying. One led a life of objective evil, sinning constantly and rejecting God. Yet, on his deathbed, this man see the life that he has wrought and repents. He turns to God and seeks forgiveness. After a good confession the man dies. After a lengthy stint in purgatory, he is welcomed into Heaven. The other person was a holy man. He spent his life loving God and working to do His will. He only ever faltered one time, and committed a mortal sin. He never repents of this sin, either from fear or embarrassment. It is the only mortal sin he ever committed in his life but, due to the lack of repentance, when he dies he is damned.

I doubt that very many of us would say that this is fair. But it is just.

From my perspective it is neither fair nor just. My view would be that fairness is a necessary component of justice.

 

[Eliza10]

From my perspective it is neither fair nor just. My view would be that fairness is a necessary component of justice.

Thank you for addressing that so well.

 

[Duane1966]

From my perspective it is neither fair nor just. My view would be that fairness is a necessary component of justice.

If he never repented of that sin, is he not at enmity with God in his heart? After all, whatever led him to that one sin, he has no plans to change. So let’s say it is adultery, by not repenting, he is actually saying, God’s law is wrong on this subject.

I think it is fair, and just.

To be fair, the scenario is framed wrong. If you do not repent, you are not a holy person. But repentance is an internal act. I think the original scenario seems to be conflating repentance with confession.

 

[Picky_Picky]

If he never repented of that sin, is he not at enmity with God in his heart? After all, whatever led him to that one sin, he has no plans to change. So let’s say it is adultery, by not repenting, he is actually saying, God’s law is wrong on this subject.

I think it is fair, and just.

To be fair, the scenario is framed wrong. If you do not repent, you are not a holy person. But repentance is an internal act. I think the original scenario seems to be conflating repentance with confession.

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.

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.

 

[Contarini]

Being a Christian of Indian origin, I’ve heard this story growing up. I believe this was regarding the treatment by the British, of Indians, despite their professed Christian faith. The church of course, is the Church of England’s Church Missionary Society (which later became a founding member of the union Church of South India), which included many of the same folks running the slave trade in the British East India Company.

Do you have any documentation that members of the CMS were slave traders? The CMS was co-founded by William Wilberforce, who was of course one of the leaders of the movement to ban the slave trade, and the slave trade was abolished in British territories in 1807, only eight years after the formation of the CMS. Also, the missionaries and the East India Company generally didn’t get along very well. The Company wanted to exploit native people, not convert them. (While the two have sometimes happened together, they have more often been at odds than standard secular narratives would have us believe.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So for forum readers, the challenge is to find a source for the anecdote that actually references the autobiography (by page), or other primary source. My 1994 Evangelical author, Haddon Robinson is 86. I will email him.

I have found a version of it in E. Stanley Jones’ book Gandhi: An Interpretation, p. 54. There Jones says that Gandhi was turned away from a church where his friend C. F. Andrews (an Anglican priest) was preaching. This happened in South Africa, not India. Jones offers the story as one example of the racist atmosphere that, in his view, made it hard for Gandhi to become a Christian. He does not claim that this was the only reason or that this incident by itself was decisive.

Jones knew Gandhi personally, which of course is not a guarantee that the story is true.

There may be a better source out there. We should keep looking.

In the autobiography, Gandhi does cite some examples of Christian bad behavior and off-putting teaching, including the encounter with the “Plymouth Brother” mentioned above. (I love that story–it encapsulates my problems with “sola fide” also, even though I recognize that most proponents of sola fide don’t use it as an excuse to live lives of sin.) However, Gandhi then goes on to say that he also knew many Christians who were an excellent example, and that “my real difficulties lay elsewhere.” His basic problem was that he couldn’t accept Jesus’ unite divinity or sacrificial death. It was a doctrinal issue, not simply a matter of being put off by bad Christian behavior.

