Family Coherence and Evangelization in Urban India
Part 1 of 2by Atul Y. Aghamkar
A young man knocked at my door during my first year of ministry in Nagpur, a city in central India. Shrikant was from a prestigious Lewa Patil community. His parents were well-placed middle caste Hindus with a closely knit family structure. Santosh, my younger brother, had introduced Shrikant to Christ while they were studying at the same school. Shrikant could not continue living with his family after his decision to accept Christ. That is how he landed at my door.
I welcomed Shrikant. Although I was a little surprised to see him, I gave him time to relax. To my amazement, he said, "'I have thought for a long time about this, but now . . . " He paused and continued with determination, "I have decided to become a Christian." He indicated his desire for baptism. His decision delighted me. I was so overjoyed that I did not ask many questions. After a few days of teaching, I baptized Shrikant. We did not feel the need to inform his family members about his baptism. We believed Shrikant was an adult and legally could make his own decision.
When Shrikant's parents found out about his baptism, a chain reaction began to ripple through his extended family. His father, along with some elders from his community, came and forcefully removed Shrikant from us. They severed all of his connections with us and with other Christians. His parents and relatives expressed anger and antagonism toward Christianity and the Christian church. Shrikant's family and relatives joined in protecting him against a so-called "Christian attack." Consequently, this closed all the doors for communicating the gospel to Shrikant's family and relatives.
Shrikant was one of the first high caste converts I baptized in my early ministry. It saddened me to watch his family take him away. Reflecting on the incident over the next several years, I began to see that Shrikant's family was not really anti-Christian, nor were they explicitly resistant to the gospel (Aghamkar 1985:182). When a family member was being separated from them in the name of the Christian religion, they united themselves in protecting him and preserving the family's solidarity.
They considered Shrikant's decision to become a Christian without consulting any family members - especially the elders - a revolt and an insult. They could not tolerate the snatching away of a member of their family. For them it was an attack on their family solidarity. They could not tolerate either Shrikant's decision to become a Christian or our decision to baptize him without consulting his family members. Shrikant was an inseparable part of their family. As a result, we lost Shrikant, and his family and relatives became very hostile to the gospel. We created resistance to the gospel where initially there may not have been any.
Reading the Context
Traditionally, the strength of Indian society lies in the joint or extended family. According to Raghuvir Sinha, "The joint family in Indian society is altogether a different type of institution, which has evolved out of cultural and ethical traditions and prerogatives" (1993:22). Although joint family units differ from place to place, normally they consist of a number of married couples and their children living together in the same household, related by blood.
"A joint family is a group of people who generally live under one hearth, who hold property in common and who participate in common family worship and are related to each other as some particular type of kindred" (Thomas and Devanandan 1966:vi). Indians place much importance on the family because it gives a sense of identity and belonging to a person. Sumithra and Nicholls are correct when they observe that,
Important decisions such as marriage and education are decided within the circle of the family of the local community. Decision-making is rarely a private act. The extended family of several generations gives a sense of identity and belonging both to children and to the elderly and in the accord with the biblical understanding of family . . . (1984:190).
Association with the caste system, however, adds complexity to the family in the Indian context. As explained by Sinha,
An important aspect of Hindu society which has, in course of history, helped the joint family persist and which has also made it more intelligible and stable is its caste organization - one of the most complex systems in existence. Caste in India is, in fact, an extension of the joint family; it is an inclusive group of families having the same status and role (1993:21).
Although experts repeatedly portray India's caste system as a social entity, in reality it is an integrated part of traditional Hinduism. It has controlled Indian society for centuries.
In recent years, however, industrialization, secularization, and modernization are transforming Indian society. This is particularly true in urban areas. A modified extended family is emerging in urban India to meet the demands of the complex urban life. Here again, kin and clan play a central role.
Such structures may not look very traditional or formal, but they consist of a series of nuclear families joined as equals for mutual aid and functioning. These individual nuclear families, however, do not necessarily live together under one roof to form a traditional joint family. Members of kin and clan may be scattered in the city, living as nuclear units, but for all practical purposes they function as one large joint family.
