You are on page 1of 2

A Swadeshi church is a Christian

idea
- S.Gurumurthy

All hell broke loose over RSS Chief K.S. Sudarshan's statement that members of the Christian
establishment should become independent of foreign control. He had merely suggested the
formation of a Swadeshi or a national church, and all he had intended was a debate.

Is the suggestion for a Swadeshi church anti-Christian or against Christian evolution or history? A
study of Christianity establishes that the idea of a national church is entirely a Christian idea, not
merely that of the RSS or Sudarshan.

The idea of national churches independent of Roman Catholic control was the product of the
Protestant Reform movement and the consequent birth of nation-states in Europe. The
Reformation which began in 1517 set off a serious erosion in the authority of the Pope, who was
originally only the Bishop of Rome. The transnational papacy was a later evolution.

The Roman Catholic church of today was first known as the Western Church, the other being the
Eastern. The Reformation resulted in the division of the Western church into the Roman Catholic
Church and the Reformed Churches. The ultimate result in the chain of this division was the
formation of national churches in Europe and the evolution of independent churches in Africa and
elsewhere.

The first national church was established in England in 1533. Henry VIII, King of England, sought
the Pope's permission to divorce his first wife (who he believed was incapable of bearing a male
heir) and to marry another. The Pope refused. Henry VIII, with the consent of the British
Parliament, renounced Papal control and created the Church of England, separate and
independent of Rome's control. His logic was, if one English king could cede the control of
English Christianity to the Pope in AD 664, another king (i.e. himself) could take it back. Yet even
after the separation, Henry VIII and the Church of England continued to be Catholic till 1563.

The separation of other European Churches into Swadeshi churches was more complex.
``Nevertheless'', as the Encyclopaedia of Politics and Religion (Routledge London 2 vols) says,
``the general pattern became clear: a ruler would decide which competing set of ideologies to
follow and that would become the religion of his people. This formula...was adopted in 1555 at
Augsburg.'' This is how, says the encyclopaedia, ``nation-states were born''.

Later, says the encyclopaedia, ``Even the nation-state came to supersede the ruler''. For
instance, when James II refused to give up Roman Catholicism in 1688-89, he was dethroned
and replaced by his Protestant son-in-law, William Orange. In 1594-97, Richard Hooker, a leading
figure of the Church of England, authored the Book Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity in which natural
law, rather than Biblical scriptures, was accepted as the ultimate source of authority. In the 17th
century, the Church of England came to be popularly known as Anglican, headed by the Crown.
Likewise, Scotland also has a national church.

The process of formation of nation-states, which was almost co-terminus with the formation of
national churches, was accelerated by the translation of the Bible from Latin into English, German
and other languages. In most Protestant nations, the Church became a state apparatus or a
creature of national laws.

If this was the position in Protestant nations, even in the Catholic Religion, agreements called
``Concordats'' were signed between the Roman Catholic Church and nations like France (in
1905), Italy (in 1894), Spain (in 1978), which, the encyclopaedia says, ``came close to formation
of state churches''. Under the Concordats, the national churches became independent of the
Vatican.

In modern times, the encyclopaedia says, ``The general tendency is to change the status of state
churches into established churches''. The evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark is the
recognised official church of Denmark and managed by the Government. In Norway too, it is the
official church of Norway and is managed under Norwegian law. The head of the Lutheran
Church of Sweden, managed under the Swedish law, is the Swedish king. All of them are
independent of the control or of influence of any other transborder churches. Swadeshi churches
are thus the rule in the Christian west, not exceptions.

Even in Africa, the spread of Christianity was through what was known as African Independent
Churches (AICs). This movement of what is now thousands of churches was founded by black
Africans. It dates back to 18th century when a young black woman, Kimpa Vita, resisted the
Portuguese rule in Congo by proclaiming a ``Black Christ'' and a `Utopian African Kingdom'
(encyclopaedia). In 1706, the Portuguese rulers burned her as a heretic.

Later, this took the shape of Ethiopian Church Movement. This subsequently expanded into the
African Independent Churches. Says the encyclopaedia, ``AICs originate in either Pre-Christian
or Christian movements and represent a reversion to traditional African religion in the face of
intensive influence from the West. The AICs comprise the `Ethiopian', `the spirit' and `Messianic'
churches -- each of them distinctly African. The African Independent Church is the `indigenised'
African Church. Thus both the `enlightened' West and the `not-so enlightened'' Africans have
established their own national churches. In this category falls the Russian Orthodox Church,
which is the national church of Russia.

If small nations whose the Christian population is in lakhs and millions can set up their own
Swadeshi churches, why can't the Indian Christian establishment -- which has a following of over
20 million -- debate the idea of a Swadeshi church?

ALSO READ
WHY DO WE NEED A NATIONAL CHURCH?
THE THREAT OF A GLOBAL AGENDA AND THE DANGERS OF A PAN-NATIONAL CHURCH

You might also like