Evangelism, Dialogue, Reconciliation: A Case Study of the Growth and Transformation of the Henry...

A&E STUDY OF THE GROWTH AND TUNSFORMATION OF THE HENRY MARTYN INSTITUTE

Evangelism, Dialogue, Reconciliation: A Case Study of the Growth and Transformation of the Henry Martyn Institute

Diane D’Souza 7;lie Harty Ma- Zmtitute Hydmh~$ Zndh

study the development 0- rhe Henry Martyn Institute c. Islamic Studies (HMI) is to gain insight into the modern history of the world- T wide Church. This is not simply because this Indian institution was

founded with a clearly stated international focus,l nor because of the presence of non-Indians in key decision-making positions for many years, but because the growth and change which have marked its nearly seventy years of history reflect larger issues which have inspired and challenged the Church as a whole.

In this paper, I focus on the continuity and changes in HMI’s overall aims and objectives from 1930 to 1997, giving particular attention to the last fifteen years and to the emergence of a new “ministry of reconciliation.” One consequence of this choice is that I have kept to a minimum the discussion of the considerable organizational and geographic changes characterizing the Institute’s development.* I have also given very limited coverage to certain program areas, the most noteworthy omission being HMI’s involvement in the publication of tracts, books and periodicals of various forms.3 This focus makes it possible to study in greater depth the changing ethos of this unique and pioneering institution, shedding light or Christian thinking about interfaith dynamics in the twentieth century.

I have drawn most of my material for this article from published and unpublished reports, minutes and papers written for or about the Henry

155

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 a SPRING zoo1

Martyn Schoolhstitute of Islamic Studies. Much of my knowledge of HMI’s recent successes and struggles stems from twelve years of association with the Institute, starting on a casual basis in 1985, and becoming much more formal when I joined the faculty in 1990. I credit much of my understanding of HMI’s inner workings to my relationship, as wife and colleague, with it’s present director, Dr. Andreas D’Souza, although the analysis and conclusions drawn here are solely my own.

Missionary Beginnings We need some bond of unity in this great work in India, something that will keep the Mohammedan problem constantly before us. . . Can we accomplish the task if we are not united? We should aim at an ordered advance. We should be more on the alert. How many of us are on the lookout to see what the Mohammedans are about? Do we watch their papers and magazines? Do we know what books they are bringing out. . * ?4

John Tackle, Australasian Baptist Mission. Founder, “Missionaries to Moslems League”

. . . in the various parts of a universal task and duty there are grades of urgency, and the debate of this first commission, and those on subsequent days, showed fairly clearly that the storm centres of interest and urgency and anxiety in the ecumenical crusade today might be roughly defined as (1) India, (2) the yellow Farther East, and (3) Islam as a whole, especially where it is ad~ancing .~

Statement from the World Missionary Conference Edinburgh, 1910

Like the Newman School of Missions in Jerusalem and the School of Oriental Studies in Cairo, the Henry Martyn School in LahoreG was founded as part of a Christian missionary effort to provide men and women with a thorough preparation for engagement with “non-Chris- tian~.’’ The two main roots of the School were the Missionaries to Mos- lems League and All-India Association, founded in 1912 by Rev. John Tackle; and the Department of Islamic Studies at Bareilly Theological Seminary, established by Dr. Murray Titus in 1925 and directed for its brief five year existence by John A. Subhan.

More than any other factor, however, it was the energy and cha- risma of the American missionary Samuel Zwemer that was chiefly responsible for catalyzing these early Indian initiatives. No t surpris- ingly, it was also Zwemer who persuaded British missionary societies to accept a proposal for a

156

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROWTH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY MARTYN INSTITUTE

united centre of work among Muslims . . . which would provide the opportunity for research and literary work and also afford facilities for the training of missionaries who would wish to devote themselves to Muslim work?

The Conference of Missionary Societies of Great Britain and Ireland favorably received Zwemer’s proposal and referred it to India’s European- dominated National Christian Council (NCC) for discussion and action. Consequently, in November 1926, the NCC formulated a scheme for the establishment of a “Christian School of Islamic Studies” somewhere in India.8 In writing about the history of the School, Ian H. Douglas notes that its founding purpose was clearly to “advance the cause of evangelization of Muslims throughout the country,” as the 1929 “Statement of Aims and Purposes” shows:

Whatever the work and wherever it will be done, the primary purpose of this School will always be to use every means to enable the messengers of the Gospel in India to command Christ acceptably to Mu~lims.~

The Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studiedo opened its door in January 1930, with three teaching staff members and four resident students from South India.’l The NCC Committee had identified three main program goals for the body:

1. research by staff members with special reference to Indian Islam; 2. training of Christian workers for witness and service among Mus-

lims; and 3. preparation of gospel literature suitable for use among Muslims.’* In

addition to the above programs-which involved guiding resident students through individually designed courses of study,*3 con- ducting extension programs for various groups and institutions, building up a library, and engaging in translation or other research projects-the School staff and students also regularly organized other activities, including “bazaar preaching”14 and “newspaper evangelism.”15 The School also maintained a “close connection” with a local fellowship of Muslim converts and others called the Brotherhood of St. Andrew, which organized evangelistic campaigns and saw to the needs of new converts.16

The Question of Evangelism In 1940, after a decade of fluctuation, the Henry Martyn School’s

governing .body-the Committee of Management-issued a small descrip- tive pamphlet in which it re-stated the School’s overall “Aims and Needs.”

157

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 9 1 SPRING 2001

Calling the School an “indispensable” tool in the hands of “world evangelism,” the Committee underlined the fact that it “exists to serve the Church by furthering evangelism among Muslims in India,” addressing the needs of both “workers among Muslims” and “the brotherhood of converts from Islam:”

It Ithe Henry Martyn School1 is the only Specialized Effort being made by the Christian Forces as a whole to promote the cause of the Evangel among the Moslems of India. Through a well-equipped and devoted staff, it makes a careful study of trends of thought within Islam, produces literature both informative and apologetic, of a high order, and by personal visitation, the holding of institutes in various centres, participation in special evangelistic efforts and other means, brings not only the needs and challenge of Islam home to the Christian forces, but gives informed guidance on the all-important subject of approach. . .

Throughout the 1930s, 40s and ~ O S , the School followed its primary aim of serving “the church by furthering evangelism among Muslims in India.” Although the goal was clearly to win new converts to Christianity, many missionaries saw a distinction between this and earlier attempts at proselytization. In a 1947 essay published in the Bul.hh of tbeHenty M a w ScbmZof~&zmic Stua‘ieql* NCC Secretary John Sadiq noted that Christians have often misunderstood evangelism to be an aggressive attack on the faith of Muslims. Urging a change, he distanced himself from the polemical debates which characterized Muslim-Christian interaction in the nineteenth century, and quoted the recommendations of two more recent Christian events-the Jerusalem Conference of 1928,19 and the Tambaram Conference a decade later-both of which exhort the Christian Church to let its relationship to the Muslim world be guided by a “spirit of penitence, humility and understanding love:”20

Through the course of the centuries the spiritual and political contacts between the world of Islam and of Christendom have been, on the Christian side, of a repellant nature. The Christian Church stands, therefore, in a special debt of love and patience towards the Muslim world. . .

Necessity is laid upon us to preach Christ to the Muslims, and to do so in such a way that they will find in Him not only a prophet of God, but the Savior of the world . . . Presentation of Christian Message and the invitation to Christian faith can be made only in a spirit of humility and sympathy, humility because the Gospel, God’s Good News, is not our achievement but the gift of God in Christ, sympathy because the Muslim desperately needs Christ, and is so much the poorer without Him.

158

A &E STUDY OF THE GRORTH AND TRANSFOAMATION OF THE HENRY MARTI” INSTITUTE

There is no need here to examine our past methods. Anyone who has read Dr. Pfander’s Muzan ul-Haqq (The Balance of Truth), or Dr. Rouse’s Tracts for Muslims or Dr. Potter’s ’Roots and Branches” will clearly see that while they may have helped Christians to see where weaknesses in Islam be, their contribution to the problem of correct approach to Islam is of very doubtful value. Not only in writing but also in preaching and discussion the method of attacking Islam and its founder and that of establishing Christianity’s superiority over Islam in that way and in a spirit of pride has been found to be not only ineffective but positively harmful . . . [While the Method of controversy may help a certain type of mind . . . it is very doubtful whether mere logical reasonings and intellectual victories win many converts. T.H.P. Sailer has aptly said, ‘it would hardly be too much to say that some missionaries have succeeded in spite of their arguments rather than because of them.’*’

Greater sympathy and love does not mean, however, setting aside the task of conversion. Rather, it is the “method of controversy” that one should avoid. He continues his essay by discussing ways to approach Muslims more effectively (including greater church unity; greater faith, hope and charity; and firm Christian faith), and calls for a “sympathetic study and understanding” of Islam. Despite this plea, Sadiq himself makes a number of biased generalities: according to him, Christians have-or at least their faith gives them recourse to-a “deep sense of the sacredness of Human personality,” “supreme respect and loyalty to truth,” and a sense of the oneness of all people-all qualities which, he says, Muslims lack.

