On July 15, 2024, at the Republican National Convention, civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon led a Sikh prayer, known as ‘ardas,’ a ritual prayer performed by the Sikh community...
I'm generally convinced that this event was less of a problem than some people have made of it. Your call to humility is also well made and quite vital. But two problems in your analysis are worth noting with the intent of further honing in on the most important point you make in the OP:
1. Two of the tweets you cite against the prayer specifically reference the Trinity or a person thereof, which indicates that those folks (that subset at least) either consciously or subconsciously are already alive to the fact there is a difference between God as Trinity and God as Waheguru. You appear to assume they are ignorant of that, but that would be a faulty assumption, based on the evidence presented in the OP. That mistake is exacerbated by the definition of the God you assert that Christians believe in. You say "Christians believe in one God...", but in fact Christians believe in one God who is three persons, and that Triune definition is without fail front and centre, along with the divine attributes, in any Roman, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox definition of God, not to mention in two of the tweets at issue. That false sleight of hand detracts from your much larger and more important point, as I see it, referenced at the bottom here.
2. An additional faulty step occurs when you are discussing God as transcendent but ridiculing religious traditions that claim to have "the fullest picture of God". The claim by a religious tradition to have the fullest picture of God in comparison to all other religions is not a claim on the part of that religious tradition to encompass God himself. For example, if the complete picture of God is on a scale of 1 to infinity, 1 being no religion and infinity being God himself, then Sikhism can claim to be 50 on that scale of having "the fullest picture of God" above all other religions with Islam, Christianity, and Judaism each being, say, 40 on the scale. Sikhs do not thereby claim that their tradition encompasses infinity, Waheguru himself. Heaven forbid. They are simply saying that theirs is the fullest picture of God among all of the religions of the world. That does not deserve the ridicule you give it. It is simply a matter of fact when one is discussing world religions. Ridiculing it calls into question your objectivity in the analysis and detracts from your more important point.
... the more important point, made by you admirably in the OP, being the fact that using enculturated words for "God" are not only possible, but indispensable. As you rightly point out, Christians adopted various words for God that had, at the time, pagan associations. It can only ever be so. Rather than ridicule Waheguru, Christians would be well-advised to affirm that the truth that Sikhs pursue in the concept of Waheguru is found in its highest form in Jesus Christ, the Logos incarnate, one of the three persons of the Triune God. In fact, there is currently a veritable explosion of conversions to Christianity among Sikhs going on. What I would love to know is: in the Bible translations being used in this remarkable evangelization, is "Waheguru" being employed? At least one Punbaji Bible translation of Genesis 1 that I came across the word for "God" being used is Paramēśura (ਪਰਮੇਸ਼ੁਰ). Is Paramēśura free of all pagan associations? I highly doubt it, just as Theos was not free of pagan associations when the Apostles wrote the Greek New Testament.
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure why there’s hesitation to have these conversations without condemning the other side or resorting to name-calling. There’s much to learn from others, and it seems arrogant to dismiss a prayer simply because it uses a different term for God.
About your first point. Wouldn’t you agree with Deuteronomy 6:4, which states, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one”? Here, the lesson for the Israelites is not just that God is numerically one but that God embodies Unity, Non-compositeness, Wholeness, and Simplicity without parts. Affirming the Oneness doesn’t automatically deny the Trinity, does it? You’ll remember the Nicene Creed: “I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible…” Given this, is it incorrect to state that Christians believe in one God?
It’s strange to assert that one religion has the “fullest” picture of God, as “fullest” implies a complete and final understanding. This seems at odds with the idea that we’re finite creatures speaking about the Infinite, does it not? But perhaps you mean a “fuller” picture of God, if so I can agree with that. One’s bowl might indeed contain more water than another’s.
I don’t have a copy of a Punjabi Bible at hand, but I will look into it.
On a side note: Sadhu Sundar Singh's story is indeed fascinating. I read his biography over 15 years ago, and what struck me then and still resonates now is how little doctrine played a role in his conversion. It was his mystical vision of Jesus Christ that led him to convert, and he seemed to care little for orthodoxy afterwards.
