DID GANDHI GO TO HEAVEN? 

What better place to write about Mahatma Gandhi than in the heart of India where I now sit. The spirit of Gandhi not only pervades this land (albeit one may wonder how deep it goes), but he is venerated by many as a virtual god. But this is not surprising, for if a people can see their mother or some distant ancestor in a Brahman cow, they should have no problem worshipping a man of Gandhi's stature.

To put it another way, I asked one educated Indian whom he would name as the greatest person in Indian history, somewhat like an American would name Washington or Lincoln. He reminded me that an American has the easier task, for his country's history involves only a few centuries, while Indian history runs for thousands of years. And so he named heroes of the distant past, but he at last conceded that if one refers to modem history that Mahatma Gandhi would unquestionably be the greatest Indian. When I observed that unlike most world leaders that could be named, whether Churchill or Napoleon or Caesar, that Gandhi was neither a political nor a military figure, not at least in the sense of holding an office or ruling from a throne, my friend accounted for his greatness on the grounds of the overpowering moral force of his exemplary life.

It was Gandhi's moral leadership that led to the eventual independence of India. He is the "George Washington" of India in that he delivered his people from the tyranny of British rule, and this without drawing a sword or firing a gun. But his greatest obstacle to Indian unity and freedom was not the British but his own people divided into warring religious sects. His weapons against the British were civil disobedience, non-violence, and fasting; but they were also weapons against his own recalcitrant people, who chose to fight each other rather than their common enemy. Time and again the Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs would destroy thousands of their own in bloody massacres all across India. Gandhi pled for peace, drawing upon the principles of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount He would go on hunger strikes until his people would stop the fighting and killing, sometimes to the brink of starvation.

He at last won at least a partial victory. He united his people to the point that they ceased their self-destruction and joined him in the famous march to the sea in protest to the British tax on salt. But the internecine conflicts continued to plague India until part of it was sliced off to form Pakistan as a separate country, which Gandhi reluctantly agreed to as an alternative to a continuing civil war. He was assassinated in 1948 by a radical Hindu who blamed him for the partition of Pakistan.

Gandhi's message was always a plea for unity. He appealed to his people to be united as Indians while differing in religion. He urged Christian missionaries, who brought their sectarian differences with them to India to return home and unite, and then return with a message of love and tolerance. The Indian people would then be more likely to listen, he assured them.

There was at least one Christian missionary that agreed with Gandhi. E. Stanley Jones, author of The Christ of the Indian Road, realized that a divided church could never have a redemptive influence in this troubled land, so, like Gandhi, he pled for a united Christian message. A personal friend of Gandhi, Jones saw in him a spirit more like Christ than he saw in many Christians. Since Gandhi talked like a Christian, acted like a Christian, and responded to evil like a Christian, Jones looked upon him as a "Hindu Christian." The moral power of his life was more like that of Jesus than what is often seen in Christian leaders. When word spread that "Gandhi is in prison fasting" it would cause men to lay down their arms. His was a life of self-renunciation. Even though he was married to a woman he deeply loved and had children, he eventually renounced sex in an effort to commit his whole being to the consuming passion of his life, the liberation of India through moral suasion as exemplified in the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. "Resist not him who is evil" was his gospel.

When Gandhi died, someone asked E. Stanley Jones if Gandhi was in heaven. It was a loaded question, for Christians would have been offended if a Christian missionary believed a Hindu to be in heaven, and Hindus would have been offended if he believed a good man like Gandhi to be in hell. Jones' reply was not only unoffensive to either Hindus or Christians, but ii was classic. He quietly responded, "If Gandhi is not in heaven, then heaven is the poorer for it."

A western Christian, who has far more than his share of this world's blessings, will not be in this third world country long before he asks himself something like "What will God do with these masses of deprived people who have no chance for the life I have had?" A little girl and her baby brother, one in rags and the other naked, stand before you begging. The boy may be snapped up into child pornography and the girl into prostitution. At best they'll be with parents that barely exist by begging and by eating from garbage cans and living under bridges or in the street, all their lives, dying young. They may have no education and never possess anything at all. They would consider themselves rich if they had what the average American puts in the garbage. They are Hindus or Muslims, nominally, but it means little to them.. They are India's untouchables who have little inclination to think about religion or to think about anything at all except to exist in an unjust and cruel world. After awhile they are fortunate enough to die. They are cremated as paupers. Free at last!

Or are they? Do they now go to a devil's hell to suffer eternally because they happened to be born in Calcutta instead of Dallas, as a Hindu instead of a Christian, in squalor instead of luxury? What will God do with them? We can always say that we do not have to make that judgment, which would be an improvement over our usual lament over "the millions who are dying and going to hell without the gospel." It is well to recognize that we cannot make that judgment for the simple reason that we cannot see into people's hearts as God can, and judgment is a matter of the heart rather than outward circumstances. But if we do any thinking at all, or have any semblance of a world view of things, we cannot but ponder the question of what God might do with all those who are not Christians, perhaps as many as three-fourths of the world's population, or nearly everyone as some would define Christian. And does the question not bear upon the kind of God we worship? If our hearts are moved when Mother Teresa provides a way for some of India's untouchables to die with dignity, what are we to think of a theology that assigns such wretched souls to an eternal hell? Do they receive mercy at her hands but wrath in God's hands?