More pointed in this kind of prejudice is William Sutherland, who opens his 1949 Buh‘ettr’n article “The Gospel Message in Pakistan” by asking what the creation of Pakistan means for the Christian missionary effort. Lamenting the fact that less than two percent of the subcontinent’s five thousand missionaries dedicate themselves to winning Muslims to Christ, Sutherland notes that missionaries have often avoided their responsibility to Islam because of the discouraging wall of Muslim “pride and arrogance, bigotry and fanaticism.” He further comments, “Behind the faqade of Islam there exists today a spiritual vacuum greater than anything we can imagine.” A member of the Committee of Management of the Henry Martyn School, Sutherland sees in the creation of Pakistan a God- given opportunity.

. . . [for it] brings us in Pakistan face to face with an almost purely Muslim population. Surely, it is God’s hand that has placed us in this unique position. We find ourselves now faced with direct action or with retreat. It almost seems as though God were forcing upon us that work which we have been unwilling to face in the past . . .

159

THE MUSLIM WORLD V O L U M E 91 0 SPRING zoo1

Sutherland goes on to encourage his fellow missionaries by reminding them of the simplicity of the Christian message and task.

. . . the one great thing to remember is that the Muslim is like other men, a sinner in need of salvation, a lost soul in need of Christ and that there is no special message for the Muslim apart from that which we have come to bring to any other people. Christ only, is our message for them. He is ‘the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Him.’22

The conversion orientation of the Henry Martyn School probably reached its peak during the late 1950s under the leadership of Dr. A. Abdul Haqq. In August 1956, Principal Haqq took leave from his work to join the Billy Graham campaign in the USA; the next summer, he began to develop his own plans for setting up an evangelistic team “for revival of the Church in Ir1dia.”~3 In his Mnc@a/SReporCof 1957, Haqq was optimistic about the chance to win more souls to Christ.

There are encouraging signs of the beginnings of a spiritual awakening in the Church in different parts of the world. The wind has chosen to blow in the direction of India and Pakistan too. The Henry Martyn School with its sphere of activity comprising the Muslims of these lands has also experienced a profound renewal of interest in evangelism.

Under the providence of the Lord, a start has already been made towards practical evangelistic work . . , We were able to get three enquirers from among the Mulkhana’s [sic] to stay with us for a period of two and a half months . . . for instruction in the way of Life. Two of these were well educated. One of them has been baptized, while the remaining two will be baptized after a few months of probation. They will bring, in turn, others to Christ. We are expecting groups of enquirers, during the course of the current year, for retreats and short courses of instruction leading eventually to baptism.

Even with their clear orientation towards conversion, the teaching staff at the Henry Martyn School established a number of friendships with Muslims, particularly the educated academics of Lahore and Aligarh. There also appears to have been between the two groups an exchange of research ideas and academic support, as well as invitations to attend or deliver public and private lectures2* A careful reading of the HMI minutes and records also suggests that some of the staff members might have had a more nuanced understanding of their work and its goals. In a staff meeting held on December 1940, for example, J.W. Sweetman reported on the allocation of staff responsibilities based on the new “Statement of Aims and

160

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROWTH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY b m INSTITUTE

Needs.” Dividing the School’s main activities into research, teaching and evangelism, Sweetman began by discussing the task of evangelism, but was soon interrupted by Dr. D. M. Donaldson, a new staff member recently assigned to India from his former post in Persia, where he had served as a missionary for twenty five years. The “Minutes” record the following intervention:

Dr. Donaldson thought that the use of the term EUangelz3-m in connection with the work of the School might give rise to misunderstanding and suggested something more comprehensive like national Church seryice or service within the

This is, at least on record, the first time an HMI staff member appeared to question the use of the word “evangelism.” But what does one make of such a brief statement? In the absence of a more detailed record of the discussion, one is left guessing. Was Donaldson seeking to give proselytization another name, or was he suggesting that the nature of the work itself be changed? It seems more likely that the “misunderstandings” which he sought to avoid were probably in the minds of non-Christians. Was Donaldson suggesting that Christian missionary activity should be less visible, or different in character? Furthermore, did this idea spring from his experience of working among Muslims in Persia? A carehl study of Donaldson’s writings-unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper- might give us a clue.

Another instance which hints at diversity in the understanding of evangelism, also found in the “Staff Minutes,” is a comment made by Sweetman during a report of his teaching tour of South India: “ . . . The meetings arranged at Mysore were evangelistic in character and somewhat marred by the desire on the part of some for mere controversy . . . The distinction between evangelism and “mere controversy”-or even the fact that certain meetings were classified as “evangelistic in character”-is interesting. Was Sweetman referring to a Muslim interruption of his talk? It seems more likely that by “mere controversy” he was referring, as did John Sadiq above, to the evangelical technique of aggressive rebuttal of Islam in order to prove the superiority of Chri~tianity.~’ If this assumption is true, it implies that Sweetman saw some Christians as more conservative in their understanding of what evangelism should mean, perhaps even challenging the kind of work in which he himself was engaged, namely, the study of Islamic theology and thought. Thus, despite their clear commitment to furthering evangelism and, ultimately, conversion, the staff at the Henry

161


Martyn School varied in their understanding of the exact shape of the Christian mission.

That questions of approach were being raised is also clear from the tenor of the discussions at the crucial “All-India Consultation on Work among Muslims,” held in Nagpur in December 1958. Convened largely to seek ways to improve the functioning of the Henry Martyn School-at that time reduced to a teaching staff of one-the meeting also involved the discussion of broader questions.

Some time was given to consideration of some of the theological implications of the Christian missionary task and the form and pattern of the Christian attitude toward Islam. One basic question was whether we are to emphasize the uniqueness of the gospel and the cross in contrast with the natural man in such a way as to displace all else as of no value? Or are we right in seeking to express the gospel to the Muslim in terms which are familiar to him? Does it necessarily lead to syncretism or to a watering down of the gospel to think of another religion as continuous with the Christian faith? Is not the meaning of the incarnation that we must find the ideas already familiar to man and pour the gospel into such ‘earthen vessels?’28

Clearly then, despite possible nuances about what evangelism might mean, the Henry Martyn School’s main goal continued to be to “pour the gospel into , . . earthen vessels.” The key question, nearly thirty years after its founding, was whether Christians could still meet this goal if “the uniqueness of the gospel and the cross” were not emphasized.*g

From Residential School to Research Institute In 1957, the Board of Management accepted a revision of the Constitu-

tion of the Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studies, the revising process having taken more than two years. In the new document, the stated objectives of the School were to provide

a centre for research for the training of Christian workers, and for the preparation of Christian literature, with special reference to Islam in India. The School shall also be willing to serve the neighboring countries.30

Notably absent from this formulation of the Constitution is an express mission statement to work for the conversion of Muslims. In fact, the words seem vague or guarded in contrast to previous statements, the exact reason for which is unclear. Had the past years’ strong efforts at proselytization caused a backlash among those having a different interpretation of the Christian task? Or were the authors simply trying to be pru-

162

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROWH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY MARTYN INSTITUTE

dent-or perhaps succinct-in the expression of the scope and aims of their work? Whatever the reason, the 1957 Constitution was replaced within three years by a more elaborate, and ultimately more controversial, statement of aims and purposes.

Ian H. Douglas, in his LhmtorSAnnualReport of 2%2, records an important turning point for HMI in the reorganization of the Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studies into the Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, a proposal which was first made by the Board of Management in February 1959. Douglas summarizes the changes this way:

Thus there came about the reconstitution of the old ‘School’ as an ‘Institute’ no longer seeking to be primarily a residential place of study- although still maintaining facilities for research, seminars, study conferences and courses of instruction for theological students-but being conceived of and designed to assist the Church throughout the country to realize and fulfill its evangelistic obligation to Muslims. The new constitution, embodying these revised aims, was finally accepted by the Board in February 1960.3*

The new Constitution differed from its predecessor in both form and content. Complying with the legal requirements of registration under the Companies Act (under which HMI was registered in 1968), it contained a “Memorandum of Association” and “Articles of Association,” the former clearly spelling out the aim of the Institute:

To assist the Church to realize and fulfill its evangelistic obligation to Muslims by fostering among Christians an adequate and sympathetic understanding of Islam.