Most urban migrants to the city seldom lose the feeling of belonging to a common home. Understanding this has tremendous implications for reaching urban families and triggering a chain of networking for the cause of Christ.
Urbanization is a worldwide phenomenon. Like the rest of the world, India is rapidly becoming urban. Urbanization draws millions of rural people into its fold. No matter how we look at India's cities, the fact remains that they are growing in number, size, and complexity.
No study of urbanization can neglect the part migration plays. "A discussion of urbanization in India, fundamentally is a discussion of net rural-to-urban migration" (Punekar 1974:27). The growth of India's urban population during the past few decades shows a significant movement of people from rural to urban centers. Moreover, if this trend continues, almost half of India's population will have moved to the cities by the year 2000. Thus the whole migration phenomenon demands careful understanding.
Why do people migrate to the city?
People primarily migrate to the cities for economic reasons - to earn a living. India is predominantly an agricultural country. Most of India's agricultural land depends on direct rainfall. When there is little rainfall, drought displaces thousands of people, forcing them to leave their villages to find work in the cities.
Members of the lower castes and landless laborers compose sizable segments of those who migrate to the cities. In addition, partly because of changes in the traditional caste system, many landless laborers lose their traditional occupations and must seek employment outside the village. Thus most of the people who migrate to the Indian cities do so primarily for economic reasons.
Industrialization is considered a "pull" factor that attracts thousands of people to the city. Cities offer numerous options for employment, primarily in industry. Many educated and skilled people tend to move to the city. Bougue and Zachariah contend that ". . . in India the propensity to migrate to urban areas is much higher among literate and educated people than among the illiterate . . ." (1962:53). In recent decades, the significant growth of industrial centers in major cities has attracted millions from all over India. This is a major reason why people move to the city, where some kind of employment is normally available.
There are other reasons why people migrate to the cities. Disasters such as famine, flooding, and community unrest force people to migrate. The availability of better educational facilities, the allure of the mass media, and increasing freedom attract thousands to the city. Escalating unemployment in rural areas due to changes in the traditional caste system, and government policies related to land, labor, and minimum wages also push rural people to the city.
Who migrates to the city?
In most cases it appears that first-time migrants to the city are men. Often, family members or circumstances force them to leave their villages and make the move. For a time they maintain their families in the village and send money regularly. Thus they keep close connections with their families and clans in the village. After a time, these men either bring their wives, children, and siblings to the cities, or eventually get married. Normally, they marry someone who is from their own sub-caste in a nearby village and then they establish a household in the city.
In recent years, more rural people are migrating to the cities with their families and households. This is particularly true when there is large-scale famine, flooding, or rioting in the countryside. Those people who live in villages near major cities migrate to the city with their entire families because the expansion of urbanization absorbs their land and livelihood. Left with no possible means of support in their village, and having no other option, they take shelter in the city. Men, women, and even children begin a struggle for survival as they move into the city. Many women and children, then, must also work in the city.
Where do the migrants settle?
While understanding the patterns of migration, we must notice the patterns of settlement. India's major cities reflect dual structures. According to Brush (1962) there is a clear distinction between traditionally developed cities and the cities developed by the British. In traditional Indian cities, the caste structure forms the basis for indigenous residential patterns. Here high castes are centralized and the laboring low castes are located on the outskirts. On the other hand, the British section of the city, often called the "cantonment" or "camp," is usually pre-planned in a tight pattern with a rigid hierarchy of status in which the highest ranks live farthest from the center of town.
As migrants arrive in the city, they find no place in a traditional city, where the caste system is the basis for the settlement pattern. But settling down in a "cantonment" is also difficult, due to its strict rules. Eventually, most of them manage to find people of their own caste or clan and settle down on the fringes of the city. As they arrive in the city, migrants initially appear to be uprooted and dislocated. A closer look reveals a different picture. When rural persons migrate to the city, they do not come arbitrarily. In most cases, they come to the city with some kind of initial contact.
