The Hindu Festival Called Holi and The Color Run

DC Color Run 5K
DC Color Run 5K (Photo credit: Cosmic Smudge)
Girl at Holi Phagwa
Girl at Holi Phagwa (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By now most people have heard of The Color Run. The Color Run company is a “for profit” venture though the runs I have been aware of have been connected with charity as well. The Color Run is a “five-kilometer, un-timed race in which thousands of participants are doused from head to toe in different colors at each kilometer.”1 Then, at the finish line there is a “Finish Festival” where even more colored powder is applied “to create happiness and lasting memories.”2 I’ve seen the pictures and it looks like a lot of fun.

What you may not know is that The Color Run looks a lot like what happens at the Hindu Holi Festival where people are covered in the same colors with the same results. Here’s a description of the Hindu festival:

The festival has many purposes. First and foremost, it celebrates the beginning of the new season, spring. Originally, it was a festival that commemorated good harvests and the fertile land. Hindus believe it is a time of enjoying spring’s abundant colours and saying farewell to winter. It also has a religious purpose, commemorating events present in Hinduism. During this event, participants hold a bonfire, throw coloured powder at each other, and celebrate wildly. . . . The main day, Holi, also known as Dhuli in Sanskrit, or DhulhetiDhulandi or Dhulendi, is celebrated by people throwing scented powder and perfume at each other. Bonfires are lit on the eve of the festival, also known as Kacy Dahan (burning of Kacy) or Little Holi, after which Kacy dahan prayers are said and praise is offered. The bonfires are lit in memory of the miraculous escape that young Prahlada accomplished when Demoness Kacy, sister of Hiranyakashipu, carried him into the fire. Kacy was burnt but Prahlad, a staunch devotee of god Vishnu, escaped without any injuries due to his devotion. Like Kacy Dahan, Kama Dahanam is celebrated in India.3

So, as you can see, Holi is not simply some celebration of color!

Now, yes I am a Pentecostal, Evangelical pastor so I am always trying alert somebody about something. But I am not the only one whose eyebrows are raised over this connection. Here’s an excerpt from a blogger perturbed that The Color Run is white-washing Holi:

The race is supposed to end in something called a “Color Festival” (actually in quotes on the website as well). Sounds an awful lot like a digestible name for Holi. Sorta like how white people call Diwali the “Festival of Lights” even though this is a major over-simplification—I don’t think we just light a whole bunch of candles and call it a night.  Nope, we tell stories from the Ramayana, share sweets and gifts, say prayers, and welcome the New Year.  And at Holi, we don’t simply throw colors in each other’s faces—it’s a place to play with people you love and revel in the vibrancy of spring.  One of our favorite and most colorful holidays is being, pun intended, white-washed.  And it’s like we’ve been completely eradicated from this event as nowhere on the Color Run™ website is there mention of India, Holi, Krishna, or even spring.  Apparently this is a completely organic creation of the Color Run™ head honchos.  And they’re making loads of money off of it.4

This writer is incorrect when she says there is no mention of Holi on The Color Run website. Here is an excerpt from the FAQ page on The Color Run website:

What is the inspiration behind The Color Run™?

The Color Run 5k is the first paint race of its kind and was inspired by several awesome events, including Disney’s World of Color, Paint Parties, Mud Runs, and Festivals throughout the world such as Holi.  We wanted to create a less stressful and untimed running environment that is more about health and happiness!5

So, what should Christians do? Here’s what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8 concerning meat offered to idols:

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. 7 But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

The purpose of this article? I think as we participate with non-Christians out in the world we should at least know what we are endorsing or taking part in. If you say The Color Run is not about Hinduism, the people quoted in this article suggest otherwise. At any rate, armed with this information, the Christians I know will find some way to use it as an evangelistic tool.

Notes

1 http://thecolorrun.com/about/

2 Ibid.

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holi

4 http://browngirlmagazine.com/2013/04/dye-ing-culture/

5 http://thecolorrun.com/faqs/

Coming Up at ccithink . . .