Eight activities were listed as the means through which to achieve the overall purpose: 1) teaching Islam in seminars, 2) organizing short seminars or conferences for study of the “practical issue of evangelism and of major questions relating to life and development in contemporary Islam in India,” 3) directing “more elementary” studies for local congregations, 4) maintaining a research library, 5) providing residential facilities for students, participants and guests, 6) seeking opportunities to teach in Islamic educational institutions, and 7) producing literature and audio-visual aids to further the purpose of the In~titute.3~

The aims and activities articulated in HMI’s “Memorandum” and “Ar- ticles” of Association would stand unaltered for nearly twenty five years, although, as the fact of religious pluralism began to be increasingly ac- knowledged, tensions started to emerge on just what was meant by a Christian “evangelistic obligation” to Muslims.

163


The Era of Dialogue Begins In a 1960 “editorial” in the HMI BuZZetfn, quoting freely from Kenneth

Cragg’s Sa&kattheMiqzq Director Ian H. Douglas notes the emergence of a new trend in the Christian response to non-Christians:

Clearly there is in our time a far-reachingfact of inter-religion in the simple circumstance we may describe as interlife . . . Whatever. . . may or should be the shape of relations between religions . . , they are in fact in a state of real actual coexistence to a degree never true hitherto.33

Douglas highlights some of the tensions which surround this new paradigm, outlining two extreme Christian understandings of the “shape of relations between religions:”

The Christian ambassador may fall prey [to] opposite errors. On the one hand there is the arrogant superiority which refuses recognition to the other religion. The attitude in Europe which forbade the printing of Protestant pioneer missionary Ziegenbalg’s studies of the religion of Malabar-‘The missionaries were sent out to exterminate heathenism in India, not to spread heathen nonsense all over Europe’-is not without its representatives in some Christian circles today. On the other hand there is the contrasting temptation to ‘air avoidance of issues and air uncritical will to acquiesce.’

Later that same year, Douglas wrote a more pointed “Editorial” entitled “In Defence of Dialogue” in which he tried to still Christian misapprehen- sions about this new approach. He noted the ambiguity surrounding the term, then focused on those who, aware of its meaning and implications, still reject it.

To such sincere objections we reply that dialogue and related ideas represent the contemporary dimension of the New Testament mandate to evangelize, or herald the Gospel . . . [Tlhe early church was nowhere dealing with a ‘post-Christian’ religion, which claimed to know already all about what the Christians had to say. . . Are we to ignore those, who may or may not be prepared to confess themselves sinners, but who are devout adherents of their faiths and who would strongly resent the suggestion that their religion was not a primary factor in their lives? Has Christianity no word for those who are in the profoundest sense of the term Muslirn?j4

Addressing those who see dialogue as compromise, Douglas asserts that such encounters are not a denial of the truth of the Gospel, but an “expression of loyalty” to it, “a passionate desire to have it heard and understood.” True dialogue is not “a more sophisticated form of the old polemical de-

164

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROWTH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY MARTXN INSTITUTE

bates” where enemies come to defeat each other. Its purpose is “to come together as strong men, convinced that God is with both of us.”3s

Under the leadership of Douglas, HMI thus joined a global trend towards interfaith dialogue.36 In October 1965, in cooperation with the recently formed Indian Institute of Islamic Studies in New Delhi,37 HMI organized its first Joint Christian-Muslim Seminar at the National Christian Council headquarters in Nagpur. Nine Muslims and one Christian attended the four day event on the theme “Faith and Works.” In its report on the seminar, HMI noted the “spirit of cordiality and goodwill” which characterized the highly successful exchange.

All present were greatly heartened by the friendly atmosphere within which air openness was possible which can hardly be described as typical of Christian-Muslim relationships in the past . . . 68

The Institute expressed its hope that the event would become a “recur- ring feature” in its regular programs, for it marked “the opening of a new chapter in the relations of the two ~ommunities.”3~

Keeping to this commitment, HMI organized in the following year a series of three public lectures on the theme of “Islam and Christianity” for which several hundred Muslims and Christians gathered. The report on this event in HMI’s BuZZetin captures the spirit of hopefulness which characterized the meetings. Noting the “mature relationships of mutual respect” existing between Hyderabad Christians and Muslims, the article quotes the comment of the well respected scholar Dr. Syed Abdul Latif, who said that such meetings are the first-step to improving relationships. Certainly, “where politics have failed till now, religion, properly understood and followed, will succeed.”40

Through the 1960s and 70s, HMI continued to take initiatives in deep- ening understanding between Christians and Muslims, including seminars and interfaith “live together^."^^ In addition, through teaching and writing, the staff underlined the need for a sensitive Christian response to the fact of religious pluralism. David Lindeil, former HMI Director and long- time staff member, assessed the gains of this period:

During the last decade or two the word ‘dialogue’ has become widely used, and perhaps misused, to describe an activity which has become increasingly important in our pluralistic world. The concept is not a new one for the HMI, for the records from the very beginning speak of mutual relationships, both on a personal and all institutional level, which today would be called dialogue. Yet it is true, perhaps, that there is a wider recognition among Christians that ‘dialogue’ expresses a more appropri-

165

a THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 SPRING 2001

ate attitude toward other people than was often the case in the past. It represents a shift from confrontation to conversation. It accents the need to listen and learn rather than to declare and dominate. It recognizes the worth and integrity of other people who find their identity and values in cultural terms and patterns that differ from our own. And it reminds us that the gospel is not our possession but the gift of God which calls us to reconciliation with himself and with our neighbours in love, trust, openness and freedom.42

As we will see, Lindell’s remark about the use and misuse of the word dialogue was not simply a comment on the times, but a reflection on actual tensions existing within the Institute itself between the work of dialogue and that of proselytization.

Dialogue and the Goal of Conversion

Hyderabad,” Bishop John A. Subhan, Chairman of HMI’s Governing Board, made a positive assessment of the current direction in Christian engagement with Muslims:

In his 1972 article “Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies,

We have now passed the age of endless debates and controversy and have entered a new era of Dialogue . . . The days of polemics are gone, a new age in the world of religion has started for interfaith fraternization and a better religious understanding between religion and religion.43

Subhan goes on to clarify, however, that the superiority of this approach lies in its more successful communication of Christian belief, producing “converts with deeper faith in Christ the Lord and Saviour, and not on the basis of mere intellectual sati~faction.”~~

Thus, for some, the new thrust towards dialogue was simply a more friendly way to win Muslims and others to Chri~tianity.~~ As Lindell hinted, the new buzz word was being used to describe almost any interaction between Christians and Muslims-even the preachings of an evangelist?6

interfaith dialogue, it also continued to fuel the work of Christian proselytization. The cover of an HMI pamphlet published during the late 1960s features a skyline crowded with domes and minarets over which are imposed the words “fifty million Muslims.” Opening the pamphlet, one is presented with a brief summary of HMI’s history.

Moreover, at the same time that HMI was encouraging a move towards

1806-A lone Protestant chaplain, Henry Martyn, employed by the British East India Company, began six years of pioneer evangelism of Muslims with the memorable words, penned in Serampore, India: ‘Now let me burn out for God.’

166


1930-the narrative of British Missionary societies and the response of the National Christian Council of India resulted in the founding in Lahore (now in Pakistan) of the Henry Martyn School, with a teaching staff of three. Today-Decentralized as the Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, a team of full-time and part-time staff members located strategi- cally in India, seeks: To assist the church to realize and fulfill its evangelistic obligation to Muslims by fostering among Christians an adequate and sympathetic understanding of Islam.

Next to a picture of the Taj Mahal, the pamphlet then presents the current Christian challenge:

In the secular state of India is found the third largest Muslim population in the world-approximately 50 million!

Architectural monuments witness to the past glories of Muslim rule. Twentieth-century Muslims testify daily, ‘There is no God but God, and Mohammed is the prophet of God.’ But there is still no adequate communication to them of the gospel of the love of God in Jesus Christ.

How does HMI meet this situation?

The pamphlet then offers a brief summary of its programs under the following goal headings: giving Christians an understanding of Islam, interpreting the Christian Gospel through “apologetic” and other literature, and taking a lead in personal encounters with Muslims.

If we survey HMI sponsored activities during this period, we find a clear commitment to preparing Christians for the work of proselytizing their faith.

