A MEDIA FAQ on `House Churches' and `Conversions'

By Dr. John Dayal

Answers to some frequently asked media questions on House Churches and the definition of Conversions in context of the laws on Religious Freedom in Rajasthan, Gujarat, MP, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Arunachal [and Tamil Nadu]


HOUSE CHURCHES

The Constitution of India gives every citizen the right and freedom of Faith, including its practice, profession and propagation. This is clear in Article 25 which states that `subject to public order, health and morality', we have the right to freedom of conscience.

The only bar is, as for most other freedoms, that it should not create a public law and order situation, or be obnoxious in some other way. This rider is the one so often misused by governments and police who can claim that certain acts of one community can threaten the peace [for instance cow sacrifice at Eid, which is objected to by Hindutva groups]

The law as it exists in India recognizes places of religious worship as physical entities in public domain. The one mention that comes is with reference to the official and legal rulings which, in the aftermath of the violence during Partition of India in 1947, said places of worship which existed at the dawn of freedom could not have their identity or function changed. This was to prevent mosques being converted to temples or demolished or sold.. This was re-stated in Uttar Pradesh in the case of attempts to sell churches -- not all church property which could include schools or grounds, but church buildings which had functioned as churches

House churches, Small Christian Communities, Basic Christian Communities whether Catholic, Evangelical or Pentecost, and religious activity in a person's private home, which includes all property, is a private event protected by laws against trespass, criminal intimidation, breaking and forcible entry and similar criminal activity

The police have to take action as they would in case of attempted murder, assault, burglary or dacoity -- if assailants are armed, and there are more than five of them in number

They - the local police and magistracy -- have no excuse in not acting.

CONVERSIONS

The second question is of Conversions from one religion to another [giving up one's religion for joining irreligious or atheistic groups such as the Marxists, or lapsed believers do not find any mention in legal literature]

The Supreme Court judgment in the matter of earlier, and contradictory, High court judgments on the Orissa and MP Freedom of Religion Acts was clear that induced and forcible conversions at the hand hands of a religious functionary or priest were illegal, but it was NOT illegal - and therefore legitimate -- for a person to change his religion.

Therefore it is quite clear by analogy and deduction that the act of conversion theologically is different from the legal definition.

A person may have Christ experience through many ways or paths, and may consider him [or her] a follower or believer of Christ. He may have found Christ by personally reading the Bible which he bought by himself, saw in a library or his hotel room, or was given one by a friend, evangelist or priest. He may even have had the Bible read to him by his children, in case he himself was illiterate. He may have found Christ through the evangelical actions of others, either done actively as by missionaries, or passively as by watching Christian neighbours or friends. The person may surrender to Christ on his own; and to himself, he will deem to have become a Christian even if he has not undergone any rituals. Some even consider this the Amazing Grace and Work of the Holy Spirit.

For social purposes, however, and requirements of Civic life, which may include the need for passports or other diplomatic or government documents, however, marriage, or even burial of the dead, he may want to `belong to' or `to be admitted to' the larger Christian community, denomination, group or whatever else it is called. This process may involve ceremonies or rites of passage, which is also called baptism. This may vary with denominations. This is like membership of a club or organisation with its own entry and exit laws.

In fact in the knananite church, a part of the Kerala Catholic group, it admits only persons belonging to select families. No marriage outside the ethnic and linguistic sub-community is allowed or accepted, and of course no one can convert to this sect.

Pentecost and Evangelical groups and some mainline churches want full immersion of the adult.

The Catholic Church, especially in the Latin rite, accepts and encourages child or infant baptism -- I was baptized as a six day old, my daughter was a month old on her baptism -- with ceremonies of confirmation [or First Holy Communion] at an age when the child is able to understand what is happening

The Indian law, penal code or however, has no business entering this domain.

The Sikh faith has tasting of the amrit, or holy water consisting of water, sugar mixed together with a ceremonial sword in a groupware -- the Muslim faith has sunnat, circumcision as well as hearing and pronouncing the kalma -- god is but one god is one and Mohammed is his prophet

No one can convert to Zoroastrian. It can be by birth only. That is why they are a dying community. There are no half Parsees, so to say.

You can become a Jew by converting to Judaism but it is a long and tedious [process sand is discouraged if both or one parent is not a Jew.

Buddhism has a few simple rites.

I do not know the Jain rites.

By the way, the special position for Anglo Indians is not on religious grounds, but on genes and language. Their mother tongue has to be English and their descent from the father's side has to be European.

An Anglo-Indian woman's children by a non Anglo Indian man are not Anglo Indians

And, other than the civil powers of Christian priest in terms of Marriages [but not divorces], births and deaths [burial records]; there is no official administrative law or bureaucratic machinery to certify or license or otherwise formally recognize Christian clergy. Ordination and Consecration are strictly denominational activity. The State also does not recognize gradations in clergy and hierarchy. The titles of Father, Pastor, Bishop or Cardinal, are therefore not of legal consequence but are accepted because they are accepted by the concerned community or group. No denomination has monopoly on the titles and even Catholic priests can, and often do, call themselves Pastors. By the same argument, Episcopal and even Evangelical clergy no call themselves Bishops and Archbishops. They can.

John Dayal
New Delhi, July 2006