|
|
 |
  |
| Sunday, 17 October 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Anti-Conversion Bill : From sin and expiation to crime and punishment by EYMARD DE SILVA WIJEYERATNE What we have written is not a story of detection of crime and punishment, but of sin and expiation (T.S. Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral)
In that context it is very necessary that the scriptural basis used by institutional churches (whether they are mushrooms or monoliths) to justify such conversions, should be set out for the benefit of non-Christians. The frenetic, nay even Gadarene, urge to convert that we see in Sri Lanka is based on a specious interpretation of Christian teaching. What are the permissible bounds of the mandate to teach and preach? If we leave aside the metaphysics that characterises a religion, its major orientation is a clearly defined code of ethics. Christians are bound by the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) (Exodus, 20:2-7 & Deuteronomy, 5:6-21) while other religions have their own code of ethics. Whereas the Decalogue constitutes the letter of the law, the teachings of Jesus Christ constitute the spirit of the law. The second commandment reads as follows, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain".
Whereas Judas accepted 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus, these lucre-luring missionaries are betraying Him by offering bribes to trivialise Him and his teachings. Jesus goes on to say, "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Matthew, 19:19). Love necessarily implies respect for the dignity and self-esteem of one's neighbour and this necessarily demands that one does not insult one's neighbour by offering bribes to change his religion. Conversions wrought with material inducements are therefore unethical by Christian standards. The final verdict is given by Jesus Christ himself, who says "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel over land and sea to win one proselyte (convert), and when he is won you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves" (Matthew 23:15). The mandate to preach, teach and baptise, which is found in Scripture is basic to the Christian faith. The following passage is an example of mandate. "All authority in heaven and earth is given to me. Therefore go disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 34:47). The right to preach and teach is common to all religions but the manner in which that right is exercised is what needs close examination and understanding. The unrelenting drive to convert people from other religions to Christianity, is evidently based on a literal interpretation of the passage in Mark (16:15-16), in which it is stated that Jesus exhorted his eleven apostles to whom he appeared after his resurrection, to go forth and preach the gospel with the dire eschatological warning that those who believe and are baptised would be saved whereas all others would be condemned. Now, the authenticity of this passage is disputed by many scripture scholars of repute, on the basis of literary style and content. Verses 9 to 20 of chapter 16 of Marks gospel are not found in two manuscripts, namely the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinnaiticus. It is deemed to be a later addition made by an over-zealous scribe of later vintage. In any event the Roman Catholic Church, though it does not explicitly take up this position, implicitly acknowledges that this passage not be taken literally, when it says: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing, which is true and holy in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of Truth which enlightens all men. Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path in which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own effort or by higher assistance" (Vatican II Document, Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate, Section. 2). Another important contribution of the Catholic Church to the subject of the mandate to teach and preach was made at the Second Vatican Council. It reads as follows. "Religious bodies also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or written word. However in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices, everyone ought, at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or a kind of persuasion that would be dishonourable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of ones own right and a violation of the rights of others". (Dignitatis Humanae Personae. Declaration on Religious Freedom, Chap. 1, Sec.4). What in essence did Jesus preach and teach Jesus preached what in the Greek language of the New Testament is called 'metanoia' (change of heart) for all people and all nations. A change of heart meant the cheerful acceptance of the human predicament that included suffering and chastening hardship, and strict adherence to clearly laid down moral principles. If we look at the passages in Matthew and Luke it becomes very clear that Jesus wanted his fellow Jews as well as others to repent (Luke 24:47 & 12:8) and Matthew (4:17). The Jews in particular who awaited the advent of a warlike Messiah saw in Jesus an emasculated version of that prototype. They were also confused by his indirect reference to himself as the Son of Man (Mark 8:31) a premonition found in the book of Daniel (7:13) and the other prophesy of him being the Suffering Servant (Isaiah, Chaps. 