Seminars and conferences which aim to create ‘greater interest in the task of winning Muslims to Chri~t,’~’ such as ‘Islam and the Gospel of Jesus Christ’ (1970, ‘Reaching the Unreached-the Muslims’ (1980), and the ‘All India Conference on Christian Witness to Muslims’ (1972). A publishing program which strives ‘to get a few printed words concerning our Lord into the hands of the non-Christian-in this case the Muslims.’48 Distribution campaigns of Christian apologetical literat~re.~’ Annual participation in the highly polemical ‘Good News Festivals’ and ‘All India Institutes on Evangelism’ conducted by former HMI Principal Abdul Haqq, now an evangelist in the Billy Graham Association.

167

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 SPRING 2001

It is thus clear that, while stating an interest in working for dialogue with Muslims, HMI also continued to support the work of active evangelization. Sam Bhajjan summarized this commitment during a 1971 World Council of Churches meeting of Study Centre Directors:

These difficult and dangerous days have given a new urgency to World evangelization. The times call for a more earnest and convincing presentation of the Gospel to all classes and conditions of men. The Henry Martyn Institute exists to commend the Gospel to the followers of Islam; it deserves the confidence, prayer and practical support of all to whom that same Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation.

We believe the time is propitious for advances. There are indications that Islam is far from being a closed door and that when the Gospel is presented with understanding and sympathy, such as the HMI fosters, a favourable response may be expected. In this special field of world evangelisation, the Henry Martyn Institute stands ready to serve.%

Evaluating F W Years of Existence In 1978, as the Institute approached the fiftieth anniversary of its

founding, the Director suggested that the Board appoint a special committee to study HMI’s past ministry and “recommend ways and means to improve it, keeping in mind the secular and pluralistic set up of the Indian society.”51 As a result, the Governing Council appointed a four-member ecumenical team to serve as the Evaluation Committee.52 Two years later, their Evaluation Report was ready. In 1982, a Council-appointed Review Committee discussed the Report with HMI staff and presented specific recommendations to the Board.53

A number of far-reaching observations and recommendations arose from this review process, two of which ultimately led to significant changes in HMI’s future direct i~n.~* The first and most important was the Evalua- tion Committee’s observation of a vagueness in the understanding of the Institute’s overall aim, making it difficult to assess how HMI’s activities helped to fulfill its defining purpose. In fact, they noted the Institute’s “aims and objectives have slowly marginalized in an unconscious way . . . n55 It was mainly for this reason that HMI’s work of dialogue and its support for proselytization-activities with clearly different aims-could continue to go on side by side. The Review Committee strongly recommended that HMI clarify its objectives, particularly the connotation of the “pivotal premise” of its Memorandum of Association; namely:

To m k t t h e Church and other institutions to realize and fulfill their eYangelbticobligation to Muslims by fostering an adequate and sympathetic undersunding of Islam [emphasis as printed].%

168

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROVTA AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY k T Y N INSTITUTE

In an attempt to begin this process, the Committee offered the following definition of evangelism:

. . . announcing the good news, namely telling people about Christ, so that the hearer can realize that they are being invited by God to turn to Christ (conversion), change their way of living (repentance), and enter into deep relationship with Christ (bapti~m).~’

The Committee then reported the results of a survey among Chris- tianss8 in which respondents cited three main ways through which the “proclamation of the good news” can be achieved:

1. condemning the religion of one’s listeners; 2. preaching the love and forgiveness of Jesus without deriding the

others’ faith; and 3. living a life according to Christ’s teachings and thus setting an

example for others. The Evaluation Committee reported that the first method of approach-

which they labeled “fundamentalist”-was not popular or in favor. This, they said, suggested a broader Christian trend to be more compassionate, understanding and informed in one’s approach to the “Muslim apostates.” Most of the Christians surveyed favored an “intermediate” or “progressive” model of evangelism. In other words, conversion was still the desired goal, but aggressive polemics were not an acceptable means of evangelism.

these findings: Perhaps most significant, however, was the Committee’s reflections on

During its discussion the Evaluation Committee realized that there is another model of evangelism, based on the Liberation Theology which has been completely ignored by respondents. According to this approach, traditional Christianity and Islam have to be reinterpreted to discover the essential human and liberating elements in them and proclaim them to the people, so that religion itself becomes a tool for liberation. This model is absent from the consciousness of the people and hence special efforts to infuse them with this idea should be made. . . 59

The idea of Liberation Theology as a new model of “proclaiming the good news” seems to contradict the Committee’s earlier interpretation of evangelism as “telling people about Christ,”-for which conversion, repentance and baptism are the stated goals. As the Committee points out, the Liberation model requires Christianity and Islam to work side by side to reinterpret and proclaim to their followers new liberatirig elements from within their own traditions. Clearly, this process does not focus on conversion. Yet, the Committee did not address the inherent inconsistency

169

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 0 SPRING z o o 1

between their definition and this vision, inadvertently confirming their finding that Christian respondents sometimes simultaneously accept several different understandings of evangelism.

The second point which I would like to highlight from the 1982 Evalua- tion Report concerns the Committee’s recommendation for HMI’s Board to consider ways to strengthen its programs in relation to the Church. Along with public relations and extension work, the Review Committee suggested, “. . . being sensitive to the needs and opportunities of the church in areas of communal tension.’760 Although there is no further elaboration on this point, it is interesting to note that the same recommendation was brought up nearly fifteen years earlier at an HMI seminar for Christian seminary professors of religion and theology. HMI’s short course, which consisted of a three day orientation to Islam followed by an eight day seminar on “Islam in India, Past and Present,” was a rich experience enliv- ened by the views of sixteen Muslim resource people. As G. Gispert-Sauch notes in his report on the event, the lectures led to a wide-ranging exchange on many levels, including a discussion of the implications of the outbreak of communalism.

There was on this point a question which we asked ourselves again and again during the Seminar. We were well aware of the tensions between the two bigger communities, especially in North India. Will not the Church in India, a tiny Community as she is but on the whole having fairly good relations with both the communities (at least comparatively!), will she not help them to come together and to accept one another in a better way? Could she not throw herself fully into the task of promoting national integration, and could this not be part of the mission which Christ wants her to do here and now? Could she not cooperate with the Government and other agencies to this effect? Could she not herself take bold initiatives? The problem is serious and urgent and its solution, it seems to me, quite within the scope of the mission of the Church, since the victory over sin and its consequences which Christ obtained and which the Church must make manifest in the world. The remarks may be pertinent, however, in this connection: first, that such a work would demand not only initiative, but at times perhaps more courage and boldness than we usually show. . . Second, that the word ‘integration’ appeared at times a little suspect . . . as seeming to imply the merging of one culture into another. Perhaps ‘solidarity’ would not have such over- tones, for it is clear that the aim is the formation and evolution of a true pluralistic society in which each member and each community is accepted as what it is, in its own characteristic history and way of living.6’

170

A GSE STUDY OF THE GROWTH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY MARTYN INSTITUTE

Gispert-Sauch’s words would prove prophetic, for more than twenty years later, HMI began to define its “ministry of reconciliation” in precisely these terms.

Iden-g Reconciliation as the Goal HMI was not quick to take up the challenges presented in the review of

its fifty years of functioning62 In April 1982, the Board requested HMI’s Director to mobilize the staff to study the recommendations of the Review Committee and present its own specific statements of “policy, priorities, structures, procedures” at the next meeting. In October 1982, an oral report was presented, but there was no response to the Board’s subsequent request for a written report. The matter remained forgotten until it was revived in October 1986, when the Board took a resolution to begin con- crete steps to clarify HMI’s aims, priorities and programs through a struc- tured planning process. A joint planning meeting with the Board and staff was held in January 1987, inviting participants to rethink HMI’s direction, as well as to identify current problems and possible solutions in the Institute’s overall functioning. The discussions and finding were summarized in a report prepared by Rev. Dr. Arleen Kelley, the facilitator for the two-day meeting. Under the subheading “Toward aims for HMI-discern- ing that which God is calling us to do,” Kelley noted that the Board identified eleven possible foci for HMI’s work, from which five were later selected as most important for HMI’s future. In “no particular order of importance” these are:

. . . to witness to human, spiritual and faith values by assisting people to identify and deepen their own spiritual values and faith in God. To serve as a force to reconcile-by awakening the Churches to understand and fulfill their role as peace making bodies in the midst of communal disharmony and lack of spiritual values in society. To equip and motivate the Churches for the task of sharing its faith with others, in love.63 To stimulate dialogue with the Christian community about relationships with Muslims as well as between the Christian community and Muslim community. To provide resources to Churches and Christian groups who are concerned with work of Muslims which was assistant in its positive understanding of Islam and the nature of Christian Muslim relationships [sic].

