CHRISTIANS in the PUBLIC SQUARE

(Blank Page)

CHRISTIANS in the PUBLIC SQUARE

Papers from the 2nd SAIACS Consultation
Varughese John and Nigel Ajay Kumar
Edited by

SAIACS Press
BANGALORE INDIA

CHRISTIANS IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE Papers from the 2nd SAIACS Consultation SAIACS Press SAIACS, 363 Doddagubbi Cross Road Kothanur, Bangalore560077, India www.saiacs.org saiacspress@saiacs.org Copyright SAIACS 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN 13: 978-81-87712-31-2

Cover design and layout: Nigel Ajay Kumar Printed and bound by Brilliant Printers Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore

SAIACS Press is the publishing division of South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Varughese John and Nigel Ajay Kumar 1. Renaming the Powers: Christian Witness in the Public Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Christopher Hancock 2. Who is my Neighbour?: Bonded Labour as Modern-Day Slavery and How the Church Should Respond . . . . . . . . . 13 Miguel Lau and Peter Williams 3. Towards Transformative Leadership for Good Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A. S. Dasan 4. Government Service and the Christian: Lessons from a Personal Journey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 L. Shanthakumari Sunder 5. Transforming Motives: The Use and Misuse of Religion with Implications for Indian Christian Involvement in the Public Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 John Arun Kumar 6. Business as Mission: A Personal Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Daniel Devadatta 7. Education Reimagined in the Logic of the Spirit . . . . . . . . 92 Ajit A. Prasadam 8. Reverberating Higher Education: Christian Missionaries, Knowledge Society and Nation Building in South India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Sam Nesamony

9. Tertiary Education as Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Ian W. Payne 10. Ecological Dimension of Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Fanai Hrangkhuma 11. Seeking Welfare, Securing Witness: Toward a Theology of Engagement with and in the Public Sphere . . . . . . . . .166 Paul Joshua Bhakiaraj

Introduction
Varughese John and Nigel Ajay Kumar1
Christians in the public square does beg the question, what is the public square? To begin with, it ought to be distinguished from a Christian in public life, which is merely an individuals life in public, where a Christian may have a secular job. The public square, instead, is more of a forum for speech and action. It is a platform to discuss, rebuke, listen and debate. The public square is where policies are shaped, where ideologies are crafted. The public square, therefore, carries with it a technical nuance and signifies a contested space where differences and even conflicts are articulated. The historical picture of a public square takes us to the Roman Agora, where issues of public concerns were discussed and debated with the goal of arriving at a reasonable solution or at least a mutual understanding of why a solution is impossible. But today, the notion of public square is more than a literal space at the centre of town. The meaning of public square takes on greater value, as a place, any place, of importance with public access, where discussions/deliberations/action-plans take place. Thus, in this book, we have taken a more open stance to the idea of public square. We have designated it as a public arena that includes the government, judiciary, business, and even education. Every society evolves its own vision in the public square, often by robustly contesting with competing voices within. It is this matrix of voices and the rules of articulation that defines the public
Dr. Varughese John is the RZIM Chair of Apologetics and Student Dean at SAIACS. He got his Ph.D in 2006 in Kierkegaard Studies through the Philosophy department of Madras Christian College, an autonomous college of the University of Madras. He is the author of Truth and Subjectivity, Faith and History: Kierkegaards Insights for Christian Faith. Dr. Nigel Ajay Kumar is faculty in the department of Theology at SAIACS. Prior to this, he worked as a film journalist for Filmfare magazine, Mumbai. His PhD dissertation has recently been published by Pickwick imprint of Wipf & Stock under the title What is Religion?: A Theological Answer.
1

vii

viii

Christians and the Public Square

square. If the public square is the discursive space for charting the course of a society, public reasona term championed by John Rawlsis often conceived of as the vehicle delivering it. Rawls argues for the ideal of public reason:
The point of the ideal of public reason is that citizens are to conduct their fundamental discussions within the framework of what each regards as a political conception of justice based on values that the others can reasonably be expected to endorse and each is, in good faith, prepared to defend that conception so understood.2

