Text and Context in Dialogue

Home  >  Volume 1  >  Number 4: November 2002

A Response to The Quandary of Caste

Coming from more a theology background and less an anthropological/sociological background I found the discussion about the theory of caste informative and interesting. This anthropological background is necessary to understanding the phenomenon of caste and yet I felt that the real missiological issue was not fully addressed. To me that is the issue of exclusiveness, prejudice and the whole concept of mission to people groups. Understanding the background of people's thoughts about their own group and other groups is important, as this affects their behaviour, but the crucial issue in the church is how those groups relate to each other in Christ.

The story that quoted from Perry about the sweeper is very appropriate in this context. Pastor Dewan looked at things from the point of view of the Newars: baptising the sweeper would, and did, drive them away. But look at it from the sweepers point of view: he was denied baptism in a Christian church simply because of his background. This is where one of the strongest arguments against the Church Growth school of missiology has been directed. The Church Growth school has argued that people like to become Christians without crossing cultural barriers, which is undoubtedly true. The controversial aspect is when they argue that the prime responsibility of the church is the increase of converts and the multiplication of churches. Thus all social barriers to conversion are to be lessened as far as possible in order to increase the number of converts. Pastor Dewan's response fits with this view. I would argue, however, that numerical growth is not the prime goal and responsibility of the church. It is important but, cannot come before faithfulness and obedience in other areas.

Looking at the New Testament the obvious parallel that is often drawn is with the Jew/gentile Christian controversy. The issues facing the early church, as I see it, are as follows:

• The ultimate question was what is necessary for salvation: do gentiles have to obey the law? The question of caste is somewhat different in this regard as generally it is not a question of how people receive salvation.
• In the New Testament it was also an issue of purity. I suspect that this might be part of the issue in respect to caste, even among Christians.
• In the New Testament it was also an issue of different cultures, with the different groups having different cultural identities and habits. Some recent NT scholarship has talked about the Jewish law and rituals as boundary markers that deliberately set the Jews apart and were part of their identity as Jews. It is interesting to note the same words quoted from Quigley in the article about caste.

The decision of the early church, most clearly presented in Acts 15 and worked out in other parts of NT was:

• That salvation was not dependent on ritual or on membership of a group.
• People were free to worship in ways that were culturally appropriate to them. There is clear evidence of the cultural differences between Jewish churches and Gentile churches.
• But the over-arching principle was the unity of the church. If salvation was by grace and not through the Jewish system (even though it was itself God-given!) then there was no possibility of division. In Christ the animosity had been broken down (Eph 2:11-18), there was one body (1 Cor 12:12-26) etc etc.
• This unity was to be expressed in concrete and real ways. Paul criticised Peter in public for ceasing to eat with gentiles (Gal 2:11-21), the rich and the poor were expected to fellowship together (1 Cor 11:21-22). It seems that in every culture the people whom you are willing to eat with tells a lot about how you think of them nd in the NT this issue comes up several times, always with the demand that those of higher position humble themselves to eat with those who are lower.
• It seems to me, therefore, that the NT principle is that it is OK for people to gather for worship in cultural groups. Yet when groups interact together there is a demand for the fundamental unity in Christ to be expressed and that is always harder for those who are higher.
• There is no doubt that in the first century this was much harder for the Jewish Christians than for the Gentile Christians. In a sense the Jewish Christians were being asked to give up everything, while very little was asked of the gentiles. Yet the Council of Jerusalem (note who made the decision) decided that the expression of the unity and equality of the church was more important than making things easier for Jewish Christians.

The example of Jesus must also be taken into consideration. There are many instances in the gospels of Jesus welcoming and accepting the unclean (how equivalent is this to outcaste or low caste?). If those who were higher on the social scale didn't like it, Jesus did not compromise. They could not dictate the terms of entry into the Kingdom, rather had to be willing to humble themselves. For this reason I cannot but say that my opinion of what happened to the sweeper was a case of caste prejudice.

Peter McDowell is working in the Language and Orientation Programme of the United Mission to Nepal and has a special interest in missiological issues.

Voice of Bhakti welcomes interaction with its readers. If you have a comment please email the editor at the address below. Mark Johnson, editor

info@bhaktivani.com
. bhakti, nom. devotion, love, loyalty