The report of the January planning session was then circulated to members of the HMI Governing Council, who met in April 1987 to take the planning

171

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 s SPRING 2001

process one step further. That two-day meeting gave birth to a draft document, “Henry Martyn Institute: A Ministry of Reconciliation,” the finalized version of which the Council approved one year later as “the working document for the future development of HMI.”64

harmony in India, the planning document stresses the need for people to put aside “prejudice and distortion” in order to “work together for the common good.” It notes that the Church’s willingness to take this concern seriously stems from the ”Biblical imperative to reach out to the whole world with a word of forgiveness, reconciliation and life, a hand of service and fellowship, and a heart of love, understanding and appreciation.” The document continues:

Opening with a bold expression of the need to promote communal

Henry Martyn Institute (HMI) is an expression of the Church’s ministry of reconciliation which comes to focus on the relationship between Chris- tians and Muslims. We are painfully aware of a long history of antago- nism and polemic which has left a legacy of misunderstanding, suspicion and distrust between these two communities. We are also aware of the need to move with patience and integrity toward a deeper and more faithful understanding of each other in ways that will remove traditional barriers and open the possibilities of living and working together in the context of India and the world.65

Following further preamble, the document then identifies three specific aims toward which HMI should work in the coming “three to five years:”

To help awaken the churches to fulfill their unique roles as peace making communities in the midst of religious and communal misunderstanding and suspicion, and to help Christians and Muslims to respond to the call to promote understanding and peace. To encourage Christians as well as Muslims to develop a faithful and correct understanding of the Gospel of Christ and the message of Islam in ways which may enrich their respective faith experiences. To undertake research which will provide resources and equip Christian and Muslim groups concerned with Christian-Muslim Relations so that they will work from a positive understanding of their respective faiths and of the nature of Christian-Muslim relations.

On the basis of this shift in emphasis, the Board recommended that HMI begin the laborious process of amending its Memorandum of Associa- tion, an act which would require a special petition to the government. After considerable study and review, a revised Constitution was ratified by the Council in 1993 and finally accepted by India’s Company Law Board in 1995. In this new guiding document, HMI’s earlier stated goal of assisting

172

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROWTH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY MAR^ INSTITUTE

the churches to “realize and fulfill their evangelistic obligation to Muslims” was replaced with the following primary objectives:

To function as an expression of the Church’s ministry of reconciliation and to focus on the relationship between Chris- tians and people of other faiths. To help the churches fulfill their unique roles as peace making communities in the mic!st of religious and communal misunderstandings and suspicion, to engage in sharing the news of Jesus Christ and to work in order to promote justice and peace in the society. To move with patience and integrity toward a deeper and more faithful understanding among people of all faiths in ways which will remove traditional barriers and open up opportunities to live and work together in the wider context of India and the world. To encourage among all people a deeper understanding of Islam and other religion through dialogue and study and to find ways in which they can work together in addressing common concerns.

The Memorandum then elaborates eight other objectives toward which HMI works:

To conduct and promote Islamic Studies and a comparative study of religion through active cooperation of theological colleges, seminaries and other institutions. To undertake research which will provide resources and equip Christian and other communities to work from a positive understanding of their respective faiths and of the nature of interfaith relations. To assist Churches and other institutions in working towards social justice and development among the oppressed and the poor. To assist in the study of Islam for local congregations. To develop and maintain libraries for the study of Islam and other Religions, to make resources available for research in this field for national and international students. To provide residential program facilities for staff and students. To develop auxiliary centers in other parts of the country.

173

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 a SPRING 2001

h) To publish books, reports, periodicals, bulletins, pamphlets, tracts, hand bills and other publications and prepare audio- visual aids in order to promote the objectives of the Institute.

i) To organize, in emergency situations, special programs such as relief camps, distribution of medicines, etc.

Thus, more than ten years after an internal process of review suggested HMI clarify its overall goals, the Institute responded, moving into a new phase of its history.

New Goals, New Programs Shortly after receiving an endorsement of its change in direction by

HMI’s national and international partners, the Institute faced a critical test of its commitment. In December 1990, Hyderabad “witnessed a surge of violence between Hindus and Muslims which paralyzed portions of the city for nearly a month.”@ Associate Director Andreas D’Souza called this a watershed in HMI’s thinking about interfaith cooperation and reconciliation.

Where does inter-religious dialogue fit into this scenario? Certainly not in conference hall discussions about the finer distinctions between different theologies. Not even in ‘live-togethers’ of the well educated and secu- larly committed followers of interfaith encounter. Rather it must take place at the grass-root level-in the streets-where death and fear and destruction are isolating the followers of different faiths. After the rioting is over, when the army returns to its barracks, there are broken hearts as well as broken bodies left behind. Those of us who yearn for better relations between people of different traditions cannot ignore the cry for a healing touch; in the midst of conflict we find the new and necessary frontier for inter-religious encounter.6’

Mobilizing an interfaith team of committed men and women, HMI spearheaded a movement to assist the needy in the hospitals and curfew bound localities.@ Straightened by its renewed commitment to reconciliation, HMI thus took “dialogue” in a new direction, as some of the activities recorded in the 1991 Dcmctor3Repon’show.

26 Feb. 1991: The students and staff of Rosary Convent School collected rice and clothes to be distributed to not victims in the old city. Dr. D’Souza and Mr. G.M. Khan selected one hundred and fifty needy women from both Hindu and Muslim communities to receive the contributions. The Princi- pal, Superiors, a few teachers and girls representing different classes went along to help distribute their collection. These people had a first hand glimpse of the areas which had been affected and were moved by the plight of those who had suffered so grievously. Two of the young students spoke

174


to the women who had gathered and stressed that it was their support and love which had prompted them to collect the rice and clothes which today were being shared.

28 Feb. 1991: Packets of rice, blankets and bedsheets were distributed to people from neighborhoods which had been affected by the violence. . .

16 March 1991: Approximately three hundred people-than-Shanti members,69 guests, police officials and residents of the locality-attended a meeting to clarify the causes of the recent violence and to suggest ways to alleviate the same in the future. . . Food was prepared and a common meal was shared by all.

29 March 1991: Day of Solidarity and Fasting-On behalf of the Aman- Shanti Forum, Dr. D’Souza invited people of all faults to observe Good Friday (which this year fell within Ramazan, the Muslim month of fasting) as a day of fasting and prayer. Leaders of different faiths were encouraged promote this idea in their respective communities and to join together at the end of the day for a common iftar, to break the day’s fast. . . [Alpproximately five hundred people gathered. Prayers and speeches were offered by Christians, Muslim, Jain and Sikh leaders, each of whom stressed the need for communal harmony?O

The change in the Institute’s overall thrust is best understood when one compares HMI’s response to the 1990 crisis with its activities during earlier times OF strife. During the agonizing days of India’s freedom struggle, For example, the Henry Martyn School seemed almost impervi- ous to the surrounding social and political turmoil. Neither minutes nor reports nor journal articles address the Christian response to this climactic event. In a rare reference to the turmoil paralyzing the country at that time, John Subhan notes that “ . . . when the Quit India Movement was at its height, travel was hazardous, railway lines were damaged, and the coaches were burnt. . . But his point in recalling this bit of history is to draw attention to the staFf‘s dedication in undertaking prolonged teaching tours despite tremendous d i f f i~ul ty .~~ The lead article in the issue of 7Ae Bulletin immediately preceding the partition of India focused on “Islam’s Attitude toward Music,” the editors making only a passing reference to the devastating division of the country in a brief comment under “Notes of Personal Interest.”

Those associated with the School who did reflect on the letter of the times spoke only of the new opportunities to witness for Christ:

. . . The Muslim in India is facing a great crisis. He has to adapt himself to conditions unknown to him . . . Here is a unique opportunity for the Church to present ideals effectively to Muslims. There have never been

175

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 9 1 a SPRING zoo1

circumstances which could make them more in need and more receptive to the love of Christ. They are desperately in need of it at this hour of frustration and uncertainty. . . ’* . . . The present world development has led them [Muslims] to think of religion in a much broader sense and with greater tolerance than they did before. As a consequence their attitude towards Christianity is also changed. . . The doors of opportunity are wide open. Will the Mission- ary Societies and the Churches in India rush in? We believe that God is calling us onward for the evangelization of Moslems in this generati0n.7~

Thus, although individual men and women may have risen to the needs of the time at this critical moment of Indian crisis, such efforts have not been recorded in HMI’s published and unpublished materials. Rather, the chief orienting point was witnessing to the saving power of Christ, the success of which was measured by an increase in the numbers of those who joined the Christian fold.