The Tickle Chronicles

Recently, I made an effort to contact Phyllis Tickle. In case you don’t know who she is, she is the founding editor of the Religion Department of Publishers Weekly, the author of several books, very visible on the web (just Google her), and for our interests here, one of the leading voices of a movement called Emergence Christianity. I wanted to contact her because I was (and still am) concerned about some things she has written and said. I had already some of my concerns in classes and in blog posts here at ccithink and I wanted to solicit her input and inform her that I have been and plan to continue discussing her theology. To my amazement, Ms. Tickle got back to me almost immediately. She was gracious and addressed my concerns

Veritas Conversation with Phyllis Tickle and C...
Veritas Conversation with Phyllis Tickle and Carmen Acevedo Butcher, 3/3/11 (Photo credit: Wyoming_Jackrabbit)

in-depth.

In an upcoming series of articles, I will share the questions I asked of Ms. Tickle, the answers she gave me, and the reasons for my ongoing concern. For these articles I will also draw on her many videos, articles, and interviews given as well as some of her books.

 

Upcoming In House Symposium on Gay Christianity

One of the challenges hurling toward the believing Church is the growing presence of gay Christianity. On a date still to be decided, the “fellows” of the Christ and Culture Initiative with gather to discuss the various questions and challenges facing the Church concerning this subject.

If you have well worked out thoughts on this subject, pro or con, or questions that you would like for us to consider, you are invited to submit those thoughts and questions by emailing them to ccithink@gmail.com. The deadline for submissions is May 15, 2013.

Christ and Culture: The Enduring Problem, Part 2

ethics
ethics (Photo credit: JosephGilbert.org)

By Scott Fowler

H. Richard Niebuhr set the bar for modern conversations about Christ and culture and, more particularly, what is to be done about what he called “the enduring problem” of human culture. This series is an attempt to facilitate dialogue about the enduring problem using Niebuhr’s work Christ and Culture as a foundation. The reader is invited to read Niebuhr’s book and join this conversation.

 In the paragraphs and series installments to follow, I will attempt to capture the essence of what Niebuhr is saying and in the process add my own insights. I will make every effort to clearly delineate between Niebuhr’s voice and my far less significant one.

Ethics, Christian Ethics, and an Ethics of Christ and Culture

Simply put, the study of ethics concerns itself with the human pursuit of “the good.”1 It deals with questions having to do with how people should behave and asks, “What is the good life for man?”2 The subject and study of Christ and culture is the study of ethics, though not simply Christian ethics, limited only to those who profess Christ, but rather an ethics that speaks of Christ intersecting with culture; a theory of ethics that envisions culture as Christ would order it.

Admittedly, some have expressed animosity towards the idea of Christian ethics for at least a couple of reasons. First, the many examples where atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity such as “[the] crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, religious wars, the Galileo affair, defences of slavery and patriarchy.”3 Second, because Christians are perceived as not caring about the natural world and the common interests of mankind. In fact, some would say “Jesus imperils culture.”4 An ethics of Christ and culture wants to decisively address the questions that arise in the human pursuit of “the good.” It wants to define what “the good life” is for humanity.

The “Enduring Problem”

Niebuhr referred to the problem of human culture as the “enduring problem.”5 And while the Church, as representatives of Christ, would like to lead the culture, there are several reasons according to Niebuhr why the culture is suspicious of an ethics of Christ and culture.

First, he reported that the culture perceives that “Christians are animated by a contempt for present existence and by confidence in immortality.”6

It is not an attitude which can be ascribed to defective discipleship while the Master is exculpated, since his statements about anxiety for food and drink . . . the unimportance of treasures on earth . . . the fear of those who can take away life [see Matthew 6; 10:28] . . . as well as his [Jesus’] rejection in life and death of temporal power [Matthew 4]” all point to Jesus as the source of His followers’ convictions . . . .It is a baffling attitude, because it mates what seems like contempt for present existence with great concern for existing men, because it is not frightened by the prospect of doom on all man’s works, because it is not despairing but confident. Christianity seems to threaten culture at this point not because it prophecies that of all human achievements not one stone will be left on another but because Christ enables men to regard this disaster with a certain equanimity, directs their hopes toward another world, and so seems to deprive them of motivation to engage in the ceaseless labor of conserving a massive but insecure social heritage.

The second reason, according to Niebuhr, for cultural contempt towards an ethics of Christ and culture is the accusation that Jesus

“induces men to rely on the grace of God instead of summoning them to human achievement. What would have happened to the Romans, asks Celsus in effect, if they had followed the command to trust in God alone? Would they not have been left like the Jews, without a patch of ground to call their own, and would they not have been hunted down as criminals, like the Christians?”7

This approach to life flies in the face of an ethics that relies on human effort.

