Author:
Publication: The Indian
Express
Date: October 24, 2000
S. GURUMURTHY joins
the debate on `Swadeshi churches' triggered off by RSS chief K. Sudarshan
All hell broke loose
over RSS Chief K.S. Sudarshan's statement that members of the Christian
establishment should become independent of foreign control. He had
merely suggested the formation of a Swadeshi or a national church, and
all he had intended was a debate.
Is the suggestion for
a Swadeshi church anti-Christian or against Christian evolution or history?
A study of Christianity establishes that the idea of a national church
is entirely a Christian idea, not merely that of the RSS or Sudarshan.
The idea of national
churches independent of Roman Catholic control was the product of the Protestant
Reform movement and the consequent birth of nation-states in Europe.
The Reformation which began in 1517 set off a serious erosion in the authority
of the Pope, who was originally only the Bishop of Rome. The transnational
papacy was a later evolution.
The Roman Catholic church
of today was first known as the Western Church, the other being the Eastern.
The Reformation resulted in the division of the Western church into the
Roman Catholic Church and the Reformed Churches. The ultimate result
in the chain of this division was the formation of national churches in
Europe and the evolution of independent churches in Africa and elsewhere.
The first national church
was established in England in 1533. Henry VIII, King of England,
sought the Pope's permission to divorce his first wife (who he believed
was incapable of bearing a male heir) and to marry another. The Pope
refused. Henry VIII, with the consent of the British Parliament,
renounced Papal control and created the Church of England, separate and
independent of Rome's control. His logic was, if one English king
could cede the control of English Christianity to the Pope in AD 664, another
king (i.e. himself) could take it back. Yet even after the
separation, Henry VIII and the Church of England continued to be Catholic
till 1563.
The separation of other
European Churches into Swadeshi churches was more complex. ``Nevertheless'',
as the Encyclopaedia of Politics and Religion (Routledge London 2 vols)
says, ``the general pattern became clear: a ruler would decide which competing
set of ideologies to follow and that would become the religion of his people.
This formula...was adopted in 1555 at Augsburg.'' This is how, says the
encyclopaedia, ``nation-states were born''.
Later, says the encyclopaedia,
``Even the nation-state came to supersede the ruler''. For instance,
when James II refused to give up Roman Catholicism in 1688-89, he was dethroned
and replaced by his Protestant son-in-law, William Orange. In 1594-97,
Richard Hooker, a leading figure of the Church of England, authored the
Book Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in which natural law, rather than Biblical
scriptures, was accepted as the ultimate source of authority. In
the 17th century, the Church of England came to be popularly known as Anglican,
headed by the Crown. Likewise, Scotland also has a national church.
The process of formation
of nation-states, which was almost co-terminus with the formation of national
churches, was accelerated by the translation of the Bible from Latin into
English, German and other languages. In most Protestant nations,
the Church became a state apparatus or a creature of national laws.
If this was the position
in Protestant nations, even in the Catholic Religion, agreements called
``Concordats'' were signed between the Roman Catholic Church and nations
like France (in 1905), Italy (in 1894), Spain (in 1978), which, the encyclopaedia
says, ``came close to formation of state churches''. Under the Concordats,
the national churches became independent of the Vatican.
In modern times, the
encyclopaedia says, ``The general tendency is to change the status of state
churches into established churches''. The evangelical Lutheran Church
of Denmark is the recognised official church of Denmark and managed by
the Government. In Norway too, it is the official church of Norway
and is managed under Norwegian law. The head of the Lutheran Church
of Sweden, managed under the Swedish law, is the Swedish king. All
of them are independent of the control or of influence of any other transborder
churches. Swadeshi churches are thus the rule in the Christian west,
not exceptions.
Even in Africa, the spread
of Christianity was through what was known as African Independent Churches
(AICs). This movement of what is now thousands of churches was founded
by black Africans. It dates back to 18th century when a young black
woman, Kimpa Vita, resisted the Portuguese rule in Congo by proclaiming
a ``Black Christ'' and a `Utopian African Kingdom' (encyclopaedia).
In 1706, the Portuguese rulers burned her as a heretic.
Later, this took the
shape of Ethiopian Church Movement. This subsequently expanded into
the African Independent Churches. Says the encyclopaedia, ``AICs
originate in either Pre-Christian or Christian movements and represent
a reversion to traditional African religion in the face of intensive influence
from the West. The AICs comprise the `Ethiopian', `the spirit' and
`Messianic' churches -- each of them distinctly African. The African
Independent Church is the `indigenised' African Church. Thus both
the `enlightened' West and the `not-so enlightened'' Africans have established
their own national churches. In this category falls the Russian Orthodox
Church, which is the national church of Russia.
If small nations whose
the Christian population is in lakhs and millions can set up their own
Swadeshi churches, why can't the Indian Christian establishment -- which
has a following of over 20 million -- debate the idea of a Swadeshi church?