Conclusion In the years since the watershed event of 1990, the Institute has contin-

ued to set clear program goals in keeping with its commitment to a “ministry of reconciliation,”” providing the Church and others with much needed leadership in this area of work.75 HMI now runs a community development program in one of Hyderabad’s slums which seeks to build stronger Hindu-Muslim ties in a violence-prone area. The Institute also conducts a twelve-week course called “Constructural Theology of Recon- ciliation” for all its full time students, and is equipping itself, with guidance from the Mennonite Central Committee, to become a community mediation center. Much still remains to be done as the staff-now composed of Muslims, Hindus and Christians-continue to explore just what they mean by a commitment to reconciliation. Andreas D’Souza, the Institute’s present director, identifies one of HMI’s biggest challenges to be a more thorough exploration of the theology of this approach. Clarlfying his own theological basis, he writes:

My starting point is taken from the gospel of Luke, where Jesus goes to a synagogue in his own village and, as was the custom, reads from a scroll which was brought to him. He opens the scripture at random and his eyes fall on a passage from Isaiah. It is the passage where Isaiah speaks about the good news, equating it with evangelism. In other words, the good news is treating the sick, feeding the hungry, giving sight to the blind and, above all, liberating the captives. For me, it is there that Jesus sets his agenda: if you follow a Lukan account of Jesus’ work and

176


preaching you will realize how he faithfully adheres to this agenda. His concern was not for the rich and privileged few but for the oppressed. This therefore is our starting point. We at the Institute are evangelists, trying to bring good news to the oppressed, attempting in the simplest possible way to remove the yoke of oppression. The oppressed are not defined by creed or caste: they are the poorest of the poor living in our slums and remote villages. It is in these places that we must struggle to bring reconciliation, the foundation for which must be found in

We see, then, that in expounding the theological underpinnings for the current work of HMI, DSouza does not so much abandon evangelization as give the word new meaning, clearly distancing it from the work of proselytization.

The history I have chronicled here, tracing HMI’s change in focus- from preparation for proselytic evangelism, to engagement in dialogue, to active involvement in the practically rooted work of reconciliation-is only part of a much larger and still evolving story of the worldwide relationship between Christians and Muslims. It would be impossible to determine the extent to which the wider winds of change have influenced HMI’s meta- morphosis; the Institute’s course has clearly been shaped by both changing attitudes and perceptions worldwide as well as by particular and individual leadership decisions. Recalling that the Henry Martyn School was originally founded as an effort to offer a “fresh approach” to the Christian- Muslim encounter, it is easy to speculate that the current “fresh approach” will be eventually eclipsed by another generation’s ideals and visions. In other words, the “ministry of reconciliation” is not a fixed end point for HMI, but a particular orientation which gives meaning and context to Christian presence and action amidst the challenges of today’s pluralistic society. The best measure of its success might indeed be the degree of flexibility it offers the Institute in its continued growth and response to future unforeseen challenges.

Endnotes This paper was presented at the World Council of Churches Collo-

quium on Mutua/ Hkws and Changing Rehtiom hhwm ChnWzm and Mhdzm, Balamand (Lebanon), August 1997.

177

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 SPRING zoo1

1. In 1926, India's National Christian Council (NCC) established a "Committee for Work among Moslems" to study the possibility of founding a school for Islamic Studies "on a broader international basis." The Committee's effort resulted in the formation of the Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studies. See John A. Subhan, "Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad," A / - B a b q 1:2 (19721, 16.

These have been fairly well chronicled elsewhere. See, in particular, David E. Singh, "Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies: The Ministry of Reconciliation," Dbama DeepiiG 2:1(1996), 69-82; Attalluah Siddiqui, "The Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies: An Attempt to Christianize Muslims in India," Study Paper 7, The Islamic Foundation, 1984; David T. Lindell, "Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad," irheBul/etin ofCbnStian Zmtitute of hhmic Studieq 3:l-1 (19801, 133-41; Christian Troll, in his booklet on Cb&tian-Mus/iim Relatiom in Znd& A CriZica/Sumv, (Bangladore: Association for Islamic Studies, 1980) 15-22; John Subhan, atf. cit., 11-29; and Ian Douglas, "Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies," Mudim Wor/d 51 (19611,

2.

217-21. 3. 4.

A good analytical study of this aspect of HMI's history still has to be done. Joint Tackle, "Moslem Advance in India," presented at the Missionary Conference

of behalf of the Mohammadan World, Lucknow, January 1911. Quoted in idem, "A Message from our Founder," NewancfNotes 24 (Sept. 19361,l.

Min6Utlyh 2910. A n Account and Zn#epmta#ioron of tbe Wor/dMtScionary Conference(London, 1910),71-72; quoted in Siddiqui, atf. cit., 5.

Throughout much of its history, the Henry Martyn School/Institute has faced problems of funding and support; as a result, the institution moved a total of five times from its initial starting point in Lahore (1930-38) to Landour (1938-19401, Aligarh (1940- 19621, Jabalpur (1962-19661, Lucknow (1966-1971) and finally, Hyderabad.

and Function," unpublished Master's thesis, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1970,8; quoted in George Koovackal, "Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies," unpublished Master of Philosophy thesis, Aligarh Muslim University, 1981,8. Rev. J.S. Moon, in his article on Zwemer, goes so far as to say the "he may be regarded as one of the principal founders of the Henry Martyn School." See, "Samuel Zwemer 1867-1952," BeBzdlefin OftbeHenty Maflyn Scboo~55:4 (1967),4.

Notes23 (Feb. 1935), 1. See also Koovackal, op. cit., 9-10.

the NCC's "Committee for Work Among Muslims;" see Douglas atf. cit., 218. George Koovackal, a former HMI student and staff member, incorrectly argues that HMI ". . . never considered conversion of Muslims as its primary purpose;" op. cit., 1. This clearly reflects an apologetic construction of history, for there is extensive published and unpublished information to the contrary.

10. The School was named after the nineteenth century British missionary who was appointed the first Chaplain to the British East India Company. The School's first principal, L. Bevan Jones, suggested Martyn's name as a reminder of and tribute to a man who had "burned out for the Lord" in seeking to draw Muslims to Christ. Several biographies and articles about Henry Martyn exist, including John Sargent, LfeandLeftem oyfbe Rw. Henry Manpz, new ed. (London: Seeley and Co., 1862); George Smith, HentyMan)m(London: The Religious Tract Society, 1892); Constance Padwick, HentyMatlyn: Confesorof the Faith, rev. ed. (London: SCM, 1953); Wilma S. Stewart, "Henry Martyn and Serempore," m e Bzd/efin of fbeHentyMartyn Scbmd 53:l (1964): 23-33; Vivienne Stacey, Lfe ofHenty Martyn (Hyderabad: Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, 1980).

5.

6.

7. Patricia Lewis, "The Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies of India: Its History

8.

9.

L. Bevan Jones, "The Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studies, Lahore," Nausand

This statement and the overall scheme to establish the school, was formulated by

178

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROlmTH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY k T Y N INSTITUTE

11. Interestingly, of the latter, three were women. The role of women in Muslim missionary efforts is fascinating and has received very little attention by academics of the Church.

12. As noted in E.S. Isaiah, “The Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies-Golden Jubilee 1930-1980,” Nafionaf Cbnkfian CouncifReuim, 100:12 (1980),65!-53.

13. In the first five years of the School’s existence, Principal L. Bevan Jones estimated that approximately one thousand people were also taught through various short term extension programs, while thirty resident students followed courses from one to six months in duration at the main center in Lahore (art. cit., 10). Of these latter, less than a quarter were Indians. This greater emphasis on foreign missionary training seems to have created some tensions, as is apparent from an entry in the “Minutes of the Staff Meeting of the Henry Martyn School” (henceforth, “Staff Minutes”): “It was suggested that in the extension tours, working with the nationals was more important than contacting missionaries in hill stations and that we may have to change the pattern of our summer work accordingly” (13 Oct. 1954).

14. In Anarkali Bazaar (Forman Chapel); the target audience being mainly Muslims. Recounted by John Subhan, one of the School’s three original staff members; see Subhan, ar. cif., 19. See also the mention in ?5eHenryManpz Scboof S w n f b AnnuafRemr (1936),5.