On the first point, "Affirming the Oneness doesn’t automatically deny the Trinity, does it?" No, it does not, since Christians believe in one God in three persons. But *not* to note the Trinity in describing what Christians think "God" is is not honest. The beginning of true and fruitful ecumenical discussion is honesty, not misrepresentation.
On the second point, I think you are missing the difference *between* religions and the difference between any one religion and God himself. That difference is the point of the scale analogy (1 to infinity). No religion claims to encompass the infinite God himself, as you seem think they do. None of them do, so why do you think they do? To say that it is strange for a religion like Sikhism to claim to be the "fullest" picture of God is simply to deny that it is possible or reasonable for any religion to consider itself the fullest picture of God *among* all other religions in the world. To deny that religions can and do make such a claim is to premise ecumenical discussion on the subjection of all religions to relativism (i.e. that all religions are "not the fullest" picture of God in comparison to one another). Again, that is an unhelpful basis to found ecumenical discussion upon. Only honesty can found genuine discussion among religions.
Suppose someone who works for you introduces you as “Jim the guy who does Aikido.”
You’d probably correct him to say that actually it’s IJ and you do BJJ. Now suppose the guy responded, “Get off my case man, that’s pretty much what I said. IJ and Jim share most of the same letters. Personally I can’t tell the difference between BJJ and Aikido. So it’s close enough.”
That would be insulting if anyone said it, but it would be very annoying coming from an employee. Why? Because someone who works for you owes you a duty of respect. But the duty we owe God is that of a creature to a Creator. Indeed, God has revealed Himself to us, so I would say we do have a duty to get it right.
I agree that there are some structural similarities the Sikh idea of ‘Waheguru’ and the Catholic idea of God (though I have a whole rant about how the polytheist/monotheist distinction isn’t as useful as people think). These similarities don’t mean that they are interchangeable, any more than Jim and IJ are. We can see this if we consider outcomes. If Dhillon is right, we are headed for some sort of reincarnation. If Catholics are right, we are headed to heaven, hell or purgatory. Obviously these things cannot both be true. So at most one of our claims about the way the world works is correct.
The more interesting error, to me, is in the position you’re taking where we should try to embrace both at once. I couldn’t say whether ‘Waheguru’ frowns on people embracing multiple religions. But for Christians, sin #1 is idolatry, praying to other gods. Generations of Christians embraced martyrdom to avoid doing exactly what the people at the RNC did. So by our own lights, Christians at the RNC were induced to do something very bad. Again, I don’t know how Sikhs think ‘Waheguru’ interacts with politics, but in the Old Testament, the sin of idolatry frequently brings political calamity. So it is not unreasonable for Christians to expect worse political outcomes as a direct result of this event. My point is that the position you’re articulating here is incompatible with Christianity, and probably with Sikhism, and so it amounts to saying “You’re both wrong, but your delusions are harmless.” You may think this, but it’s unlikely to appeal to believers on either side.
Would you consider the term ‘Allah’ (ٱللَّٰه) inappropriate for use by Christians simply because it is used by Muslims to refer to God? Or do you see this as a different case due to the shared Abrahamic roots of the religions? I ask because analytic Christian philosophers (not implying you’re one) often think that the term ‘Allah’ cannot be employed by Christians due to its association with Islam. However, Arab Christians have used this term for centuries, seamlessly interchanging ‘God’ with ‘Allah’ depending on the context. The issue of interchangeability seems more prominent in Western contexts, especially among Christians who have had limited exposure to non-Western Christian practices. I think ‘waheguru’ is similar to this situation.
Now, isn’t it true that within Christianity itself, there is a wide range of understandings about what the term ‘God’ means? These range from Classical Theists to Open Theists to Personalistic Theists, and Deists (watchmaker proponents). These views are mutually exclusive, are they not? For instance, a Personalist Theist’s view of God is fundamentally different from that of a Classical Theist. But, if different Christian groups hold fundamentally divergent views of God, who is committing the sin of idolatry, and broadly speaking, which Christian groups are idolatrous? Or do you suppose that because all of these groups identify as Christians, they are not committing idolatry?
These varying and sometimes opposing views of God within Christianity itself are incompatible. And if you are correct about political calamity, wouldn’t that mean the political consequences would arise regardless of a Sikh prayer at the RNC?