49-55). Christians, except the bigoted ones, do not accept the position that non-Christians are condemned because such a narrow view is not consonant with overall tenor of Christ's teaching. Liberation or salvation or disentanglement from the cloying stream of sensory experience is open to every human being. Considerable satisfaction is to be gained in looking forward to a shared future in a better land we know as described in the popular Negro Spiritual, Old Black Joe: "Gone are the days when my heart was young and gay Gone are my friends from the cotton fields away, Gone from the earth to a better land I know" The numbers game - a marketing proposition Jesus did not baptise anyone (John 4: 2) but submitted to baptism by John the Baptist as a symbolic expression of his humility and as an example to those who were present that it was to be the sign and symbol of repentance and a commitment to the will of God. Jesus did not baptise because his mission was not directed solely at increasing the number of his followers. Unethical conversions are no more than adding to the numbers of an epistemic community (a community that accepts a common position as matter of feathering its collective nest). This approach is the same as that of a company striving to increase the number of its customers. This is what an authority on Judaism has to say on the subject; "Today, many biblical scholars recognise that Jesus was a pious Jew, living as he did with other Jews, according to the law of Moses as it was practised in his days, and that he recommended this religious way of life to his disciples. It is also generally accepted that Jesus did not preach a new religion". (The Jewish-Christian Schism, David Flusser Professor of Judaism, Hebrew University). The right to profess and practise ones religion I do not dispute the fact that articles 10 and 14 (1) (e) of the Constitution guarantee religious freedom. Article 10 reads as follows, "Every person is entitled to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the right to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice". Article 14 (1e) reads as follows, "freedom, either by himself or in association with others, either in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching". The Supreme Court has made a determination on the Bill titled "Forcible Conversion of Religion": to the effect that articles 3 and 4(2) being ultra vires the Constitution would in its present form require a two-thirds majority in Parliament and ratification at a referendum. Limpid clarity is the basis of this judicial decision of which we need to be appreciative and for which we need to be grateful. What we need to bear in mind with a sense of urgency is that spiritual carnivores will interpret this incandescent decision to show that the law is on their side. This interpretation will lead them to exult in and display what they consider to be a triumphal vindication of their righteousness. This state of mind will induce them to believe that they can use their well-financed hunting abilities to prey on innocent victims. It is common knowledge that laws are violated and can be violated. The increase in crime in Sri Lanka is not due to deficiencies in the law or deficiencies in its interpretation but entirely due poor law enforcement. There may be situations where new laws need to be enacted or existing laws amended in order to deal with new situations or to eliminate loopholes that are exploited by criminals. I do not agree that such a course of action is necessary to deal with unethical conversions. Where does the answer lie? The answer could be found by going back to the Law of Moses and the teaching of Jesus Christ, who made it very clear that his mission was not to abolish the law but to fulfil it. As we all know there are three basic stages in the evolution of law. Laws are enacted by an act of Parliament, judicial determinations based on the law are made by the Judiciary and judicial decisions are enforced by the Executive arm of government. What exactly did Jesus mean by talking of fulfilling the law? He made a distinction between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Fulfilment means acting according to the spirit of the law as exemplified in the following statements: "Those of you without sin cast the first stone" and "You hypocrites Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you "These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from them". The Greek word for Gospel, which is Euangelion, means good news. It is quite natural that a person who has received the good news would like to pass that news on to others. This privilege, by virtue of what I have described as something flowing from the Gospel message, is necessarily limited to letting others know the good news through exemplary personal conduct of the individual Christian, through socially acceptable and edifying behaviour of Christians who enjoy the right to free association in places of worship and elsewhere, and through material published in the media. It is evident that spurious evangelism has gone far beyond these limits. A possible solution to this problem is to devise a less formal procedure for dialogue and conciliation. Such a procedure too is not likely to succeed if the process of conciliation is left in the hands of religious leaders as suggested by The Catholic Bishops, because Christianity is a seamless garment that is divided into fragments (Psalm 22:18) (John 19:23-24), with each fragment contesting the claims of the other. The Roman Catholic Church, which is the darling of the State, as witnessed by the attention it gets from successive governments, claims that it is not engaged in unethical conversions. While I readily accept that position, it is nevertheless engaged in unabashed power-play through the Ministry of Christian Affairs, which in all fairness to other Christian sects should be called the Ministry of Catholic Affairs. The late Victor Gunawardena made the prophetic statement that the Catholic Church, instead of inveigling itself into the machinery of State, should concentrate its attention on the Christian Ministry by serving the community as servants of the Lord. The Catholic Church has always considered itself to be a nation set apart from other Christian mainline Churches (represented by the National Christian Council - NCC) and fundamentalist sects. (I use the word fundamentalist in the pejorative sense because these sects rely on a literal interpretation of scripture without considering the essential spirit of the teachings of Jesus Christ). The Roman Church has always accused fundamentalist sects of sheep-stealing instead examining the poor quality of its own shepherding. They have a writ from the Vatican but no commission from Jesus Christ. Being hoist with its own petard it has displayed both insincerity and folly in issuing a joint statement in association with the NCC, of which