|
|
|
|
|
||
Chapter 4
McLeod’s Ethics, Part II
From
McLeod’s autobiography it is abundantly clear that when it comes to his
personal interest, he chooses manipulation and deception over truth and
honesty. Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, he blames others.
For example, he had doubts about Christianity when he was a student. But he
opted for not informing the Overseas Mission Committee of the Presbyterian
Church, at the time of his hiring, of him being a non-believer? 1
And at no time during his tenure with the Overseas Mission Committee of the
Presbyterian Church did he tell his faculty colleagues or Sikh friends that he
and his wife are non-believers.2 Apparently,
he started having doubts about Christianity when he was a student.
At the
beginning of 1955, I began my theological course and at once doubts began to
trouble me, threatening to create a situation of some difficulty. Two reasons
held these doubt in check. One was the argument I silently had with myself that
I could not and should not give up now that I had been admitted to the
Theological Hall and had publicly committed to joining the ranks of the clergy.
One other Hall student was clearly having similar doubts, but he was secure
enough to let him express these openly, I certainly was not secure and so I
preferred to keep quiet. 3
Here he
admits that he was not brave enough and honest enough to express his doubts
about Christianity because he did not want to jeopardize his degree. And he
kept his shaky faith in Christianity a secret even from his wife.
But I
must be honest. Even to Margaret I did not completely disclose my doubts, which
ever attended my three years in the Theological Hall. She certainly knew that I
was not entirely happy with the way things were turning out, yet because I was
less than honest in revealing myself she believed that my position was still
basically firm.4
Instead
of reflecting on his week character, McLeod defends his behavior and nourishes
his ego by blaming others, in this case the teachers for not prodding him to
bring his doubts into the open:
“The
staff should not have assumed, as they commonly did, that students would
unaided bring their problems into the open where they could be discussed.”5
Let it
not be supposed that the staff were uncaring or anything but good men. I can in
retrospect appreciate that any attempt to bring my difficulties out into the
open would almost certainly have provoked a decision to leave the Theological
Hall before the three-year course was finished. Such are life’s mysteries. Had
this happened I might never have gone to
McLoed
admits that he disclosed the secret of being a non-believer to the public only
when he felt irritated by the dated references to him as a missionary or
Reverend by his critics.
I now
realize that I may owe these Sikhs an apology, at least those Sikhs who until
1990 assumed that I should be properly identified as a Christian missionary. My
status may have been appreciated by those who knew me personally, but I have
never made it known publicly until Inderjit Singh persuaded me to write an
article “Where it all started” for the Sikh Review.7
Did
McLeod feel any regret or guilt for what he did? Of course not!
Did we
ever feel regret? Certainly there has been none. What about guilt? No one ever
asked us whether we felt any guilt leaving the Christian faith, but it is a
question, which has occasionally drifted past me. In a sense there has been
absolutely no guilt. … Should I not have repaid some thing of the cost of my
training and employment? This I have been able to discard because we spent,
after all, a total of eleven years in the Church’s service. What, then, about
the three years of concealment at
McLeod’s
defense of his actions reminds me of a story of a woman who worked for some
period as a prostitute before her marriage. When her husband found out about
her past and confronted her, she asserted, “Haven’t I performed all the duties
of a housewife and given you two sons.”
“That is
not the point my dear, had you told me about your past, I would not have
married you,” quipped her husband.
This
story is relevant to McLeod: Had he told his interviewers that he is a
non-believer, he would not have been hired and if he had made his secret public
while employed, he would have been fired. From his student days McLeod never
disclosed his doubts about Christianity because he didn’t want to jeopardize
his education (degree). He accepted a missionary position in
Neither
the Vedas nor the Semitic texts (Katebi) know the mystery of the Creator.
AGGS,
M 1, p. 1021.
However,
McLeod says: Kateb designates the
Quran. Sikh theology has traditionally interpreted Kateb as the four ‘Semitic texts’, namely the Torah, the Zabur
(Psalms), the Injil (Gospel), and the
Quran.
Now, let
us examine the following verses, which unequivocally refute McLeod’s
interpretation of Kateb as Quran.
