What Do Christians Do with Gandhi?

What do Christians do with Gandhi?  This has been a question that has sparked debate since this man became internationally known...Probably more so in the past 60+ years since his assassination.


This question begins Chapter 1 of Rob Bell's book about Salvation, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, And the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.  I have a review of that book in this blog - just type "Rob Bell" or "Love Wins" in the search bar.


This question has caused arguments between well meaning Christians of all denominations.  While it's hard to find anyone who would say that Gandhi is not a person to be admired and even a person to be emulated, his salvation is what some would question.  So, let's start out by looking at the primary issues.


The basic Christian understanding of salvation comes from John 14:6 where Jesus says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (emphasis my own).  In other words, one must believe in Christ as Savior to be saved.  A large number of Christians believe that the Jewish people who adhere to the Covenant God made with Abraham (and later the Law with Moses) will also inherit Salvation.  This comes from Genesis 17:10-11 - 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.  There are also quite a few Christians, though definitive Biblical proof is hard to find, who believe that those, through no fault of their own (let's say: some remote tribe in the Amazon who has yet to be discovered) has not heard of Jesus, will be judged on what they have received and what they believe.  Most likely, this would include the fact that they must believe in a god since Psalm 14:1 says, "Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God.'"  Other Christians, however would appeal back to John 14:6 and say that this same group of people, though they are without blame are lost to salvation.


So, what do we do with Gandhi?  First of all, was Gandhi a Christian?  To answer that question is more difficult than one may think.  All of my references to his life come from the book, Gandhi: His Life and Message for the World by Louis Fischer.  


To begin, Fischer's book, a "Signet Classic," should be read by ALL Christians (and I would even say ALL People of EVERY Faith - and even those without a Faith).  Fischer's prose is sophomoric at times, and he often uses names and terms that are unfamiliar to modern Western readers (who are unfamiliar with the history of India) without explaining the definition or who the person is, but the basic message of Gandhi's life flows brilliantly throughout the book.  


Mohandas K. Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869 in Western India to a Hindu Family.  So, that may answer our question - he was not born a Christian.  But, Christianity is not a faith into which one is born...It is a faith into which one chooses to be born again.  


Well into his teenage years, Gandhi never renounced his Hindu customs and married his wife when both were 13 years old.  As a young adult, Gandhi went to London where he did experiment with atheism.  Through that experience, he found himself "thirsting for religion" (page 11).  While in Britain, he read the Bible, and he was fascinated by the Old Testament Prophets, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes, and especially the New Testament - most important to him was Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.  This he compared to the Hindu sacred text, the Bhagavad-Gita.  


So, what do we do with Gandhi?  Still, I don't think we have an answer.  The Gandhi of his youth was different from the Gandhi that is familiar to most modern people.  From Britain, Gandhi went to South Africa where a major transformation took place in his life.  He began his quest for a more spiritual life.  In South Africa, Gandhi began fasting and took up his now famous practices of asceticism - taking care of needs as opposed to "wants" (page 31).  While he was inspired by Christians, this probably didn't make Gandhi a Christian.  After all, many Christians have borrowed practices from other religions and adapted them to Christianity (for example, yoga - a Buddhist/Hindu practice can be adapted to a secular or even Christian practice of exercise and meditation).  


It was in South Africa that Gandhi began his non-violent civil disobedience to protest the wrongs of society.  He was inspired by Thoreau and Tolstoy.  In fact, he and Tolstoy corresponded from 1909-10 (page 40).  Possibly at this time, some may begin to consider Gandhi a Christian.  That is if we go by Tolstoy's definition in his book The Kingdom of God is Within You.  There, Tolstoy defines a Christian as one who "enters into no dispute with his neighbor, he neither attacks nor uses violence; on the contrary, he suffers himself, without resistance, and by his very attitude toward evil not only sets himself free, but helps to free the world at large from all outward authority" (page 40).  Obviously, Tolstoy was a Christian Anarchist who held a relationship between faith and works.  


