{
  "bookName": "History of Christianity in India: Source Materials",
  "authorName": "M. K. Kuriakose",
  "publisherName": "Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge",
  "publicationYear": 2011,
  "chapterNumber": 178,
  "chapterName": "1937. Mahatma Gandhi on Christianity",
  "pageFrom": 368,
  "pageTo": 369,
  "pages": [
    {
      "pageNumber": 368,
      "ocrText": "368\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\n178. MAHATMA GANDHI ON CHRISTIANITY (1937 A.D.)\nIn this account, Gandhi describes his own contacts with Chris-\ntians and certain conclusions that he has reached concerning the claims\nmade for Christianity and other religions. In doing so he reveals his\nown standards of religious judgement. From the Harijan, 6th March\n1937, cited in A. T. Hingorani, ed., The Message of Jesus Christ,\npp. 97-100.\nEven when I was 18, I came in touch with good Christians in\nLondon. Before that I had come in touch with what I used then\nto call beef and beerbottle Christianity,' for these were regarded\nas the indispensable criteria of a man becoming a Christian, with\nalso a third thing, namely adoption of a European style of dress.\nThose Christians were parodying St. Paul's teaching-Call thou\nnothing unclean.' I I went to London, therefore, with that prejudice\nagainst Christianity. I came across good Christians there who\nplaced the Bible in my hands. Then, I met numerous Christians\nin South Africa, and I have since grown to this belief that Christanity\nis as good and as true a religion as my own. For a time, I struggled\nwith the question: Which was the true religion out of those I\nknew? But, ultimately, I came to the deliberate conviction that\nthere was no such thing as only one true religion and every other\nfalse. There is no religion that is absolutely perfect. All are\nequally imperfect or, more or less, perfect. Hence, the conclusion\nthat Christianity is as good and as true as my own religion. But\nso also about Islam or Zoroastrianism or Judaism.\nJesus is as Divine as Other Prophets\nI, therefore, do not take as literally true the text that Jesus is\nthe only begotten son of God. God cannot be the exclusive Father\nand I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. He is as divine as\nKrishna or Rama or Mohammed or Zoroaster. Similarly, I do not\nregard every word of the Bible as the inspired word of God, even as\nI do not regard every word of the Vedas or the Quran as inspired.\nThe sum total of each of these books is certainly inspired, but\nI miss that inspiration in many of the things taken individually.\nThe Bible is as much a book of religion with me as the Gita and\nthe Quran.\nI would also dispute the claim that Christianity is the only true\nreligion. It is also a true religion, a noble religion and, along with\nother religions, it has contributed to raise the moral height of\nmankind. But it has yet to make a greater contribution. After\nall, what are 2,000 years in the life of a religion? Just now, Christia-\nnity comes to yearning mankind in a tainted form. Fancy, Bishops\n:supporting slaughter in the name of Christianity?",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 369,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n369\nFundamental Maxims\nQ. But, when you say that all religions are true, what do you\ndo when there are conflicting counsels?\nA. I have no difficulty in hitting upon the truth, because I go\nby certain fundamental maxims. Truth is superior to everything,\nand I reject what conflicts with it. Similarly, that which is in\nconflict with non-violence should be rejected. And, on matters\nwhich can be reasoned out, that which conflicts with reason must\nalso be rejected.\nQ. In matters which cannot be reasoned out?\nA. Yes, there are subjects where reason cannot take us far\nand we have to accept things on faith. Faith then does not contra-\ndict reason but transcends it. Faith is a kind of sixth sense\nwhich works in cases which are without the purview of reason.\nWell then, given these three criteria, I can have no difficulty in\nexamining all claims made on behalf of religion. Thus, to believe\nthat Jesus is the only begotten son of God is to me against reason,\nfor God can't marry and beget children. The word 'son' there\ncan only be used in a figurative sense. In that sense, everyone\nwho stands in the position of Jesus is a begotten son of God. If a\nman is spiritually miles ahead of us, we may say that he is, in a\nspecial sense, the son of God, though we are all children of God.\nWe repudiate the relationship in our lives, whereas his life is a\nwitness to that relationship.\nNo Degrees of Divinity\nQ. Then, you will recognize degrees of divinity. Would you\nnot say that Jesus was the most divine?\nA. No, for the simple reason that we have no data. Histori-\ncally, we have more data about Mohammed than anyone else\nbecause he was more recent in time. For Jesus, there is less data\nand still less for Buddha, Rama and Krishna; and when we know\nso little about them, is it not preposterous to say that one of them\nwas more divine than another? In fact, even if there were a great\ndeal of data available, no judge should shoulder the burden of\nsifting all the evidence, if only for this reason that it requires a\nhighly spiritual person to gauge the degree of divinity of the subjects\nhe examines. To say that Jesus was 99 per cent divine, and Moham-\nmed 50 per cent and Krishna 10 per cent, is to arrogate to oneself\na function which really does not belong to man.\nH.C.I.-24",
      "status": "completed"
    }
  ]
}