14:20: we're waiting for Henry Joe to take us to meet some University professor who is also a dab hand at inter-faith dialogue. We're becoming very apathetic now, C. with his flu/rash/squits and me with... well, just apathy. C. is wallowing in major self pity and illness at the moment and it's so hard for me to keep my spirits up when he doesn't want to do anything. The Rev.'s expecting me to do a song tomorrow morning but he's got all my music. I can't practise because C. will get pissed off. He won't let me play the guitar, let alone sing. I don't know what he likes or does or anything. He has an incredibly low self image and there's nothing I can do to change it, but he keeps dragging my own confidence - which I think annoys him – down.
I think that I am fairly well adjusted to India now, although I still have so much to learn. I am quite comfortable with the way we're living, even if it is a touch on the hot side and have begun to look ahead now, trying to plan our next move. We still haven't contacted the embassy. In Ramnad we are going to be staying in a new guest house for just a pound a night. I am planning a shopping trip before we venture into what the Bishop called 'one of the most backward parts of Tamil Nadu, in the most backward state of India'. I want to get a good stock of novels, writing paper, camera films, anti-malarials and insect repellent.
On Monday we are going to Ramnad for a couple of days to see the schools and meet the staff. Hopefully they'll be able to shed some light on what we'll be doing. The Rev. said that it'll be grammar, pronunciation and spoken English. I think I can handle that, but I'm still scared of teaching a class. We're going to be spending Christmas and New Year in Ramnad, but are coming back to Madurai for a short holiday beforehand. They have exams in December and March, so we'll be on holiday then.
It might be an idea to visit some wildlife places before Christmas so we can go to other things at the end. We're thinking of starting our 'round trip' when the March exams so that we can have four to six weeks before we go home. At the rate we're going it looks like we won't have to change our return date, not that I think I'll be able to pursuade C. to change his mind! You never know, in six months time he might have a radical rehaul of thought. He's keeping himself going with constant quoting of Cecil Rhodes' 'Bladdy Savages' (The series was on TV just before we left). It has occurred to me that to the native Indian we simply appear as dollar signs. We were asked today if we wanted a shoe-shine. With fabric sandals? We declined.
...
18:20: What an overload of long words and theory that was! I'm going to try and unravel some of his notes now. Not really knowing what we were there for, C. and I decided (very cunningly, I thought) to find out what it was the professor did in the hope that it might throw up some ideas for us to grab onto. Having ascertained that he was a great believer in Ghandiji with his philosphies on religion and solving all the world's problems with love, we moved on to Evangelism. It seems that when the first missionaries came to India, they Westernised those whom they converted. This isn't really on, and our friend the Prof. is working to pursuade the Indian Christians that they need to remain Indian, even though they are Christians... This threw up that old chestnut: Whose God is He/She/It anyway? The reasoning went something like this:
This is the basis of the argument, reminding me of a Sikh I met in Birmingham who said 'there are many paths up a mountain, but they all reach the top.' The upshot of this is that the question becomes 'if all religions are true, where is the need for mission?' A widespread view of mission, being to spread the good news of man's salvation through Christ, is made somewhat redundant by the acceptance of all religions. If we accept others' beliefs, what need have we to evangelise? The old missionaries teachings of 'this is the only way' is now invalid as an empty gesture. Do we believe that God is mutually exclusive? Are we monopolising what is in fact a vastly more complex subject? Does it really matter?
Today, given the multi-faceted view of God's revelations, mission becomes pluralistic – not simply a matter of 'give', but 'give and ye shall receive'. It is mutually enriching. I can share one view of revelation which I know, ie. The Jesus model, but at the same time remain humble enough to receive the other facets of God's revelations. So while evangelising, I am allowing myself to be evangelised.
Another ages-old question is thrown up, namely 'who is being spoken to when they (whoever said it) said: "if you want to have eternal life you must believe in God?"' Who is this 'you'? Is it mankind, or is it the group to whom it is addressed? Ie giving unicity – applicable to all or different applications for everyone.
"No-one comes to the father but through me." What does he mean by me? When he went up the mountain to pray and the disciples saw the prophets Elijah and Moses with Jesus, how can they have got to the kingdom of heaven when it wasn't through him? What were they on? The 'me' must be the Mystical, the Logos, the Alpha and Omega, not the historical Nazareen.
"He died on the cross to take my place." As a Christian I believe this, I'm not sure what it has to do with the above arguments, but it is not 'He died as a substitute for me.' It is a challenge that charges us to be brave in the face of death. Seeing God suffer because of our sins is a great symbol, giving us courage to face the inevitable. In the context of shared evangelism, while Krishna enjoys music and has fun, the same God is in our faith, but suffering. It then becomes a matter of which means more to you...