The other concern you raise is that Sikhism and Christianity have different eschatologies. While either could be true, there is no universal agreement within Christianity on eschatology, purgatory, or the afterlife. Different streams and traditions teach varying ideas about the end times (e.g., Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, Amillennialism) and what happens in the afterlife. If eschatology is a major issue—I’m not saying it isn’t—then it’s worth having conversations among Christians and Sikhs with humility. Just because there’s disagreement about eschatology or terminology when referring to God doesn’t mean the prayer is a prayer to a false God.
You’re quite right that it is not inherently wrong to use the word ‘Allah’ or ‘Waheguru’ or for that mater ‘God’ or ‘Deus’ in a linguistic or cultural context where these words refer to God. If we lived in such a context, I wouldn’t object. But we’re not being taught a new word here, we’re being invited to use it in prayer in another religion.
Religions make claims about how the world works. That’s what I was trying to get at with talk of the afterlife, but let’s set that aside and just look at the central problem. Catholics like me believe that Christianity is the only religion established by God, the Supreme Being. If we’re right, we can see that any other religion claiming to have been set up by the Supreme Being is wrong. Maybe they try to worship the Supreme Being, but do so in the wrong way. Or maybe their worship is fine but they are worshipping some created spirit who lied to them and claimed to be the Supreme Being. Either way, if we’re right they are making some mistake about how the world is, but that’s not the big problem. The big problem is that religion is supposed to connect us to the Supreme Being, and they have a bad connection.
So the two options would be that it is a prayer to a false god, or it is a prayer badly directed at the Supreme Being. Is this a big deal? Scripture suggests that it is a very big deal to God. God describes His attitude as ‘jealous’ in Exodus: “I the Lord your God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5). Martyrs have always considered that it is better to die than to be forced to take part in another religion. I don’t see any reason to think that being wrong about eschatology or philosophical accounts of God has that kind of significance. We might indeed talk to Sikhs about philosophy or all sorts of other things, perhaps even with humility, but we shouldn’t take part in their religion.
I'm generally convinced that this event was less of a problem than some people have made of it. Your call to humility is also well made and quite vital. But two problems in your analysis are worth noting with the intent of further honing in on the most important point you make in the OP:
1. Two of the tweets you cite against the prayer specifically reference the Trinity or a person thereof, which indicates that those folks (that subset at least) either consciously or subconsciously are already alive to the fact there is a difference between God as Trinity and God as Waheguru. You appear to assume they are ignorant of that, but that would be a faulty assumption, based on the evidence presented in the OP. That mistake is exacerbated by the definition of the God you assert that Christians believe in. You say "Christians believe in one God...", but in fact Christians believe in one God who is three persons, and that Triune definition is without fail front and centre, along with the divine attributes, in any Roman, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox definition of God, not to mention in two of the tweets at issue. That false sleight of hand detracts from your much larger and more important point, as I see it, referenced at the bottom here.
2. An additional faulty step occurs when you are discussing God as transcendent but ridiculing religious traditions that claim to have "the fullest picture of God". The claim by a religious tradition to have the fullest picture of God in comparison to all other religions is not a claim on the part of that religious tradition to encompass God himself. For example, if the complete picture of God is on a scale of 1 to infinity, 1 being no religion and infinity being God himself, then Sikhism can claim to be 50 on that scale of having "the fullest picture of God" above all other religions with Islam, Christianity, and Judaism each being, say, 40 on the scale. Sikhs do not thereby claim that their tradition encompasses infinity, Waheguru himself. Heaven forbid. They are simply saying that theirs is the fullest picture of God among all of the religions of the world. That does not deserve the ridicule you give it. It is simply a matter of fact when one is discussing world religions. Ridiculing it calls into question your objectivity in the analysis and detracts from your more important point.