Normally, the contact is either a close relative, someone from the same clan, or a friend. This explains why one can find groups of people from the same caste, language, and village background in specific areas of the city. Monsma is right when he says, "Networking relationships help people to find work, provide clothing, shelter, and food when needed, protect from destructive acts, provide help when sickness or death strikes and fulfill mankind's desire for social contacts" (1980:14).
Such kinship and caste pockets are found all over the city. Trivedi calls them "Semi-Urban Pockets" (1976:4). These pockets of typical rural migrants have a strong sense of community and enable the migrants to keep in touch with the village and their own caste community. So these pockets process the continuous ebb and flow of rural migrants, and assist in establishing and strengthening a web of relationships between families, clans, and castes.
What does the urban church do for migrants?
Traditionally, the Christian presence and activities in India are concentrated in the central part of the city. Most pastors expect newly arrived migrants, especially Christian migrants, to find a church and join the membership. Most of the people who migrate to the city, however, settle down at its fringes, and the churches generally find it difficult to leave their comfortable central location and move out to these people.
Some new independent churches occasionally move in and attempt to find rural Christian migrants from their own constituency and background. They establish initial contacts and follow-up with those migrants who show interest, inviting them to be a part of the church. Although the migrants appreciate these efforts, such initiatives normally do not consider the Christian migrants' non-Christian relatives and friends, who perhaps may show openness to the gospel.
Most migrants to the city have close contacts with their own kin and clan and they are often open to those who show interest and concern for them. Yet the church does not seem to be making use of these great opportunities. In fact, the church loses thousands of rural Christians as they move to India's large cities.
The city's complexity immobilizes many of India's urban churches and Christian leaders. Rapid urban growth puzzles them. Most of them are not well informed, trained, or equipped to take advantage of such opportunities. In many cases urban pastors are overloaded and on the verge of burn out. This makes them unwilling to do anything for those who are not yet part of their church. The urban church often perceives rural migrants as a burden and liability and, tragically, finds it extremely difficult to identify with them and accept them into the fold.
In addition, the church in India suffers from the lack of a wider vision. Most churches in the cities seem to have developed a maintenance mentality. They derive satisfaction from preserving the status quo. They show practically no interest in expanding their ministry beyond their own members. Internal problems, divisions, and litigation keep them so busy that they rarely stop to think of those who are outside the church. As a result, the church neglects most of the newly arrived migrants to the city.
Rereading the Scriptures
The Bible is a family book, and Christians cannot neglect its focus on the family. "When we turn to the biblical records, we shall discover that families feature prominently both as the recipients as well as the agents of salvation blessing" (Hian 1981:620). The Bible tells us how God took the initiative in establishing (Gen. 1, 2; Eph. 2:19), sustaining, and using families for the salvation of the nations. The terms "nation," "tribe," "house," and "family" have overlapping usage in the Bible (cf. Minear 1960).
The centrality of urban families in the New Testament
New Testament writers frequently used the Greek word oikos, translated in English as "house," "household," or "family." It is important to note that we find the New Testament usage of this word largely in urban contexts. Jesus and Paul recognized the importance of the family.
We come across several examples in the New Testament of whole families or households putting their faith in Jesus. In Luke 19:1-10, for example, we read about Zacchaeus and his household. John 4:53 tells us of the royal official and his household believing in Jesus. Paul concludes his letter to the Romans (Rom. 16) by sending his personal greetings to the households of Priscilla and Aquila, Aristobulus, and Narcissus. These households may have become Christian and thus were part of the church at Rome. Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 16:15 that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia. 2 Timothy 1:5 indicates that Timothy inherited a godly family background.