Public reason is shaped by something more basic, such as how people think within a culture and the worldview that defines it. This could be a set of religious doctrine, ideological commitments, philosophical presuppositions, a system of moral beliefs etc., that are referred to as comprehensive doctrine (Rawls), background culture (Rawls) or a more personalized habits of the heart (Os Guinness) within a society. Should religion even be on the agenda in the public square as it is itself contested in some Western contexts, where the call is to privatize ones religion and keep it entirely outside the public sphere? Rorty, an atheistic pragmatist, wrote in his famous 1994 essay, The main reason religion needs to be privatized is that, in political discussion with those outside the relevant religious community, it is a conversation-stopper.3 Yet, Rortys argument is not that employing religious premises in public conversation violates
John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 226. 3 Richard Rorty, Religion as Conversation-Stopper, Common Knowledge 3 (1994), 3. Also see his Philosophy and Social Hope, (New York: Penguin, 1999), 171. The phrase itself Rorty borrows from Stephen Carters lament of the unfortunate American condition: One good way to end a conversation . . . is to tell a group of well-educated professionals that you hold a political position (preferably a controversial one, such as being against abortion or pornography) because it is required by your understanding of Gods will. In the unlikely event that anyone hangs around to talk with you about it, the chances are that you will be challenged on the ground that you are intent on imposing your religious beliefs on other people. And in contemporary political and legal culture, nothing is worse. Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 2324.
2

John and Kumar: Introduction

ix

a universally justifiable principle of respect; he says doing so is in bad taste.4 There are numerous voices that challenge Rortys prescription that requires one to leave his faith at the doorstep before entering into the public square. What do we do with the distinctive doctrine of a religious community, which defines who they are? Wouldnt the leaving behind of their distinctive doctrine at least to some measure mean leaving behind who they really are? The least of what the inclusion of religious doctrine within the public square would enable is that it allows public criticism of what otherwise would likely be hidden, but powerful, motivators.5 Wouldnt bringing the presuppositions of various parties potentially enrich the conversation with better understanding of each others assumptions? Wouldnt that entail a better notion of the public square? Stephen Carter argues that Rortys suggestion, if followed, only trivializes religion in that it disregards the role of religion within a democratic society.6 Wolterstorff provides an excellent critique of Rorty in his essay, An Engagement with Rorty. From the American context, he writes,
Yes indeed, religion is sometimes a menace to the freedoms of a liberal society. But the full story of how we won the freedoms we presently enjoy would give prominent place to the role of religion in the struggle; . . . . Has the prominent role of religion in the American civil rights movements already been forgotten? . . . . The truth is that pretty much anything that human beings care deeply about can be a menace to freedomincluding, ironically, caring deeply about freedom.7

Audi also asserts the importance of the religious voiceespecially of those who have a vision for human life as it ought to

Jeffrey Stout, Democracy and Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 86. 5 Edward Langerak, Religion in the Public Square, Philosophy Compass 2/1 (2007), 134. 6 See Carter, The Culture of Disbelief. 7 Nicholas Wolterstorff, An Engagement with Rorty, Journal of Religious Ethics 31/1 (2003), 133.
4

Christians and the Public Square

bewithin what is termed as a secular democracy.8 Speaking particularly to the American context, where there is a clear separation between the sacred and the secular, Audi urges for a greater role of religion in the public square by recommending an accommodative stand towards religious voices:
. . . democratic governments are of, by, and for the people. If we the people are quite properly directed by our own ideals, how can we reasonably be asked, as electors of our government or holders of its offices, to exercise restraint regarding those very ideals, and how is such restraint to be understood and realized? The question becomes even more urgent when the ideals are religious and are seen as representing divine wisdom.9

On a separate note, understanding why religion is increasingly seen as a conversation-stopper, especially in the North American context, requires an appraisal of the nature of religious expressions in that context. This may indeed be rooted in the manner in which these debates functionoften with bitter litigations and counter litigationswhich, as Os Guinness warns, reveals an inherent expectation both on the part of Christian groups and liberals for the law to deliver beyond what it is capable of. He argues, it would be futile to fight the problem through law alone, for freedom is partly guaranteed by the law, but it is enforced by the habits of the heart.10 Recognition of the limits of what the law can deliver and a refocusing of energies on changing the habits of the heart in a society may be outrageous but remains a worthy cause that demands the Christian commitment. The public square can thus be imagined as a discursive space that guarantees both personal freedom and communal/societal harmonya right of conscience and articulation of ones beliefs in a reasonable manner. Now what sort of a background culture
8 Robert Audi, Religion, Politics, and Democracy: Closing Comments and Remaining Issues, in Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate, edited by Robert Audi and Nicholas Wolter storff (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997), 174. 9 Ibid. 10 Os Guinness, Towards a Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the making of a world safe for diversity, RZIM National Conference, Hyderabad, September 2013.