The third reason given by Niebuhr is that “Christ and his church . . . are intolerant.”Niebuhr prophetically describes this accusation as “the disapproval with which unbelief meets conviction.” The problem in Rome was not that Christians worshiped

a new God in Jesus Christ, but that they claimed to possess an exclusive divine knowledge and would not bow to Caesar when it was required. Niebuhr wrote:

“The Christ who will not worship Satan to gain the world’s kingdoms is followed by Christians who will worship only Christ in unity with the Lord whom he serves. And this is intolerable to all defenders of society who are content that many gods should be worshiped if only Democracy or America or Germany or the Empire receives its due, religious homage [today read: the Church yielding to the state in our present milieu of separation between Church and state.]”

Niebuhr mentions other aspects of Christianity that are abhorrent to the culture: Christ’s view of forgiveness, the requirements found in the Sermon on the Mount, the exaltation of the lowly, and the “unavailability of Christ’s wisdom to the wise and prudent, its attainability by the simple and by babes.”

In the end, the problem is between the two authoritative poles of Christ and culture and that Christians appeal to and follow Christ’s authority and want others to as well. Indeed, Jesus imperils culture.

Notes

1 Dr. Stephen Long, Christian Ethics: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010).

2 Popkin, Stroll, Philosophy Made Simple (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1993).

3 Long, page 1.

4 H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, (New York: Harper & Row, 1951) 4.

5 Ibid., page 1ff.

6 Ibid., Niebuhr quoting Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 5. The following quotes come from this same source: Niebuhr Chapter One The Enduring Problem.

7 Niebuhr is quoting Origen here: Contra Celsus, VIII, lxix (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p 666).

Scott Fowler is the founder of the Christ and Culture Initiative. He is a pastor/theologian living in New York. You can learn more about him at:  http://scottythinks.wordpress.com/about/

Christ and Culture: The Enduring Problem, Part 1

Cover of "Christ and Culture (Torchbooks)...
Cover of Christ and Culture (Torchbooks)

By Scott Fowler

 

H. Richard Niebuhr set the bar for modern conversations about Christ and culture and, more particularly, what is to be done about what he called “the enduring problem” of human culture. This series is an attempt to facilitate dialogue about the enduring problem using Niebuhr’s work Christ and Culture as a foundation. The reader is invited to read Niebuhr’s book and join this conversation.

 In the paragraphs and series installments to follow, I will attempt to capture the essence of what Niebuhr is saying and in the process add my own insights. I will make every effort to clearly delineate between Niebuhr’s voice and my far less significant one.

 

I. The Problem

 The Many-Sided, Complex Debate (Pages 1-2)

The debate over “the relations of Christianity and civilization” is many-sided and complex, even counterintuitive at times. This was Niebuhr’s take in 1950 and the “debate” has morphed into a civil war with many fronts in our times. In fact, the lines of battle can be found between the Church and the culture, the evangelical church and the so-called “nominal” or “main-line” denominations, and now between increasingly entrenched factions within the evangelical church. Contrary to Niebuhr’s assessment, I’m less certain that the Church is bewildered about these things and more concerned that it is awash in the same postmodern diseases that afflict the culture and even in heresy. 1

The “question of Christianity and civilization” is not new and has not been approached by the Church with any unanimous consent. Niebuhr reminds us that “Christ’s answer to the problem of human culture is one thing, Christian answers are another.” It was his assessment that the Christian centuries have witnessed various approaches to the problem and that Christ is “answering the question in the totality of history and life in a fashion that transcends the wisdom of all his interpreters yet employs their partial insights and their necessary conflicts.” In other words, somehow God is using, piecemeal, the best of all the Church’s efforts over the centuries.

It is precisely at this point that I feel Niebuhr is misunderstood by some of his critics. Some seem to read Niebuhr too prescriptively as though he is vouching for and recommending all of the five approaches. By his own account he is setting forth “typical Christian answers” in an effort to “contribute to the mutual understanding of variant and often conflicting Christian groups.” That Niebuhr considers that Christ is “answering the question” and employing various elements found in the Church’s efforts over the centuries may give rise to the idea that there is a universalistic bent to Niebuhr’s optimism (something that we will have to consider in earnest when Niebuhr commends to the reader the work of F. D. Maurice beginning on page 218), but for now it seems innocuous enough to suggest that perhaps all sincere attempts at answering this question have perhaps had some merit in their approaches.