After an
immense and tiring search the authors of the Vedas concluded that there are
hundreds of thousands of netherworlds under nether worlds and skies above
skies. The Semitic texts (Kateba) say there are eighteen thousand
worlds, but their Creator is One. However, the universe is so vast that it is
beyond the scope of counting. One would run out of numbers if one were to
undertake the counting. Nanak, the Great One, alone knows the vastness of the
universe.
AGGS, Jap
22, p. 3.
The word Kateba in this hymn is plural form of Kateb. Here Guru Nanak talks about the
four Vedas and the four Semitic texts: Torah,
Zabur (Psalms), Injil (Gospel) and Quran. Katebi
is also plural form of Kateb, which
McLeod has interpreted as Quran.
Whenever
a specific reference to Quran is intended, the word Quran is used in AGGS. For
example, commenting about the time of creation of the cosmos Guru Nanak says:
The
Pandits did know the time otherwise they would have recorded it in the Puranas.
Neither did the Qaziz know it otherwise they would have written in the Quran.
AGGS,
M 1, p. 4.
You pray
five times a day and read Quran and Kateb
(Semitic texts).
AGGS, M
1, p. 24.
The
Merciful One is the only Emancipator (maula),
not the holy men (pir and sheikh), or Prophet. The Master of every
heart Who delivers justice, is beyond the description
of the Quran and Kateb (Semitic
texts).
AGGS, M
5, p. 897.
In the
last two examples both Guru Nanak and Guru Arjan have used Quran and Kateb together, which demonstrates that Kateb does not mean Quran only?
So in
spite of being an alleged non-believer in the Bible in 1955, McLeod goes out of
his way in 1968 to defend the Biblical God and the Bible by saying that Katebi means Quran only. According to his autobiography published in
2004, McLeod had doubts about Christianity in 1955 and, then in 1968, in Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, he
distorted Guru Nanak’s composition simply for the sake of defending the
Biblical God! By intentionally changing the meaning of Guru Nanak’s hymn,
McLeod protected the Biblical God by plucking him out of the incisive insight
of Guru Nanak. This action alone casts doubt on whether at that time McLeod was
a non-believer as he now alleges.
It makes
no difference to me whether he is a Christian or not, but can a person who
conceals this pivotal fact for so long while accepting a position as a missionary
be trusted? My extensive study of his works has persuaded me to raise serious
doubts underlying his “methodology of historical research” and his “academic
ethics” which further casts doubts about his credibility and integrity as a
scholar. His research is flawed because he ignores facts and strong evidence
that goes against his thesis and accepts flimsy evidence and discredited
sources to support his argument.
In spite
of his constant insistence that he is not a believer and I.J. Singh’s
confirmation of it, McLeod
is still an active member according to the Register of New Zealand
Presbyterian Church Ministers, Deaconesses &
Missionaries from 1840. (http://archives.presbyterian.org.nz/missions/index.htm).
McLeod, Rev William Hewat (Hew) (Emeritus Professor) M.A. (Hons), Ph.D.
(
b Feilding
w Margaret Ruth Wylie b Invercargill m 14.5.1955
Educated
at
Theological Hall
Licensed 12 Dec 1957.
Appointed
to succeed Dr Ryburn in
Ordained
and set apart for Overseas Missionary work 3.12.1957, left for
“Own Worker” of the Bible Class Movement Kharar
To
Returned
to
Resigned
30.9.1969 and withdrew
Professor of History at
Convener
of
Member
PCANZ Historical Records Reference Group from 2000.
Source: http://www.archives.presbyterian.org.nz/Page181.htm
References
1. W. H.
McLeod. Discovering the
Sikhs: Autobiography of a Historian.
2. Ibid.,
pp. 47, 65-66.
3. Ibid.,
pp. 22-23.
4. Ibid.,
p. 23.
5. Ibid.,
p. 24.
6. Ibid.,
p. 24.
7. Ibid.,
p. 163.
8. Ibid.,
pp. 65-66.
9. W. H.
McLeod. Guru Nanak and
the Sikh Religion.
Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter
Copyright©2006 Baldev Singh. About the author
Print this Article
Email this Article
Comment on this Article