John and Kumar: Introduction

xi

guarantees the thriving of personal freedoms accompanied by communal accountability? This is where the competing worldviewstheistic, atheistic, pantheistic, naturalistic-secularist imaginationshave opportunities to make a compelling case to justify how their worldview nurtures these values. One of the ways the worldview is understood is as worshipview. As Thom Wolf argues, More and more it is being recognized that at core, every worldview is a worshipview. Also, every worldview or worshipview creates what I call a worldvenue: core ways of conceiving the world result in regularized ways of conduct in the world.11 A worshipview then shapes the background culture and the habits of the heart.12 In many ways, this debate is rooted in a larger discussion about the nature of man/woman itself. We believe that the case for the Christian faith providing an attractive background culture for both the intrinsic worth of the individual and a communal accountability is significant. Intrinsic worth of the individual is upheld in the biblical conception of imago dei and via such narratives as the parable of the lost sheep.13 Moving to the Indian context, the most direct correspondence of the public square would be the maidan, and India has its own history of this public arena. Sunil Khilnani, in his The Idea of India, makes the interesting observation that public meetings were initially alien to Indias new cities.14 Eventually, in the late 19th century, the urban elite began to assemble in public for social and then

Thom Wolf, Progress-Prone and Progress-Resistant Cultures: Worldview Issues and the Baliraja Proposal of Mahatma Phule, Contemporary Social Work 1 (April 2007), 40. 12 Using Kantian categories, societies can broadly be divided into autonom ic and heteronomic types depending on where the authority rests. Autonomous societies are defined more by personal freedom or autonomy where people can choose their own government or laws. Heteronomic societies (such as China, North Korea) operate by force(s) outside the individual and the authority lies in an external government or the political power. Theonomic societies, also an anti-thesis to autonomic ones (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.), are more directly influenced by religion in that they operate within the confines and definitions that a particular religious worldview. 13 Luke 15:17. 14 Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India (London: Penguin Books, 1998), 126.
11

xii

Christians and the Public Square

political purposes in imitation of the British.15 Khilnani goes on to note that it was Mahatma Gandhi who radically redefined the public meetings for nationalist purposes.16 The public squarethe land of popular gathering and protest in Western cities, had been avoided in the architectural design of colonial cities.17 However, Gandhis mass prayer meetings and public discourses became a sign of defiance, where public meetings were aimed at spurring nationalist sentiment, accompanied, for instance, by the burning of foreign clothes. Khilnani then uses Mukul Raj Anands classic novel, Untouchable, a story based during the nationalist movement, to show how even a cricket field (the oval), the emblem of imperial civilization18 turns into a public meeting space (a public square) where change, even revolution, is proclaimed. In this part of the story, Anand describes how Men, women and children of all the different races, colours, castes and creeds, were running towards the oval . . . . there was everybody going to meet the Mahatma.19 Then, this public meeting is not aimed at discussing or even exchanging ideas, but rather to see Gandhi, almost as if the people were going to visit a deity: on the oval, was a tumult, and the thronging of the thousands who had come to worship. The eager babble of the crowd, the excited gestures, the flow of emotion, portended one thought and one thought alone in the surging crowdGandhi.20 Finally, one bystander in the story summarises the event: he has made the Hindu and Mussalmans one, 21 and by extension, the central character Bakha, the untouchable, who was witness to the event because he was part of the crowd, is also made one. Another image of the public square in the Indian context, outside the Gandhian context this time, would be the Jallianwala Bagh, in Amritsar. In 1919, a peaceful (though illegal) public
Ibid. Ibid., 127. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Mukul Raj Anand, Untouchable (Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2001), 12627. 20 Ibid., 128. 21 Ibid., 140.
15 16