The Bottom Line: Jesus Imperils Culture (Pages 2-4)

Next, in an effort to illustrate just how long the enduring problem has endured, Niebuhr enlists the commentary of Rabbi Joseph Klausner who defends the “repudiation of the Nazarene on the grounds that [Jesus] imperiled Jewish civilization.”2 Klausner’s complaint is that Jesus, thoroughly Jewish, endangered Jewish civilization by “abstracting religion and ethics from the rest of social life”3 and essentially by ignoring the culture instead of reforming it. Klausner, from a typical “bottom-up” perspective, produces a long litany of ways in which Jesus snubbed the Jewish nation. Klausner’s conclusion is that “Jesus ignored everything concerned with material civilization: [and] in this sense he does not belong to civilization.” Klausner goes on to say that the rejection of Jesus by the Jewish people has been vindicated by “two thousand years of non-Jewish Christianity.”

If Niebuhr is a faithful interpreter, Klausner is saying that the Jews were right to reject Jesus because he ignored the daily ins and outs of Jewish national life and failed to bring reforms that would have been useful or meaningful to the nation as He found it. Instead, Jesus’ mind was too much on heaven and became of no earthly use. Jesus was a threat to Jewish culture. To Klausner, the preservation and betterment of Jewish culture would have been far more important than any of the “pie-in-the-sky” spirituality that Jesus had to offer.

The demand that Jesus, or the Church for that matter, pay homage to the culture—any culture—is to blatantly suggest that the priorities people have embraced and the culture they have created is far more important than any agenda God might have for the culture. It is to say that people come first. But, in truth, Jesus imperils culture! He comes with His agenda. It is not His interest to appease humanity, leaving undisturbed its petty interests! This kind of discussion always reminds me of a quote from Miroslav Volf:

The question is also whether all those unappreciated small and great van Goghs in various fields of human activity would not draw inspiration and strength from the belief that their noble efforts are not lost, that everything good, true and beautiful they create is appreciated by God and will be appreciated by human beings in the new creation.4

Imagine the idea that God’s priority would be us and our work and our efforts! Surely this is one of the bloody battlefields in the struggle to address the problem of human culture pitting human interest against God’s desire that His “Kingdom come and His will be done.”

NEXT: The common arguments in defense of culture against the gospel.

FOOTNOTES

1 Deep, irreconcilable lines of division can be seen between conservatives and liberals in the political arena, and between liberal Christians and conservative ones. Within evangelicalism the battle lines have been drawn between theistic evolutionists and six-day creationists with Intelligent Design proponents in the middle, and between supporters of gay Christianity and evangelicals who still hold to the values of home and family found in Scripture. Adding to this mix is a revival of a bottom-up, social gospel energized by something called emergence Christianity whose chief proponent, Phyllis Tickle, calls for an end to sola scriptura, among other things. The concept of evangelical seems all but lost at the present moment.

Klausner’s comments come from his book, Jesus of Nazareth.

Niebuhr’s reflections on Klausner.

4 Miroslav Volf, “On Loving with Hope: Eschatology and Social Responsibility,” Transformation, July/September 1990, 30.

Scott Fowler is the founder of the Christ and Culture Initiative. He is a pastor/theologian living in New York. You can learn more about him at:  http://scottythinks.wordpress.com/about/

The Christ and Culture Initiative

By Scott Fowler

Christ and Culture

Last year I read H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic text, Christ and Culture. For years I had been meaning to read it but, truthfully, it is not the easiest read. But last year, it came alive! Not so much because of Niebuhr’s insights1 but because it so eloquently raises the question: What is to be done about the problem of Christ and culture?2 The question is profoundly important and constantly addressed—either consciously or subconsciously—by Christians and non-Christians alike; by religious and non-religious persons alike; by pop stars and prominent atheists, by actors and professors, by scientists and, of course, preachers of every ilk. My concern for the believing Church and an American culture increasingly hostile towards it,3 prompts my entry into this fray.