Interestingly, almost all of these households lived in cities or large towns. Zacchaeus was from Jericho, Lydia was from Thyatira, and the household of Stephanas was from Achaia. The households of Aquila, Aristobulus, Herodian, and Narcissus were from the capital city of Rome. So in the New Testament we see the Christian faith moving from family to family, establishing its strong presence in the urban world.
Perhaps it is in the Acts of the Apostles that we find the most prominent example of urban family evangelism and church planting. We will do well to study the Book of Acts to find out how the gospel spread effectively along family lines.
Focus on the family in the Acts of the Apostles
Harry Boer observes that "Acts is preeminently a book describing a group approach in mission" (1961:163). Acts clearly shows how God brought several families and households to faith in Jesus Christ. Most of the cities that Paul visited were significant regional urban centers with a wide influence on their surrounding provinces. Paul basically focused his pattern of ministry on family units. Although Paul's strategy was first to reach the Jewish community in diaspora, after the Antioch experience (Acts 13) he also directed his efforts toward the Gentiles. Here again, while focusing on receptive Gentiles, he concentrated on family units.
"A favored technique [in Acts] was to evangelize households" (Hedlund 1985a:226). We come across several examples of the households the apostles evangelized. For example, "[Comelius] and all his family were devout and God-fearing . . . and [he] had called together his relatives and close friends" to hear Peter preach (Acts 10:2, 24). Although Cornelius was not a Jew, Peter brought him and his whole family to the Lord. It is crucial to note this for it shows how we can influence close relatives and friends for Christ.
Such family solidarity is common in most Eastern societies, and effective evangelism will follow the path of these "bridges of God" (McGavran 1955).
Once a family or household becomes Christian, other relatives and friends encounter them and receive their introduction to the gospel. Paul and his companions repeat this pattern in the city of Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of the district of Macedonia, where they baptized Lydia and the members of her household (Acts 16:12-15).
We find the most striking example of family conversion, however, in Acts 16. In response to the jailer's question, Paul and Silas instruct him to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household." Consequently, the jailer and his whole family were baptized. Here it is important to note that the appeal was made to the jailer's whole family to believe in Jesus, and it was natural and normal for Paul and Silas to do so.
In Acts 18 we find that the family of Priscilla and Aquila were part of the community of believers. Further, we read about the conversion of "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household. . ." (Acts 18:8). One of the major reasons the early church became strong and grew quickly despite persecution is because of the conversions of families and households.
The gospel moved across cities and spread from family to family Paul's strategy clearly shows that he not only accepted the existing social system but also used it effectively for the spread of the gospel. McGregor rightly points out that use of the social structure aided the rapid spread of the gospel and the expansion of the early church through the household system. "When a total family is reached for Christ it can become a tremendous force for Christ in winning other households. This is a natural, spontaneous and lifelike process of increase" (1980:37).
When these families united and formed a church, they exerted a tremendous influence on their relatives and friends. These households became centers for further evangelism. "The house church phenomenon of the New Testament (Rom. 16:5-15; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2) was an accompaniment of the family evangelism pattern" (Hedlund 1985a:227). It is, therefore, evident that "the life and ministry of the early church were deeply rooted in the home of the Christian believer" (McGregor 1980:35). The gospel penetrated in and through family networks, making evangelism effective and churches stronger.
Families were the starting point for evangelization in Acts. This approach was effective in winning large segments of different societies for Christ. Paul could boast of preaching the gospel to the whole of Asia, although he only went to some strategic cities and preached the gospel there. But Paul's secret was that he preached to family units - and these families, probably through their networks, spread the gospel to their own kin and clans.
Part 1, 2
Atul Y. Aghamkar ministered in two cities in central India with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, primarily as a church planter and pastor.
This article originally appeared in God So Loves The City, Charles Van Engen and Jude Tiersma, editors, 1994. Used by permission, MARC Publications, www.marcpublications.com.
Unless otherwise noted, all materials on the urbana.org web site are Copyright InterVarsity Christian Fellowship / USA. All rights reserved.
Print
Email
Comments
Be the first one to add a comment.
To post a comment, please login or register