We should certainly face up to the extent to which our racism has been a stumbling block to many people, including Gandhi. But we should not trivialize and patronize Gandhi by pretending that if Christians had just been better examples he would have become a Christian. He had doctrinal reasons for rejecting Christianity. Let’s respect that instead of treating him as a sort of puppet to make moral points to each other.

Edwin

 

[MartinJordan]

I have found a version of it in E. Stanley Jones’ book Gandhi: An Interpretation, p. 54. There Jones says that Gandhi was turned away from a church where his friend C. F. Andrews (an Anglican priest) was preaching. This happened in South Africa, not India. Jones offers the story as one example of the racist atmosphere that, in his view, made it hard for Gandhi to become a Christian. He does not claim that this was the only reason or that this incident by itself was decisive.

Jones knew Gandhi personally, which of course is not a guarantee that the story is true.

There may be a better source out there. We should keep looking.

In the autobiography, Gandhi does cite some examples of Christian bad behavior and off-putting teaching, including the encounter with the “Plymouth Brother” mentioned above. (I love that story–it encapsulates my problems with “sola fide” also, even though I recognize that most proponents of sola fide don’t use it as an excuse to live lives of sin.) However, Gandhi then goes on to say that he also knew many Christians who were an excellent example, and that “my real difficulties lay elsewhere.” His basic problem was that he couldn’t accept Jesus’ unite divinity or sacrificial death. It was a doctrinal issue, not simply a matter of being put off by bad Christian behavior.

We should certainly face up to the extent to which our racism has been a stumbling block to many people, including Gandhi. But we should not trivialize and patronize Gandhi by pretending that if Christians had just been better examples he would have become a Christian. He had doctrinal reasons for rejecting Christianity. Let’s respect that instead of treating him as a sort of puppet to make moral points to each other.

Edwin

My heritage is Hinduism and being of Indian descent would never try to trivialize Gandhi plus considering he as a Lawyer (in British Law) will unlikely be putting Christianity down due to behaviors that are unbecoming. However that said if I repeat if he did say he is all religion and based the Sermon of the mount as same as the Baghavit Gita would be unbecoming of him to think so when he has supposd doctrinal problems with Christianity.

MJ

 

[Picky_Picky]

Do you have any documentation that members of the CMS were slave traders? The CMS was co-founded by William Wilberforce, who was of course one of the leaders of the movement to ban the slave trade, and the slave trade was abolished in British territories in 1807, only eight years after the formation of the CMS. Also, the missionaries and the East India Company generally didn’t get along very well. The Company wanted to exploit native people, not convert them. (While the two have sometimes happened together, they have more often been at odds than standard secular narratives would have us believe.)

Edwin

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.

As you know, the division in British policymaking towards India was between on one hand the Orientalists, who believed the culture of the East should be studied and to some extent admired, whose attitude reflects the administrative policies of, for instance, Arthur Wellesley, and of course the scholarship of William Jones, and who thought missionary activity harmful; and on the other the Westernisers, who believed India would benefit from British cultural values, Christianity, and education in English.

Many of the Orientalists could be found in the Company; the arrival of the missionaries was a success for the Westernisers. The Charter Act 1813 allowed the missionaries in and at the same time ended much of the Company’s monopolies. The Charter Act 1833 confirmed the permission for the missionaries and further restricted the Company. The CMS and the Company were thus almost automatically opposed. (The 1833 Act was promoted by Macaulay, who was not only the leading Westerniser but the son of Zachary Macaulay, a distinguished member of the Clapham Sect and a colleague of Wilberforce in the abolitionist movement).

Neither Orientalists nor Westernisers were wholly impure in their motives. Today no doubt we would find both attitudes somewhat unsavoury, or at least patronising. But certainly, as you indicate, it would be distorting history to say that Gandhi would have found the CMS and the EIC hand in hand and promoting slavery.

 

[Kielbasi]

There are a lot of invented stories about iconic persons.

that is certainly true.

