Recently when a RSS leader questioned the motive behind mother Teressa's charitable acts, it raised a lot of ruckus from ardent believers in the mother's nobility. I personally have high admiration for her. I put her in the same pedestal as some of the other notable god men and god women who have made a significant difference in the lives of the poor. But despite my admiration of the mother's service to humanity, I am cynical of her motive...
Mother Teresa 'only helped poor to convert them to Christianity'
Charity by definition is " the voluntary giving of help"... giving without expecting anything in return. But reality is grimmer than that, as the pope openly acknowledged in one of his recent tweets, "practicing charity is the best way to evangelize."
Every giving comes with an expectation of something in return... quid pro quo. The question is, will there be charity if there is no room for evangelism? I can show a hundred instances where there is charity in the absence of preaching/conversion... but none that involves the church, its pontiff, or its many missionaries. Perhaps it is because I dont have as much exposure to the true charity of the church. I may be totally ignorant here. I will be happy if someone can correct me and show me instances where the utilitarian goal of conversion is not what drives the "charity" of the church. Right now, I am an agnostic to that idea.
I did my schooling in missinoary run schools and I have often been told of the many great things that the church does to the society. "What a noble gesture", I often thought. But I started questioning the "noble" aspect of the gesture when I started observing a the method to their "nobility". One personal experience in particular, when I was 13 years old kid, has had a profound influence on my cynicism... I usually go to a temple on way home from school and I often see few homeless people asking for alms. Occasionally, I give them some spare change... the change that I would have otherwise dropped into the offerings box. One Thursday afternoon, my school ended early and I was on my way home when one of these homeless men whom I normally see in front of the temple asked me, "do you know the way to XYZ home?" (for the sake of anonymity I will not mention the actual name of the home). I said, "I know the place, it is on my way home, if you want you can walk with me". He accepted the offer and started walking. He was rather weak. So I had to walk slowly for him to keep pace with me. I thought if I am walking slowly I might as well strike a conversation. I asked him casually, "what is your name?". He said, "Krishnaraj, but recently the mother named me Anthony"... Perplexed, I asked "your mom?". He replied, " no, the mother in the XYZ home"... "she changed my name and arranged for free lunch every Thursdays"... "That is why I am going there today". For that day forward, I have started seeing any act of charity with a cynical eye... especially if there is an organized religion involved.
But some other examples challenge my cynicism... For example, Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero, the Buddhist monk who donated his kidney to save the life of a Christian missionary certainly stands out. There are also numerous others who don't take the name of religion to engage in charity...
I really don't mean to belittle the acts of kindness Mother Teressa showered on the needy and poor of Calcutta... I would in fact say, even if the cost of taking alms from a charity is losing one's religion, it is not a big price to pay... if converting the whole world to Christianity will solve hunger and poverty in the world, why not. After all, meeting the basic needs should take precedence over meeting one's spiritual needs...
Mother Teresa 'only helped poor to convert them to Christianity'
Charity by definition is " the voluntary giving of help"... giving without expecting anything in return. But reality is grimmer than that, as the pope openly acknowledged in one of his recent tweets, "practicing charity is the best way to evangelize."
Practicing charity is the best way to evangelize.
— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) January 24, 2015
Every giving comes with an expectation of something in return... quid pro quo. The question is, will there be charity if there is no room for evangelism? I can show a hundred instances where there is charity in the absence of preaching/conversion... but none that involves the church, its pontiff, or its many missionaries. Perhaps it is because I dont have as much exposure to the true charity of the church. I may be totally ignorant here. I will be happy if someone can correct me and show me instances where the utilitarian goal of conversion is not what drives the "charity" of the church. Right now, I am an agnostic to that idea.
I did my schooling in missinoary run schools and I have often been told of the many great things that the church does to the society. "What a noble gesture", I often thought. But I started questioning the "noble" aspect of the gesture when I started observing a the method to their "nobility". One personal experience in particular, when I was 13 years old kid, has had a profound influence on my cynicism... I usually go to a temple on way home from school and I often see few homeless people asking for alms. Occasionally, I give them some spare change... the change that I would have otherwise dropped into the offerings box. One Thursday afternoon, my school ended early and I was on my way home when one of these homeless men whom I normally see in front of the temple asked me, "do you know the way to XYZ home?" (for the sake of anonymity I will not mention the actual name of the home). I said, "I know the place, it is on my way home, if you want you can walk with me". He accepted the offer and started walking. He was rather weak. So I had to walk slowly for him to keep pace with me. I thought if I am walking slowly I might as well strike a conversation. I asked him casually, "what is your name?". He said, "Krishnaraj, but recently the mother named me Anthony"... Perplexed, I asked "your mom?". He replied, " no, the mother in the XYZ home"... "she changed my name and arranged for free lunch every Thursdays"... "That is why I am going there today". For that day forward, I have started seeing any act of charity with a cynical eye... especially if there is an organized religion involved.
But some other examples challenge my cynicism... For example, Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero, the Buddhist monk who donated his kidney to save the life of a Christian missionary certainly stands out. There are also numerous others who don't take the name of religion to engage in charity...
I really don't mean to belittle the acts of kindness Mother Teressa showered on the needy and poor of Calcutta... I would in fact say, even if the cost of taking alms from a charity is losing one's religion, it is not a big price to pay... if converting the whole world to Christianity will solve hunger and poverty in the world, why not. After all, meeting the basic needs should take precedence over meeting one's spiritual needs...