I would answer the question as to whether Gandhi went to heaven differently from E. Stanley Jones. I doubt if heaven is poorer if Gandhi happens not to be there. J would say that if Gandhi is in heaven it will be for the same reason that anyone else is in heaven, by God's mercy. Being what the world calls a great man does not merit salvation, nor does living in poverty in this world gain paradise in the next. If we can be saved by good works or by being poor then Christ died for naught. The world was poor when our Lord came to it but it was also lost. "Him who knew no sin became sin on our behalf," Paul assures us in 2 Cor. 5:21, and that applies to the rich and poor alike. The apostle also says, "So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Ro. 9:16). In the same chapter as well as in the Old Testament God says, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

This can only mean that we do not receive God's mercy because we are good church members or because we have been baptized or because we do deeds of charity. The apostle clearly states that it is not by running, and some of us run ourselves tired, supposing that is the way of salvation. Paul insists that it is all a matter of God's will. He shows mercy and compassion on whom He will (period!). Titus 3:5 makes it clear that even works of righteousness do not save us but God's mercy.

But still the Scriptures make it clear that God wills to show mercy to some and not to others, and we have some indicators as to who will receive mercy and who will not. Jesus, for instance, in Lk. 18:17, says of the man who prayed, "God, be merciful to me a sinner," that he was righteous before God. We can conclude from that that we are more likely to receive mercy if we acknowledge our sin before God and plead for mercy. And Jas. 2:13 says plainly that no mercy will be shown to him who has shown no mercy to others. But even with such indicators we must show caution, for God is not bound even by Scripture. He remains the sovereign God of heaven, and He will show mercy to whom He will. But still the indicators are there and they reveal to us something of the "God of mercy," as the Bible often refers to the heavenly Father. Let us see if these principles, drawn from Scripture, help us to deal with the question before us.  

1.  In Scripture there is an emphasis upon the mercy of God.

As early as Ex 34:6 God is depicted as merciful and gracious, and as abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. And the Bible refers to "the mercy of God endures forever" over and over, more than any other one idea in Scripture. While we are not to forget that God is also a God of wrath, His wrath is always tempered by His mercy, as in Hab. 3:2, "In the midst of wrath remember mercy." We can say "God is love," as the Bible does, but we cannot say "God is wrath." The book of Hosea dramatically depicts God as a God of mercy, as in Hos. 2: 19f where God says he betroths His people to him in steadfast love and in mercy. One of Paul's favorite references is to the "God of mercy." The Bible even assures us that God is eager to show mercy.

2.  In Scripture God's mercy is especially directed to the poor and the oppressed.

Jesus told his hometown folk that he had come to preach the gospel to the poor (Lk. 4:18) and his blessings included "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven" (Lk. 6:20). Jesus was himself poor, though not in dire poverty, and he moved among the poor, and his mission was to "set at liberty those who are oppressed" (Lk. 4:8). The church of the non-poor first world has been less than faithful in the way it has interpreted these passages, by making the poor refer to those who are spiritually poor. There can be no doubt that Jesus was referring to the materially poor, those with so little they cannot live decent lives. He refers to those who are in poverty from no fault of their own, to those who are oppressed by the injustices and the indifference of the rich. While the Bible says "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries are coming upon you! (Jas. 5:1), it always refers to the poor as having God on their side.

Instead of trying to water down these facts, rich Christians are to realize that God is basically on the side of the poor and the oppressed, and that they must become more that way themselves by sharing their wealth and by opposing any measure that unjustly makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. And they must realize that God is likely to "balance the ledger" in the next world, and that mercy is likely to be more abundant toward the poor, especially those who are deprived by circumstances beyond their control. There is no indication that God favors those who are poor because of indolence. But it is a fact that the vast majority of the world's poor are poor because they can't help it and often because they are oppressed by those who are rich at their expense. To such ones our Lord said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." Rich Christians must also realize that their hope, like Gandhi's or anyone else's, lies in the mercy of God, in the hope that God will forgive them for having so much while others have so little. And that too, as with the poor, because they cannot help it. There is no way for Christians in rich countries to live like those in the third world live. That would not solve the problem anyway. But when we really become concerned about the problem of severe inequality of wealth around the world, we will find things that we can do about it.

One important thing wealthy Christians can do is to arrange their wills so that their wealth will not be handed down from generation to generation, but eventually given to agencies who serve the poor of the world. We should arrange our estate, even if small, so that even if our children may need the interest that accrues during their lives, it will upon their death pass along to the poor. When our children are already rich several times over in comparison to the world's poor, most of our estate could go immediately into programs to help third world people, and there are many such worthy organizations.