It is there that we must digress.  Must a Christian have "works" to be a Christian?  Romans 3:23 says, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." Therefore, works alone cannot save us.  But, James 2:17 says, "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead."  So, that implies that while we must believe, we must also "back up" our belief.


So, what do we do with Gandhi?  As his life went on, and he returned to India and began working for Indian Independence, Gandhi began appealing to God.  Which God?  That is precisely the question.  When describing God, Gandhi said, "God is," and on another occasion, he said, "He alone is."  This indirectly harkens back to Exodus 3:14 - God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I am has sent me to you.” ’  Gandhi used the same name of God that God used - "Is" is a form of "am," and both are the form of the verb "to be."  In the original Hebrew, it is transliterated as "ehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh"  


Gandhi then began breaking Hindu rules.  One of the cardinal rules for orthodox Hindus was to stay away from the Untouchable Caste.  Gandhi worked and fought for their inclusion into society.  He actively socialized with them.  At least in this book, however, there is no indication that Gandhi renounced the Hindu faith along with some of its practices.


So, what do we do with Gandhi?  Gandhi was overtly asked what religion he was.  He replied to the question that he was "Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist..."  When Gandhi had prayer services, it was not uncommon for him to include Christian Hymns, Bible Readings, Koran Readings, and Hindu Readings.  So, what do we do with Gandhi?


Here is what we do with Gandhi.  We should look to him as a role model as far as actions go.  We should see Gandhi as a peacemaker and strive to be a fraction of what he was.  We should love others the way that Gandhi did.  We should simplify our lives down to what is important just as Gandhi did.  We should see Gandhi as one of the greatest humans who ever lived.  Gandhi walked the walk and talked the talk of a great person.  While actions speak volumes, we cannot for certain know his heart.  We cannot for certain know anyone's heart.


Notice what I didn't say.  I made no reference to Gandhi's salvation.  I made no reference to what God should do with Gandhi.  Judgement is God's Job. We don't get a vote in Gandhi's salvation (or in his non-salvation).  We are only responsible for our own salvation and for spreading the news of salvation as we know it.  We are not responsible for others acceptance or non-acceptance of any doctrine or belief.  


That is very freeing!  We don't have to worry.  We are only responsible for ourselves and to minister as God calls us.  After that, it is out of our hands.  We have no way of knowing what any given person is capable of knowing, or understanding, or accepting.  We have no idea if someone is truly a believer or if someone just pretends to be.  We have no idea if a self-avowed atheist makes a deathbed conversion. We have no idea if a self-avowed atheist or believer in another faith had some issue that only God knows about that made them unable to believe.  If that is the case, we have no idea how God will handle that person's salvation.  


So, what do we do with Gandhi?  We love him just as God loved us, and we hope that in his mercy, God granted him salvation just as we hope God will grant us salvation.

Grass, Cements; Rocks and Gates

^{Summary of my sermon from 9/11/11}

^{Matthew 16:15-18}

¹⁵He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ ¹⁶Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ ¹⁷And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. ¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. 




When God created the world, one of those creations was plants and vegetation. Arguably, grass may be the most common forms of plant on the earth.  Almost everywhere you go, you will find grass.  It fills our yards, it fills our forests.  You can even find grass in some of the most remote and desolate places.  Grass grows in the desert, and our prairies and steppes are covered with grass.

Anyone who tries to "manicure" their lawn will find that grass is a constant battle.  That which man tries to do is always at the mercy of God.  The sidewalks and roads we create are always under the threat of grass growing.  I've even seen grass grow in places one would thing is completely impossible.  


When we see grass growing in the cracks of our sidewalks, we often try to pull it.  But, much to our dismay, within a few days, it's back with a vengeance.  So, we go out with our various "weed-be-gone" products and spray the grass, but still, that is only a temporary solution.  


What goes on below the ground may be a mystery to us, but it is only one small way God proves that His power is ALWAYS at work.  We place the sidewalks, but God created the grass.  The grass will always work.