And so, for some time now, my question has been, Who do we look to for solutions to the complexities that arise where Christ and culture intersect? It is not hard to anticipate some of the potential answers to that question. For example, someone might suggest that we look to the Holy Spirit for our answers—sort of the “you do not need anyone to teach you” approach from 1 John 2:27. A respectable answer as long as that text is balanced with other texts. For example, in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11, we see that God has appointed and gifted some to be teachers. So, as we balance these texts with one another we can clearly see that we have an anointing from the Holy Spirit that enables us to discern between falsehood and truth and even to discern the content that would come from teachers. But we don’t observe a prescribed ethos of individualism that sees all Christians simply listening to their own voices.

Another response to the above question of Who do we look to? Might be, We look to our pastors! And so we do. But not every is pastor equipped and gifted at surveying the spiritual/cultural landscape and helping the Church and the culture at large to know what it should do, though we should expect to find that some are. But what happens when insightful pastors are not widely known or are simply not as good at communicating their insights as those are who tend toward heresy? Similarly, we might also expect that the professors in our Christian universities and seminaries would help in this area, and of course many have, but not all of them. In fact, some of the most egregious attacks against the believing Church are coming from inside evangelicalism.4

Wanted: Men of Issachar

In 1 Chronicles 12:32 we learn about the men of Issachar “who understood the times and knew what Israel should do.” Who are the modern “men of Issachar”? Chuck Colson, who died last year, was one of those men. He cultivated an awareness of the relevant issues where Christ intersects with culture, did his due diligence at researching and thinking through the issues from all sides, and fostered meaningful dialogue within and between the Church and the culture in an effort to help them know what they should do. Surely there are many men and women whom God can use in this perilous hour to fill this need for modern men and women of Issachar?!

Sadly, there are many inside the Church who are leading the believing Church astray. Men and women whom we have otherwise trusted are calling for the end of Scripture as the Church’s final authority and the end of an orthodox view of the atonement, calling it a “bloody sacrifice” that “no longer plays.”5 They are leading an assault on the Church’s understanding of Genesis 1-3, even removing our confidence in Adam and Eve and humanity as God’s special creation, bringing into question what we believe about original sin, the fall, and the need for the sacrificial death of Jesus.6 Some are saying that the Church might as well accept same-sex marriage and homosexuality as normal and open its arms to gay Christianity, saying the Church will simply “get over it.”7

The Christ and Culture Initiative is an effort to call together qualified men and women “of Issachar,” either through electronic means such as this blog or in actual convocation, who have been gifted and anointed by God to think through the complex issues that arise where Christ and culture intersect, to dialogue with one another and even with opposing voices through interviews and print concerning these issues, and to thoughtfully, lovingly, yet truthfully and firmly, inspire and challenge the Church and the culture through response.

1 I don’t agree with all of his conclusions but he does offer some important insights; I think the text is frequently misunderstood by modern readers.

2 Niebuhr calls this the enduring problem.

3 I actually mean two things here. I am concerned that the American culture is growing in its hostility toward the believing Church, but I am also concerned for American culture.

4 The believing Church must now of necessity begin to see itself as post-evangelical due to the marring of its true meaning by those who are peddling heresy from inside the Church and due to a media that either cannot or will not make the distinction between what used to be genuine evangelicalism and what now is not.

5 See Bart Gingerich’s coverage of the National Conversation on Emergence Christianity, in Emergence Christianity Comes to Memphis, http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/01/18/emergence-christianity-comes-to-memphis/ quoting Phyllis tickle. When I wrote Ms. Tickle, asking for transcripts, recordings, or video of the event, she replied: “There was no video taken . . . there was an audio which was taken for archival purposes only and will not be released. These decisions were made, I believe, in the interest of being sure that all who wished to speak or make comments or explore issues within the conversation could do so without concern for any post-conference continuations out of context.” See also Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, pages 98-101.

6 See the many articles found on the biologos.org website. See also Gingerich’s article.

7 Watch a 2009 Andrew Marin interview with Phyllis Tickle where Tickle says, “The truth of it is we’re going to get over this.” Andrew Marin, by the way, is the founder of The Marin Foundation, a not-for-profit organization whose purpose is to build bridges between the LGBT community and, among other groups, the Church. Google the “I’m sorry campaign.”

Scott Fowler is the founder of the Christ and Culture Initiative. He is a pastor/theologian living in New York. You can learn more about him at:  http://scottythinks.wordpress.com/about/