... the more important point, made by you admirably in the OP, being the fact that using enculturated words for "God" are not only possible, but indispensable. As you rightly point out, Christians adopted various words for God that had, at the time, pagan associations. It can only ever be so. Rather than ridicule Waheguru, Christians would be well-advised to affirm that the truth that Sikhs pursue in the concept of Waheguru is found in its highest form in Jesus Christ, the Logos incarnate, one of the three persons of the Triune God. In fact, there is currently a veritable explosion of conversions to Christianity among Sikhs going on. What I would love to know is: in the Bible translations being used in this remarkable evangelization, is "Waheguru" being employed? At least one Punbaji Bible translation of Genesis 1 that I came across the word for "God" being used is Paramēśura (ਪਰਮੇਸ਼ੁਰ). Is Paramēśura free of all pagan associations? I highly doubt it, just as Theos was not free of pagan associations when the Apostles wrote the Greek New Testament.
https://www.thesikhlounge.com/post/the-rise-of-christian-conversion-in-punjab-majha-area
Bl. Sadhu Sundar Singh, pray for us.
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Joel
To be honest, I’m not entirely sure why there’s hesitation to have these conversations without condemning the other side or resorting to name-calling. There’s much to learn from others, and it seems arrogant to dismiss a prayer simply because it uses a different term for God.
About your first point. Wouldn’t you agree with Deuteronomy 6:4, which states, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one”? Here, the lesson for the Israelites is not just that God is numerically one but that God embodies Unity, Non-compositeness, Wholeness, and Simplicity without parts. Affirming the Oneness doesn’t automatically deny the Trinity, does it? You’ll remember the Nicene Creed: “I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible…” Given this, is it incorrect to state that Christians believe in one God?
It’s strange to assert that one religion has the “fullest” picture of God, as “fullest” implies a complete and final understanding. This seems at odds with the idea that we’re finite creatures speaking about the Infinite, does it not? But perhaps you mean a “fuller” picture of God, if so I can agree with that. One’s bowl might indeed contain more water than another’s.
I don’t have a copy of a Punjabi Bible at hand, but I will look into it.
On a side note: Sadhu Sundar Singh's story is indeed fascinating. I read his biography over 15 years ago, and what struck me then and still resonates now is how little doctrine played a role in his conversion. It was his mystical vision of Jesus Christ that led him to convert, and he seemed to care little for orthodoxy afterwards.
On the first point, "Affirming the Oneness doesn’t automatically deny the Trinity, does it?" No, it does not, since Christians believe in one God in three persons. But *not* to note the Trinity in describing what Christians think "God" is is not honest. The beginning of true and fruitful ecumenical discussion is honesty, not misrepresentation.
On the second point, I think you are missing the difference *between* religions and the difference between any one religion and God himself. That difference is the point of the scale analogy (1 to infinity). No religion claims to encompass the infinite God himself, as you seem think they do. None of them do, so why do you think they do? To say that it is strange for a religion like Sikhism to claim to be the "fullest" picture of God is simply to deny that it is possible or reasonable for any religion to consider itself the fullest picture of God *among* all other religions in the world. To deny that religions can and do make such a claim is to premise ecumenical discussion on the subjection of all religions to relativism (i.e. that all religions are "not the fullest" picture of God in comparison to one another). Again, that is an unhelpful basis to found ecumenical discussion upon. Only honesty can found genuine discussion among religions.
One of your best pieces yet.
Thanks you, David ❤️
I’m not convinced.
Suppose someone who works for you introduces you as “Jim the guy who does Aikido.”
You’d probably correct him to say that actually it’s IJ and you do BJJ. Now suppose the guy responded, “Get off my case man, that’s pretty much what I said. IJ and Jim share most of the same letters. Personally I can’t tell the difference between BJJ and Aikido. So it’s close enough.”
That would be insulting if anyone said it, but it would be very annoying coming from an employee. Why? Because someone who works for you owes you a duty of respect. But the duty we owe God is that of a creature to a Creator. Indeed, God has revealed Himself to us, so I would say we do have a duty to get it right.
I agree that there are some structural similarities the Sikh idea of ‘Waheguru’ and the Catholic idea of God (though I have a whole rant about how the polytheist/monotheist distinction isn’t as useful as people think). These similarities don’t mean that they are interchangeable, any more than Jim and IJ are. We can see this if we consider outcomes. If Dhillon is right, we are headed for some sort of reincarnation. If Catholics are right, we are headed to heaven, hell or purgatory. Obviously these things cannot both be true. So at most one of our claims about the way the world works is correct.