I've even seen grass growing in cracks on roads.  I'm no construction expert, but I've driven past road construction sites.  Building a road is no small task, and the pavement is inches thick.  That does not even mention the stones and flattening of the earth below the pavement.  Even the mightiest constructions of humans are always at the mercy of God.


In the above scripture, Jesus said his church will be built on a rock.  Is Peter that rock? Or is the truth which Peter spoke the Rock?  That is up for theological debate, and not something I'll take up here.  But, think of the image of a rock.

To the audience to which Jesus spoke, no image described strength greater than a rock.  


Jesus did not say the church would be built on sand, or mud, or even a foundation of bricks.  It would be built on a rock.  Another of God's creation which boasts of strength.


Jesus goes on to say that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church. What is a gate?  Have you ever been attacked by a gate?  Unless your attacker was some deranged psychopath, gates are not offensive weapons.  Gates are defensive measures.  So what?  What does this imply?  It implies that Hell doesn't do much attacking, but rather it tries to defend itself with a gate...one which cannot stand when attacked by the Church.


While Hell and Evil do attack, their attack is little more than the lashing out someone does when backed into a corner.  This lashing out can be serious for a time, but God eventually wins every time.  Just like the grass of God's creation breaks through the sidewalks of human design, the Rock of the Church will always break through the Gates of Hell.

2 Books on Salvation: Review

Before reading this, some may think: "This is just going to be a review by one of those Duke Liberals..."  To quash that point of view let me point out that I thoroughly reject the labels of "liberal," "conservative," and pretty much anything in between.  Here's why:  Liberal by definition means that one does away with resources or traditional belief systems.  Ronald Reagan is known as a "conservative," but his military policies and spending were so "liberal" that they bankrupted the competing USSR.  But he's a "conservative?"  Conversely, people who try to "conserve" natural resources are often labeled as "liberals."

Rather than being definitions, these words have turned into being accusations of people by someone who disagrees with those people.  "Liberal" and "Conservative" are terms that I thoroughly reject and dismiss because they have lost their meaning.  I refuse to define myself by either term.  

With that said, let me delve into the 2 books above.

Both Love Wins by Rob Bell and Who Will Be Saved by United Methodist Bishop Will Willimon  at similar in content and message.  While Willimon's book is written mainly to an academic audience, Bell's book tackles the same topic with language for an everyday audience.  To review one is to review the other.  So, I will look at both of them as one (Yes, there are differences, but the main message is the same).  

These books look at salvation from a biblical point of view.  They challenge modern beliefs of salvation without rejecting them.  Quite honestly, both books leave some questions for the reader by him/herself.  By challenging our view of salvation, they don't say what many Christians believe is wrong, but they ask the question if we limit God in our minds.  I found both books to be intriguing and even at times frustrating; which, I believe is the purpose.

The modern view of salvation is that in order to "go to heaven," one must "confess to being a sinner" and "ask Jesus to be one's personal savior." (quotation marks are not intended to trivialize this belief, but to accentuate the point).  This view then leaves one to wonder: what about the billions of people who have never (or in the future, will never) hear the gospel of Jesus?  What about those who have heard but for some reason couldn't understand?  What about those who understand but reject the gospel?  In the modern view, if you understand and reject the gospel, the thought is you "go to hell" when you die.  There is much debate and argument for those who haven't heard or haven't understood, and there are many theories.  Some say these people will "go to hell," while others say "God will judge them based on their circumstances."

Let me digress and point out why I say "modern view of salvation."  Our doctrines of salvation have always been changing since the time of Jesus (and even before).  I'm only going to deal with post-Jesus salvation for the purposes of this review.  Some early Church thinkers (Origen, for example) believed that Jesus' sacrifice redeemed all of creation, and he believed more or less in universal salvation (all are saved).  As time went on, it was believed that salvation only came through the church and sacraments of the church.  People also throughout time added our actions (are you a "good" or "bad" person) to determine salvation.  The Protestant Reformation led to the foundation of modern views that salvation is by grace (a free gift from God) through faith (believing in Jesus' sacrifice).  From there, some theologians discussed "predestination."  Some say God predestined some to salvation and some to non-salvation (hell).  Other's say God gives the opportunity to all to be saved and it's our free choice.