John and Kumar: Introduction

xiii

meeting of men, women and children, resulted in lethal action by British troops that led to the death of close to 400 people. The Bagh today stands as a symbol of martyrdom, a public square akin to the Tiananmen Square in recent Chinese history. The uniqueness of Gandhis and the Jallianwala Baghs view of the public square, is that the focus was not, and is not, on the content of speeches expressed at the dais. Rather, the strength of the crowd, united in one cause, was and is the focus. The very act of meeting in public, then, is a transformative eventthe public square. Within this volatile context, Christian nationalist K. T. Paul famously asserted that Indian Christians must become as salt of the earth in India; they must be dissolved in their service of the nation.22 That this statement was made during a time when several Christians were anxious about their future in the soon-to-be-free nation of India, should not be missed. It was an assertion that neither political numbers nor communal identity would be the hallmark of a Christian. Rather, Christians would be seen through how they actively influenced the nation in all that they did, in all circumstances they found themselves inbe it in politics, agriculture or in a clerical job. Salt, it must be remembered, was also a political issue. Gandhi himself led the Dandi March because of it. It was precious. Certainly, not invisible. Yet there is a danger if one pushes the Christians-are-salt-ofthe-earth imagery too far; for, since independence, Christians have used the early Indian Christian call for immersive Christianity as an excuse to be invisible Christians. Today, sadly, Christians are hardly seen impacting the public space. Like common salt, available cheaply in grocery stores, Christians no longer seem to value their missional identity, nor do they have confidence about their influence. Society and culture has proved too powerful, and Christians have been happy to live in their compounds, within their own secular lives, without seeking to make an impact in the nation.
Cited in Vengal Chakkarai, Should the Indian Christian Community Continue?II. Guardian, April 14, 1932, 116. Chakkarai goes on to explain how Indian Christianity should be extinguishing itself qua community.
22

xiv

Christians and the Public Square

The question confronts us today: how can we as Christians in India be relevant in our own Indian public square, the maidan so to speak? Unlike in the American West, Indian Christians do not need to strive to preserve the religious voice in a secular (non-religious) space; because Indias secular space is religious. Yet, how can Christians, as minorities in India, bring their particular worshipview to bear on Indian society? To be fair, there have always been Christians, and there are still Christians, who have lived out their Christian worship publicly and prophetically. However, these Christians are too rare to be the rule. Generally, generations of Indian Christians, since independence, have passed by unnoticed without making an impact in India. Consequently, there is a need for Christians at large to reclaim the significance of their worship in the public square. And so, like the crowd in the Indian maidan, Christians must first of all congregate publicly! This coming together itself would be a dramatic event that would affirm that Christians were unified for a common cause, and would also affirm that there was also a measure of equality within the Church. Nevertheless, coming together is only the first step. Indian Christians must do more than just show up. The public meeting in India, today, is seen through political rallies and candlelight vigils. Christianity has to bring more to table than simply the power of the masses. And so, it is time for Christians to reclaim their vision as nation builders, not simply as a crowd in a rally, but rather by being effective agents of Gods public mission. This involves being vocal about issues that matter, in arenas that matter. For instance, there needs to be a thorough re-engagement by Indian Christians on the significance of religious freedoma discussion on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution (which has often been challenged in recent decades). The focus on religious freedom as fundamental is not merely to mitigate the debates on Christian conversions but because, as Os Guinness envisions, religious freedom is the most fundamental freedom. There are so many other issues as well. How may we enable Indian society to place the needed emphasis on personal autonomy that allays the fears of violence and victimization among its religious and ethnic minorities? How may we transform the virtues

John and Kumar: Introduction

xv

enshrined within our Constitution from being merely laws written on paper to being the habits of the heart? How can Christians extend their vision as silent witnesses to become vocal prophets to the nation? It was with this vision that the 2nd SAIACS consultation was held at SAIACS, Bangalore, in November 2011. We wanted to highlight the people who were living public lives as Christians. We also wanted to speak to the debate, engage with Christians, as to how to engage with Christianity and the public square, more effectively. The result was a set of papers that were interesting enough to warrant a larger forum for discussion. We decided to publish these papers to extend the debate beyond that of the conference alone. As editors, and as faculty representing SAIACS, we do not agree with all the contents in these articles. Neither, it must be said, do the views expressed in these articles represent the official position of any organization. Nevertheless, we are completely united with the central goal of these authors: to urge Christians to live out their lives in the public arenathe public square so to speak where issues of politics and religion, justice and law, environment and ethics, education and ideology, collide. While most of the authors are academic theologians, several of them are actively engaged in some form of public involvement that can potentially transform their spheres of influence. Others come directly from the marketplace, so to speak, and they speak candidly about their own struggles as Christian witnesses, and even suggest that right action in the public arena is a transformative event. Our first paper, from Dr. Christopher Hancock, brings to focus Walter Winks concern for addressing and changing society. Central to Wink is that Christian discourse should seek to both address and change society, and the uniqueness lies in the exploration of biblical words, like power, that can potentially affect that change. Hancock goes on to say that if Indian Christians are to speak faithfully, consistently and effectively into the Indian public square, then their words must both comfort and challenge society. Then, Mr. Miguel Lau and Mr. Peter Williams draw attention to the very real and devastating issue of bonded labour. After