The more interesting error, to me, is in the position you’re taking where we should try to embrace both at once. I couldn’t say whether ‘Waheguru’ frowns on people embracing multiple religions. But for Christians, sin #1 is idolatry, praying to other gods. Generations of Christians embraced martyrdom to avoid doing exactly what the people at the RNC did. So by our own lights, Christians at the RNC were induced to do something very bad. Again, I don’t know how Sikhs think ‘Waheguru’ interacts with politics, but in the Old Testament, the sin of idolatry frequently brings political calamity. So it is not unreasonable for Christians to expect worse political outcomes as a direct result of this event. My point is that the position you’re articulating here is incompatible with Christianity, and probably with Sikhism, and so it amounts to saying “You’re both wrong, but your delusions are harmless.” You may think this, but it’s unlikely to appeal to believers on either side.
Thanks for your comment, Hugh.
Would you consider the term ‘Allah’ (ٱللَّٰه) inappropriate for use by Christians simply because it is used by Muslims to refer to God? Or do you see this as a different case due to the shared Abrahamic roots of the religions? I ask because analytic Christian philosophers (not implying you’re one) often think that the term ‘Allah’ cannot be employed by Christians due to its association with Islam. However, Arab Christians have used this term for centuries, seamlessly interchanging ‘God’ with ‘Allah’ depending on the context. The issue of interchangeability seems more prominent in Western contexts, especially among Christians who have had limited exposure to non-Western Christian practices. I think ‘waheguru’ is similar to this situation.
Now, isn’t it true that within Christianity itself, there is a wide range of understandings about what the term ‘God’ means? These range from Classical Theists to Open Theists to Personalistic Theists, and Deists (watchmaker proponents). These views are mutually exclusive, are they not? For instance, a Personalist Theist’s view of God is fundamentally different from that of a Classical Theist. But, if different Christian groups hold fundamentally divergent views of God, who is committing the sin of idolatry, and broadly speaking, which Christian groups are idolatrous? Or do you suppose that because all of these groups identify as Christians, they are not committing idolatry?
These varying and sometimes opposing views of God within Christianity itself are incompatible. And if you are correct about political calamity, wouldn’t that mean the political consequences would arise regardless of a Sikh prayer at the RNC?
The other concern you raise is that Sikhism and Christianity have different eschatologies. While either could be true, there is no universal agreement within Christianity on eschatology, purgatory, or the afterlife. Different streams and traditions teach varying ideas about the end times (e.g., Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, Amillennialism) and what happens in the afterlife. If eschatology is a major issue—I’m not saying it isn’t—then it’s worth having conversations among Christians and Sikhs with humility. Just because there’s disagreement about eschatology or terminology when referring to God doesn’t mean the prayer is a prayer to a false God.
Thanks IJ, some stuff to think about, certainly.
You’re quite right that it is not inherently wrong to use the word ‘Allah’ or ‘Waheguru’ or for that mater ‘God’ or ‘Deus’ in a linguistic or cultural context where these words refer to God. If we lived in such a context, I wouldn’t object. But we’re not being taught a new word here, we’re being invited to use it in prayer in another religion.
Religions make claims about how the world works. That’s what I was trying to get at with talk of the afterlife, but let’s set that aside and just look at the central problem. Catholics like me believe that Christianity is the only religion established by God, the Supreme Being. If we’re right, we can see that any other religion claiming to have been set up by the Supreme Being is wrong. Maybe they try to worship the Supreme Being, but do so in the wrong way. Or maybe their worship is fine but they are worshipping some created spirit who lied to them and claimed to be the Supreme Being. Either way, if we’re right they are making some mistake about how the world is, but that’s not the big problem. The big problem is that religion is supposed to connect us to the Supreme Being, and they have a bad connection.
So the two options would be that it is a prayer to a false god, or it is a prayer badly directed at the Supreme Being. Is this a big deal? Scripture suggests that it is a very big deal to God. God describes His attitude as ‘jealous’ in Exodus: “I the Lord your God am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5). Martyrs have always considered that it is better to die than to be forced to take part in another religion. I don’t see any reason to think that being wrong about eschatology or philosophical accounts of God has that kind of significance. We might indeed talk to Sikhs about philosophy or all sorts of other things, perhaps even with humility, but we shouldn’t take part in their religion.