However, there was a lot of segregation in the United States as well as the Union of South Africa and India back in Gandhi’s dat,

the story could have easily happened to Gandhi or one his associates

it was a real problem,even if it didn’t happen to gandhi

 

[Peter_J]

If anyone wants to say that the British, among other nations, and Anglicans, among other Christian denominations, and people of other faiths and of none, have a dreadful history of racism, I shall support them absolutely.

I don’t know if anyone’s going to say that or not, but I would guess that people know it anyhow. (Well, assuming they studied history in school.)

 

[Picky_Picky]

I don’t know if anyone’s going to say that or not, but I would guess that people know it anyhow. (Well, assuming they studied history in school.)

I would certainly hope so.

That paragraph was just a bid to forestall any suggestion that I was attempting to cover up the more unpleasant aspects of Britain’s past. (Would that I could! )

 

[Peter_J]

that is certainly true.

However, there was a lot of segregation in the United States as well as the Union of South Africa and India back in Gandhi’s day,

the story could have easily happened to Gandhi or one his associates

it was a real problem,even if it didn’t happen to gandhi

Right. Don’t read the story and say “That wasn’t the right way to treat Gandhi”; read the story and say “That wasn’t the right way to treat a human being.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

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.

As you know, the division in British policymaking towards India was between on one hand the Orientalists, who believed the culture of the East should be studied and to some extent admired, whose attitude reflects the administrative policies of, for instance, Arthur Wellesley, and of course the scholarship of William Jones, and who thought missionary activity harmful; and on the other the Westernisers, who believed India would benefit from British cultural values, Christianity, and education in English.

Many of the Orientalists could be found in the Company; the arrival of the missionaries was a success for the Westernisers. The Charter Act 1813 allowed the missionaries in and at the same time ended much of the Company’s monopolies. The Charter Act 1833 confirmed the permission for the missionaries and further restricted the Company. The CMS and the Company were thus almost automatically opposed. (The 1833 Act was promoted by Macaulay, who was not only the leading Westerniser but the son of Zachary Macaulay, a distinguished member of the Clapham Sect and a colleague of Wilberforce in the abolitionist movement).

Neither Orientalists nor Westernisers were wholly impure in their motives. Today no doubt we would find both attitudes somewhat unsavoury, or at least patronising. But certainly, as you indicate, it would be distorting history to say that Gandhi would have found the CMS and the EIC hand in hand and promoting slavery.

Whether it was the “Company” directly, or it’s later manifestation, or the CMS or its earlier or later manifestation – the project seems to have been a success, the task of divide and conquer, both politically and religiously. The Company/Crown divided and pit kings against one another, favoring and financially incentivizing some to do their bidding, while suppressing the kings that did not. The CMS/preCMS/postCMS did the same to the native Church, incentivizing protestantism and actively discouraging Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

 

[arthra]

“In his autobiography, Mahatma Gandhi wrote that during his student days he read the Gospels seriously and considered converting to Christianity”

I’ve heard that Gandhi was influenced by Leo Tolstoy and corresponded with him… Tolstoy in his later years translated the Gospels in a book entitled “The Gospel in brief”:

See:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Gospel_in_Brief

Tolstoy also corresponded with Gandhi:

mkgandhi.org/ebks/MG_Tolstoy_Letters.pdf

and

images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A86.JyBZ0mFZOXkANMMPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNWU4cGh1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–?p=letters+between+tolstoy+and+gandhi&fr=yhs-avast-001&hspart=avast&hsimp=yhs-001

 

[Picky_Picky]

Whether it was the “Company” directly, or it’s later manifestation, or the CMS or its earlier or later manifestation – the project seems to have been a success, the task of divide and conquer, both politically and religiously. The Company/Crown divided and pit kings against one another, favoring and financially incentivizing some to do their bidding, while suppressing the kings that did not. The CMS/preCMS/postCMS did the same to the native Church, incentivizing protestantism and actively discouraging Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

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?

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. 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.

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.