it is not a member. The power-generation specialist Bishop Frank Marcus Fernando has even gone further by petitioning the Supreme Court against the Anti-Conversions Bill. He is in the strange but distinguished company of the National Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka and other Christian sects in doing so. Even if one assumes that aggrieved Buddhists and Hindus are ready to enter into a dialogue, they will not be able to identify a homogenous body with whom they could dialogue. In these circumstances the only solution to this problem lies setting up a Conciliation Board composed of eminent men who would be empowered to settle disputes. The other ancillary measures that could be adopted to check the menace of unethical conversion would be the strict enforcement of immigration laws and an ongoing monitoring of the anti-national activities of NGOs, which in most cases function as a front for foreign meddlers. Unethical conversion: a form of subversion We must bear in mind that religious profession, as far as Christianity is concerned, cannot be limited to the proclaimed acceptance of a set of discrete articles of faith and injunctions located in an ecclesia vacuum, but extended to include a vibrant social context that involves different languages, customs, culture and loyalty to ones land of birth. Jesus Christ made it clear that mans dignity and freedom was not to be trivially hindered by rite and regulation. This ineffable spirit is reflected in his use of parables and his statements such as "Man is not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man". This necessarily means that the kingdom of God is the kingdom of righteousness, which is essentially a locus to which a Christian's hope is directed and in which his faith is sustained until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This kingdom is by no means an ethereal space-time continuum where the righteous will dwell in an anaesthetized state. In this context a Christian needs to partition his loyalties in the following order (1) absolute loyalty to God with unconditional acceptance of Jesus Christ as the sole mediator. (2) absolute loyalty to his family to which he/she is indissolubly linked. (3) Critical loyalty to his motherland and neighbour. (4) Critical loyalty to the institutional church to which he/she belongs. This necessarily means need to abhor and condemn all treasonable or subversive activities of Christian sects. Unethical conversions are an integral part of the carefully crafted calculus of globalisation that is based on the neo-liberal ethic. The vanguard of colonialism of yore was composed of infantry, cavalry and artillery while the rearguard was composed of missionaries poised for the capture of souls with bell, book, hook, and candle. Neo-colonialism is a more vicious adversary. Its warriors pitch camp on high moral ground with the cluster bombs of human rights, minority rights, heat-seeking devices directed at supposed majoritarian lust. The type of unethical conversion they are involved in, serves to disorient, emotionally impoverish and invest an individual victim with a false sense of values. When taken in the sum it amounts to destabilising society. Just as much as the international community makes the grant of aid conditional on the progress of the humbug inherent in the peace process, those who are engaged in unethical conversions, make the grant of material aid conditional on the change of faith. The neo-liberal ethic wants government to shrink in exercising its function in promoting economic development, leaving it to the private sector, preferably the transnational giants to gorge out the fruits of the earth till mans birthright is reduced to a barren wasteland. When poor developing countries swallow this bait, poor Lazarus will wait in agony till the crumbs trickle down from table of Dives, the rich man. In the interval between Lazarus agony and his ultimate death, NGOs are expected to reflect the loving kindness of God by giving handouts that are conditional on the acceptance of a new faith. Poverty and the immiseration that accompanies it can never be reduced with superficial social service and acts of charity. Only resolute and purposeful action by the government to develop the economy with the exercise of judicious policy prescriptions can achieve this goal. This is precisely what the European, American and Japanese governments did to reach their current levels of development. While I unconditionally condemn unethical conversions, I am not sure whether the Anti-Conversion Bill will wipe out the fundamentalist mosquito, which unlike the one that causes dengue fever thrives in the polluted pool of social discord and stings in the dread dark night of absolute poverty. Already the US State Department has announced that there is in Sri Lanka "an overall deterioration of religious freedom due to the actions of extremists" (Sunday Island, 19th September 2004). It is by no means strange that the report issued by the State Department refers to information provided by "unnamed non-governmental organisations". Only a strong government that has the will, ability and moral strength to culture and disseminate the biological organism of enlightened self-interest linked to a secular outlook as the basis of its policies can combat the deadly bugs of racism and religious fanaticism. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
Since those who engage in unethical conversions are stubborn to the
point of talking of 'an inescapable Christian imperative' to convert
non-Christians in pursuance what they call 'their compulsive labour of
love', it is only natural that those who are aggrieved by these activities
should wish to translate what are essentially sins calling for expiation
into crimes calling for punishment.
If a man or woman wishes to pass his God to another person with
financial or material inducements, it necessarily means that he/she takes
His name in vain. Jesus Christ when addressing a rich, young man told him
"Do not bear false witness" (Matthew, 19:18). If a man or woman
tries to convert another with the use of inducements he bears false
witness to Jesus Christ.