In the meantime non-poor Christians should consider tithing or double-tithing for the sake of those who live in squalor, many of whom are our sisters and brothers in the Lord. Our churches who spend most of their wealth on themselves and their own sectarian programs must be persuaded that God is more concerned for the poor than for their selfish interests, and that they should be. What an example it would be if a church gave most of its income to the poverty-stricken people of the world! It would have the promise of Scripture that those who give to the poor lend to the Lord.

But whatever we conclude under this heading we cannot escape the fact that God's mercy is more abundant toward the poor, and that fact should influence our faith.

3. The Scriptures indicate that the oppressors of the poor are the least likely to receive God's mercy.

Since being in India and the Philippines, where much Christian charity is evident, I have heard numerous accounts of how corrupt government officials siphon off for themselves much of what is intended for the poor. A missionary here where I am staying told of a free milk program that she directed for a charitable agency that she eventually had to stop because the milk was stolen by officials and sold to dairies. The agency told her they would be satisfied if even half of what they sent reached the children, but she could not accomplish even that. One report tells of when Union Carbide paid benefits to the victims of the tragedy at Bophal that by the time a long line of officials siphoned off their share the injured ones received but a small portion of it. In both India and the Philippines citizens themselves, not the missionaries, told me that corruption in high places is their most serious problem.

Then there are the international bankers and traders that take advantage of the underdeveloped countries, not always paying a just price for goods produced. And rich nations go on getting richer when they could, by sharing resources and know-how, greatly improve the standard of living of the poor nations. If the rich nations gave only a few percentile points of their GNP to invest in these nations, thus encouraging big business to do so, conditions could be improved almost overnight. We can only conclude that those who have are not all that concerned for those who have not. While most of us are not personally guilty of oppressing the poor, and would oppose such injustice, we may well be part of a system that is guilty.

It is such injustice toward the poor that the Bible scores, from the preaching of the prophets to the teaching of Jesus, such as the prophet Amos condemning those who "grind the heads of the poor into the earth, and thrust the humble out of the way," and those who "tread down the poor and take grain taxes from him though you have built houses of stone." And as Mary praised God in her role of giving birth to the Christ child, she said, "God has exalted those of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty" (Lk. 1:52-53). And that child grew up to announce his mission as giving rest to the weary, the gospel to the poor, and liberty to the oppressed.

So, when we think in terms of the possible destiny of a Mahatma Gandhi, or of ourselves, we might be conscious of these two sides, the side of the oppressed and the side of the oppressor. Gandhi in India, like Jesus in Palestine, sought to lift up the untouchables of society and give them dignity. On what side are we? Mercy is on the side of the poor and the oppressed and those who show mercy to them.

4. The Scriptures support the principle of available light.

This means that a person is responsible only for what he knows and understands, and not for what he has no way of knowing. But this gives no license to willful ignorance. As Paul says in Acts 17:27, God has placed people on the earth "so that they should seek the Lord in the hope that they might grope for him and find Him, though he is not far from each one of us." But millions who grope for Him never find Him because they are so deprived by impossible circumstances that they can do no more than exist on a starvation diet until they die. Others are so crushed by oppressive regimes that they have no opportunity to hear the gospel or to seek the true God of heaven.

Another way to say it is that responsibility is measured by ability. Paul lays down a principle in 2 Cor. 8:12 that applies to the whole of life: It is required of one according to what he has, not according to what he has not. Our Lord distinguished between those who had heard and those who had not: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin" (Jo. 15:22).

Surely we are to conclude from this that God does not expect one to respond to what he has no way of knowing. And yet we have grounds for concluding, both from reason and from Scripture, that all men have some measure of light, and that they are responsible for the light they have. This is the basis on which Paul argues in Rom. 2 that all are in sin. But surely the judgment is in reference to the light available, the greater the light the greater the responsibility.

5.  The Scriptures condemn the disbeliever, not the unbeliever.

You will find the Bible consistent in this regard, I believe. It is the disbeliever, the one who hears and understands his responsibility, but willfully rejects the message, that is condemned, and never the unbeliever who has had no opportunity to hear and understand.

These conclusions are not drawn to make us better judges of men's destiny, for this is a role that none of us wishes to assume. But they may help us to think more responsibly about a question that perplexes us all at one time or another. And they may especially help us to think and act more responsibly about our own soul's destiny and our relation to that troubled world out there for which our Lord died. —the Editor.

Faith does not consist in the belief of particular doctrines, far less in the belief of doctrines which men never had an opportunity of knowing; but in such an earnest desire to know and do the will of God, as leads them conscientiously to use such means as they have, for gaining the knowledge of his will, and for doing it when found. Of this kind was Abraham's faith. Inasmuch as the influences of the Spirit of God are not confined to them who enjoy revelation, but are promised in the gracious covenant made with mankind at the fall to all who are sincere, a heathen by these influences may attain the faith just now described, and thereby may please God. For faith is more a work of the heart than of understanding.—James MacKnight, Apostolic Epistles, p. 63.