These books look seriously at all these arguments.  They challenge them without disrespecting them or ruling them out.  Both point out that God can handle our tough questions.  That's why God is God, after all.  

Both of these books point to the saving nature of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.  They use scripture to point out that Jesus came to "save" not "judge" ("judge" meaning condemn).  That is a very strong argument supported by scripture.  Jesus' very nature was to "save" humanity and creation.  That's why the Gospels are "Good news." 

Neither book denies hell or says that all will be saved, but leaves open the possibility.  That is not entirely unorthodox in that scripture states that God does not want any to perish.  Neither book advocates universalism, but both allow that God has the power to save all, should God choose.  And, by God's very nature, that would be within God's power.  

Both books stick to Christian doctrine that "Jesus is the only way," but they ask very important questions about that statement.  Can one go through Jesus without knowing it is Jesus?  Will Jesus be as he was in the story of Zaccheaus?  In that story, Jesus "went as low as a person (or God) could go" to bring salvation to a person.  Zaccheaus was a chief tax collector, and therefore a supporter of the brutal Roman Empire.  Tax collectors also were known to "over-collect" and "skim money for themselves" from that "over-collecton." Will Jesus go to the lowest of the low and at least try to save them?

Both books point out that scripture says that God will at least attempt to save everyone.  This is also in line with scripture.  Because of God's love, God wants to spend eternity with all.  Because of God's love, we have free will.  We can choose to reject God's love.  Can God reject our rejection?  That's a question left open.  

While Willemon doesn't go into definitions of "heaven" and "hell" as much as Bell does, both still assert that both exist.  Bell goes to great lengths to define each.  "Heaven" is not just the "sweet by and by," but rather "full communion with God."  "Hell" is not just a place of eternal burning, but "complete separation from God."  With the evidence Bell gives from scripture, his definitions seem plausible if not convincing.  Both point out that salvation is not just "going to heaven," (though that is a part of it), but salvation is also for the "here and now."  Salvation is the communion or relationship with God that we can have at any time.

Neither book gives definite answers, and I think that is exactly the point.  We can't totally know the ways  of God.  We can know that God is love.  God wants all to be saved.  Somehow, as both point out, God will offer salvation to all people.  After that offer (in whatever form it takes - probably different for each person given differences in personalities/cognitive abilities/culture/etc.), it is each individual's choice to accept salvation or to deny it.  Both also give hope that we don't have to worry about those who never heard the Gospel or those who didn't understand the Gospel, but that we should still minister in a way to spread the Gospel so people can attain salvation immediately.  

I found both books to be scripturally accurate but they also brought up many important questions.  The modern "ask for forgiveness of your sins and ask Jesus into your heart" way is not wrong.  Neither is believing that "Jesus is the only way to God the Father."  Both of those ways ARE valid means to salvation according to both authors.  They divert from this in that billions never have or will have heard the Gospel (or hear it but don't understand).  When it comes to these people, they emphasize that God is a God of love first and judgement second.  They emphasize that while God must judge, God judges out of love.

An illustration by Willemon sums up both books.  Here is a synopsis of his illustration:  A pastor had to preach a funeral of a man who lived a sinful life, didn't know (or even care) about God, and committed suicide.  In order to give comfort to the family, while still acknowledging this man's faults, the pastor made a statement how God may be saying what the pastor himself was thinking.  "I'm mad as hell at you for how you lived your life.  But, I love you..."  The illustration goes on.  It doesn't say this man is "saved," but it leaves the possibility open.  

As Christians, we know that Jesus is the only way to God.  What that looks like to God we cannot know for sure.  We can only know that our job is to bring people to God through Christ.  God will deal with the rest, and however it is done, it will be fair and loving.