15. At the staff meeting of 9 December 1940, J.W. Sweetman presented to his colleagues the drafts of three short articles. The staff pronounced them “most suitable,” and discussed the possibilities for getting them printed in Muslim periodicals. Eventually, it was decided that Sweetman should prepare additional articles for a series to be published in Lahore’s ”C & M Gazette.” The staff also agreed that he should continue to regularly prepare materials which would later be translated by Subhan “with a view to publishing [them] in the vernacular press’’ The staff went on record to say that ”. . . we definitely accept the responsibility for newspaper evangelism, are preparing the ground and expect to have something done next year. . . ” See the “Staff Minutes” (9 Dec. 1940),30.

Thus, for example, for a good number of years, L. Bevan Jones, the first Principal of the Henry Martyn School, was President of the Brotherhood. John Subhan functioned as its Association Secretary and also edited its bimonthly Urdu journal UZ%uwwa4 a publication devoted to the “presentation of the Gospel especially to Muslims.” Koovackal, op. cif., 13, notes that the School also helped the Brotherhood to found a Convert’s Home which may or may not be the “Malkana Hostel” which the school helped to set up in 1954. See “Staff Minutes” (13 Oct. 1954), where there is a clear reference to helping to set up a hostel for “Malkana converts and enquirers” (97). That the School continued to actively meet the needs of converts is apparent from a number of sources, including the resolution recorded under “School Policy” in the Minutes of the Board of Management, 18 Nov. 1953: “It was resolved. . . that if necessary, if [the School] should provide shelter and look after the spiritual instruction and welfare of enquirers and converts.”

16. Subhan, an+. cif., 19. See also ZBeHenryManpz ScboofAnnuafRepott(l933), 6.

17. HentyMan‘yz Scboof ofAfaamic Studies, (Aligarh: n.p., 19401,l. 18. 7beBuffetin, the journal of the Henry Martyn SchoolAnstitute, has gone through

a bewildering number of name changes, not to mention volume numberings. Briefly, it came into being in July 1941 as ZBeBuflefin oftbeHetnyMan+y ScbmlofAhmicSfudies, replacing the confidential newsletter of the “Missionaries to Moslems League,” Newsand Notes, which had been started in 1912. For a summary of the subsequent changes in title and numbering, see my “Editorial” in Z%eBuffefin, 14:l-2 (1995),5-6. For the ease of present readers, I will not distinguish between the various minor alterations to title (e.g.

179

SPRING 2001 THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91

7Be Bullefin of fbe Henty Man‘’ Scbool of hlamic &die$ B e BuUefin of fbe Henty Man‘yn lmfifufe of Islamic Srudie6 7Be Bullefin of Cbnkfhn Imfifufes of Islamic Sfudieq etc.) in subsequent references, but will refer to all simply as BeBuilefin.

19. I am not sure if this is a misprint for 1924, or whether there was indeed another significant missionary conference in Jerusalem in 1928.

20. Although the author and those he quotes are clear that the new approach does not change the overall goal: to lead Muslims to the truth of God’s revelation in Christ. John W. Sadiq, “Plea for a Fresh Approach to Muslims,” meBu//efin, 33 (Jan.-Mar. 1947),3-11.

21. /bid, 4-5. 22. William Sutherland, “The Gospel Message in Pakistan,” 23eBulfetin, 33 uuly-

23. As recorded in the “Staff Minutes” of 15 January 1957, 137. 24 The details of this relationship are, however, somewhat scanty. Subsequent

Sept. 1949),4-5.

research might examine university records and private correspondence to help further clarify the level and intensity of relationship and exchange.

25. Emphasis as written; “Staff Minutes” (9 Dec. 1940),28. 26. 14 Oct. 1941,49. 27. That this reference is probably to Christians becomes clear from Sweetman’s later

recommendation that future meetings be held in the “more disciplined environment” of a theological college.

”Minutes of the All India Consultation on Work among Muslims” (Nagpur, Dec. 1958), 3. The main resource person and galvanizing force behind the significant reorganizing work accomplished at this consultation was A. Kenneth Cragg.

disagreement on the issue of the crucifixion of Jesus, and how it might be more sensitively handled by a deeper understanding of the nature of Muslim objections, and a careful clarification of the Christian position in terms a Muslim would understand.

30 “Constitution of the Henry Martyn School of Islamic Studies” (Aligarh: [J.P., revised 1957). Unfortunately, more detailed discussions about the reasons for the revision or issues which were raised are not available, primarily because the “Minutes” of the Board of Management for this period are not currently available.

31. DimtorkRepn‘(l957), 1-2. I have left out considerable detail pertaining to the very real staffing and organizational changes which also proceeded as a result of this change.

32. Koovackal, op. cif., Appendix V. 33. Ian H. Douglas, “Editorial,” BeBzdlefin, 48:l (1960): I ff. 34. Idem., “Editorial in Defence of Dialogue,” neBullefin, 491 (July-Sept. l%O), 1-2. 35. “Muslim-Christian Seminar: Rajpur, March ’68,” 23eBul/efin, 3:l (1969),21-22. 36. It is unfortunately beyond the scope of this article to document more fully the

28.

29. The “Minutes” go on to record an example of the traditional Muslim-Christian

worldwide origins and development of the dialogue movement. I will simply note in passing that during the 1960s and 70s, the World Council of Churches (WCC), as just one example, took a number of important initiatives in this area: the WCC Consultation of Study Centre Directors in Kandy (Ceylon) in February 1966, which encouraged Christian institutes to engage in direct study of living faiths; the WCC sponsored dialogue/live together with Muslim and Christians in Lebanon in 1972; the two day Christian-Muslim Dialogue held at Selley Oak College (UK) in January 1968, the tentative agenda for which was drawn from preparatory questions on inter-religious dialogue fohulated by the WCC.

37. Founded by Haki Abdul Hameed of the Hamdard Foundation. 38. Dimfork Repott (1%52 7BeBz/llefin, 551 (1966), 35-36.

180

A CASE STUDY OF THE GROWTH AND TBANSPOWATXON OF THE HENRY MARTYN INSTITUTE

39. "Editorial," B e BulW~h, 54:4 (1%6>, 1 . See also the report under 'Area Activities" in the same issue. HMI did continue to hold such "Joint Seminars;" as far as 1 am aware, a t least two more collaborations with the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies were held over the next years.

40. Dr. Yusuf-ud-Din, Head of the Department of Religion and Culture at Osmania University, gave the opening lecture on "The Common Ground Between Islam and Christianity," John Taylor spoke the next evening on "Principles for Dialogue between Muslims and Christians" and J.N. Wijngaards the following night on "Sinzf-i-Mushqim, the Straight Path, as used in Islam and in Jewish and Christian Scriptures."

41. BeBu&ti#, 551 (1966),26. 42 . HMI's first experience of organizing this kind of encounter was in June 1975.

Christians, Muslims, Hindus 'all prayed together, and discussed, sharing the message of each others' religion, prayer life and spiritual experiencr." &e, Dimztor3Reprt(l975), 6.

43. Lindell, ar). cif,, 140-41. 44. Subhan, art. cit., 12 45. Ib&a!, 25. That Subhan was himsclf a convert from Islam perhaps explains in part

his view. It is noteworthy that a t least some Muslims have had-and continue to have- their suspicions about 'dialogue.' In his article o n the Henry Martyn Institute, Attaullah Siddiqui portrays it as a new means of reaching Muslims for conversion purpo.ws, "a new trap by the old trapper." Sec art. cif., 20-21. It is perhaps ironic that Siddiqui is now in charge of interfaith relations for The Islamic Foundation (Lciccstcr, IJK). During his visit to HMI in 1995, he gave a public lecturc on 'Muslims in England," speaking 'cloqucntly" of the importance of interfaith cooperation; st^ HMI's newsletter Intenzcfion, 18:2/19:1 (1995- 6>,2-3. According to Andreas II'Souza, whom Siddiqui invited to Lcicvstcr in 1997 to speak on "Reconciliation: A New Paradigm for Christian Mission," Siddiqui has reviscd his earlier assessment of the Institute and intends to stop the circulation o f his highly critical Study Paper on HMI.

program which he regularly organized at HMI is a n "indigenous method of presenting the Gospel in song form;" see "Henry Martyn Institute o f Iskdmic Studies," paper prepared for the World Council of Churches mccting of Study Centre Directors, Hong Kong, (May 19711, 3. Elsewhere, he writes, ". . . helping a Muslim patient to get treatment in a Christian hospital or getting a son or a daughter of a Muslim parent admitted t o a good Christian school has more lasting effccr than many attempts to convince fruit of the soundness of Christian theology." Sam Bhajjan, 'Muslims and Christians in air Indian Context: The Question of Dialogue," B e Bul/eci#, 1:4 (0ct.-Dcc. 1978),48-9.

evangelist from the USA, held a dialogue meeting with the Muslims of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad at the Conference Hall of Hotel Swdgath."

Institute," BeBulletftz, 54:l (1%5),9.

Christian Literature for Muslims Committee), 11 . Publications included tracts and testimonies of Muslim converts as well as titles such as 'Prac?ical Lessons for Evangelism Among Muslims," and 'Christian Witness Among Muslims." During this period, HMI also conducted a Bible Correspondcncr Course in ITrdu, which Douglas called a 'supremely significant means of presenting the Gospel to Muslims." DirpctorSReprt(l%3), 1.

50. For example, a n HMI-sponsored six-wcck local distribution cxmpaign led by an "experienced convert from Islam." Sec Dimfor3Repon'(1972>, 6. In 1973, Direczor Sam Bhajjan told HMI's Council that he was planning to bring an cvangelicil team to Ajmer for

46. Cf: DimforSam Bhajjan's remark that the Christmas qawudi (poctry recitation)

47. See, for example, the DimtorkReprtof 1985: "Dr. Ravi Zachariah, an

48. J.S. Avery, "Repon: East Pakistan Area Committcc of the HMIIS-Islamic

49. The "Minutes" of the Board of Management, 13 February 1963, (Report of the

181

THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 . SPRING 2001

the annual uts(death anniversary) of the great Sufi saint Khwaja Mu’inuddin Chisti. His idea was to use this highly popular occasion at the saint’s tomb to distribute Christian literature, a goal which apparently caused some consternation among Council members. The Minutes record the discussion this way: “The question [was raised1 of whether a proposed literature distribution effort at the Urs in Ajmeer was an appropriate method and occasion for the HMI to become involved.” See “Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council,” (14 March 19731, 2 .

51. Bhajjan, “Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies,” 6. 52. DimctorkRepfl (1978),6. 53. Bishop J.A. Gonsalves, Convener; Bishop Paulose Mar Paulose; Dr. K.C.

54. Both reports are published in the document, An Eva/uation Repfl on Henty

55. Naturally, the report contains a number of other interesting aspects, for example,

Alexander; and Rev. Fr. Yvon Ambrose.

M a f l y Institute oJkhmic StudiedHyderabad: HMI, 1982); henceforth, Euafuation.

the finding that Christians having an association with HMI have a significantly more positive attitude towards Muslims than others.

56. Ibid, 4 . 57. I&!, 23. It is intercsting to note that in his 1972 article, David Lindell

emphasized the importance of the word ”assist” in the above clause, noting that the Institute has a supportive rather than an active role in the Church’s ”evangelistic obligation” to Muslims. See an: cit., 136. This explanation, which I personally heard from more than one of the younger members of the teaching staff, was clearly an apologetic answer which helped to distance oneself from the proselytic reference to the Church’s “evangelistic obligations to Muslims.”

58. Zbid, 9-10. 59. The survey was originally designed to include both Muslims and Christians, but

the Muslim response to the mailed questionnaires was so negligible it had to be discounted.

60. Zbid, 16. 61. /bid, 24. 6 2 . G. Gispert-Sauch, S.J., “Muslims and Christians,” ?‘BeEuffetin, 2:2 (19681, 44.

This idea was also raised in other fora, for example, the three-day 1979 Consultation on “Dialogue with Muslims” sponsored by the Commission for Dialogue of the Catholic Bishops’ Commission of India. At that meeting, Sister M. Stanislaus spoke about “Hindu- Muslim Tension and the Peace-Making Role of the Church,” evoking a deep response from participants. Paul Jackson records the exchange: “What made this paper particularly poignant was the fact that it was born from the tragic experiences of three riot-tom months in Aligarh. After giving an account of the genesis of the riots, Sr. Stanislaus related the efforts that she and others made on behalf of peace. The most significant and remarkable of their efforts was to have run, successfully, a Spiritual Weekend in which forty Muslims and Hindus of that religion torn locality participated . . . Sister was struck by their powerlessness to act once the riots had begun. The emphasis should be on prevention rather than care. She suggested interfaith meetings and prayer, both within and outside the school, as well as whatever could help develop a genuine spiritual tone in the schools. The paper obviously touched the participants as it was followed by a serious discussion in which many participated. . .

comments in her private report for the National Council of Churches of Christ (IJSA), dated November 1987. This and other unpublished reports and documents are available in HMI’s archives.

63. For remarks about this lapse, see Board member Rev. Dr. Donna Mcinhard’s

182

ACME STUDY OF THE GROUTH AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HENRY ~ R T Y N INSTITUTE

64. The report notes that “the following dimensions were thought important in order to implement this aim: 1 ) First to help the Church understand its role in Gods creation and revelation, i.e. to know God’s presence through the creativity and redemptive activity in society, by helping Christians remember they are created in God’s image as are all people and to have respect for each other in the context of God’s revelation. 2) To understand the nature of pluralism and Christianity in Christ-how they relate to living faith. 3) To understand our own faith by listening and understanding others so that we can discern God’s activity in creation and developing ways and means to realize this truth through adequate resources for use of Churches in the ministry and dialogue with those of other faith;” 3.

65. See HMI Council minute 88/15. 66. “Henry Martyn Institute: A Ministry of Reconciliation,” BeBulLetin, 102 (19911,

23. In a footnote, the editors wrongly date the two-day consultation From which this planning document emerged as having taken place in July 1986.

67. For a fairly comprehensive report of this series of incidents, including an analysis of the reasons for its outbreak and continuance, see Keshav Rao Jadhav, “Communal Riots in Hyderabad: Background and the Present,” Tomr&S&cularIdih, 2: 1 (19961, 68-73.

68. Andreas D’Souza, “Dialogue in the Streets: A Call to Action,” paper presented at the Inter-Religious Federation for World Peace Colloquium, Delhi (19911, 3-4.

69. For a full report of HMI’s activities during this period, see the various reports compiled by HMI of the Aman-Shanti Forum, an interfaith peace movement launched in 1990 through its own initiative.

70. See previous note. 71. Diectork Reprt(l990-91), 7-8. 72. Subhan, art. cit., 21. The contrast is quite startling between the response of the

Henry Martyn School and that of the National Christian Council. See, for example, the “Editorial Notes” of the January 1947 issue of 73eNationalCb&tian CozmcilReview67: 1 , entitled “A Message of Goodwill to the Country” (31, where the Members of the Council pledge their help: “Distressed by the unprecedented inter-communal disturbances of these times, the Council offers its sincere sympathy to all victims of violence and pledges itself to take all possible steps to bring succor and relief to those in trouble. It will endeavour to organize the Christian forces to bring help and healing to the distressed and rehabilitation to the dispossessed. . . See, also, “Editorial Notes” from other issues in 1947, and NCC’s similar appeals and discussions of current events and programs for victims of violence during the 1965 war with Pakistan: BeNationaf Cb&tian CounciLReview, 85:10,85:1 1 etc.

73. Kenneth D. Wilson, “Muslim Problems in the Indian IJnion,” 7BeBzdletin (Jan.- Mar. 1948), 2 .

74. John A. Subhan, “The Changes in the Attitude of Moslems in India,” 7BeBulktin (Apr.-June 19491, 1 1 , 14. In fact, the School’s Committee of Management resolved to persevere in India rather than shifting to Pakistan since “the changed conditions brought about division of India greatly augment the opportunities for evangelism amongst Muslims in the India Union;’’ Minutes of the Committee of Management Meeting, 7 November 1947; published in 23eBzd!etin(Oct.-Dec. 19471, 3.

presented in the annual DirecforkRepctr.

exceptions include the International Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Quaker community’s peacemaking narratives. Recently, this has begun to change. See, for example, the ZJnited Church of Canada’s 1997 report “Mending the World,” presented at its

75. For details, see the HMI’s semi-annual newsletter Interaction or summaries

76. Until recently, very few organizations have focused on reconciliation. Notable

183

b THE MUSLIM WORLD VOLUME 91 SPRING aoo i

36th General Council meeting in Camrose, Alberta; or the Second European Ecumenical Assembly, held in Austria in June 1997, which focused on the theme: “Reconciliation: Gift of Grid and Source of New Life.”

77. Paper presented at Hermannsburg, May 1997.

184

Evangelism, Dialogue, Reconciliation: A Case Study of the Growth and Transformation of the Henry...

Documents

Transcript of Evangelism, Dialogue, Reconciliation: A Case Study of the Growth and Transformation of the Henry...