Richard Howell/The Christian Post
For some years, an atmosphere of fear has quietly shaped the behavior of many Christian institutions in India. Churches, educational institutions, charitable societies and Christian leaders have often chosen silence when confronted with government action.
Recently, this has become more pronounced in matters concerning the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA). The calculation was understandable: speaking publicly might invite greater scrutiny; challenging an administrative order might make matters worse; going to court might be interpreted as confrontation with the government.
Something, however, appears to be changing.
Indian Christians and other civil society organizations are increasingly discovering that respectfully questioning government decisions is neither rebellion nor disloyalty. It is citizenship.
A recent example is significant. The Bombay High Court has stayed the cancellation of FCRA certificates of two organizations associated with the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman while their challenge is considered. Meanwhile, Christian organizations, church leaders, political representatives and civil society groups have spoken publicly about provisions in the proposed FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026. The government has referred the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for further examination.
These developments matter beyond the technicalities of foreign contributions. They suggest that a psychological barrier may be beginning to break.
For too long, fear has sometimes persuaded Christian institutions that the safest response to administrative action is silence. Yet constitutional democracy does not require silent citizens. It requires responsible citizens.
There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with regulating foreign contributions. India has defended tighter FCRA regulation as necessary for transparency, accountability and protection against improper foreign influence.
But regulation and accountability must work in both directions.
When registration is cancelled, renewal is refused, or an institution believes an order is arbitrary, seeking judicial review is not an attack upon India. It is an appeal to India’s own constitutional institutions.
That distinction is crucial.
The courts are not foreign institutions. They are Indian institutions. The constitution is not an imported inconvenience. It is the framework through which Indians agreed to govern themselves as a free people.
Therefore, Christians need to move beyond the mistaken choice between submission and confrontation. There is another way: courageous constitutional engagement.
Christian theology itself provides room for such engagement. The apostle Paul called believers to respect governing authorities (Romans 13:1–7). Peter instructed Christians to honor those entrusted with public authority (1 Peter 2:13–17). But the same Scriptures contain prophets who confronted kings, John the Baptist challenging Herod, and the apostles declaring before authorities, “We must obey God rather than human beings” (Acts 5:29).
Biblical respect for government is not political servility.
The Church should neither become an appendage of the ruling party nor an instrument of the opposition. Its calling is more demanding. It must speak truthfully, act justly, pray for those in authority and defend the dignity of every human person — including those with whom it disagrees.
This is why the present debate over the FCRA is larger than Christians protecting Christian institutions.
The proposed 2026 amendments have generated particular concern over the treatment of assets associated with organizations whose FCRA registration is cancelled, surrendered or no longer valid. These questions deserve careful parliamentary examination rather than slogans from either side.
This is precisely why referral of the Bill to a parliamentary committee can be constructive. Parliamentary scrutiny, public representation and legal challenge are not signs that democracy is failing. Properly functioning, they are signs that democracy is working.
Indian Christians should therefore resist two temptations.
The first is fear, the belief that silence alone guarantees security.
The second is anger, the belief that every adverse government action proves persecution.
Neither response serves the Church well.
Facts must be established. Legal remedies should be pursued. Documentation must be meticulous. Financial practices must withstand scrutiny. Where government action is justified, Christian institutions should correct themselves. Where action appears unlawful or disproportionate, they should challenge it peacefully and confidently.
Most importantly, Christian leaders must learn to speak before a crisis arrives. Constitutional literacy should become part of institutional leadership. Churches need competent lawyers, accountants and governance systems. Christian organizations should build relationships with wider civil society and defend the liberties of others with the same determination with which they defend their own.
Freedom becomes fragile when communities care about constitutional rights only when their own rights are threatened.
Perhaps, then, something hopeful is happening in India.
The wall of fear is developing cracks.
People who once whispered are beginning to speak. Institutions that once accepted administrative decisions without question are approaching courts. Citizens are learning again that respectful disagreement is not sedition, judicial review is not hostility, and asking government to explain the exercise of public power is not anti-national.
The Christian response should not be triumphalism. It should be mature citizenship.
We must respect government without fearing it, cooperate without surrendering conscience, comply with legitimate regulation without abandoning the right to question, and use every constitutional remedy peacefully when justice requires it.
A democracy becomes stronger, not weaker, when its citizens lose their fear of speaking truth responsibly.
And the Church serves both God and nation best when it finds the courage to do exactly that.
About the Author: Rev. Dr. Richard Howell is the founder President of Caleb Institute. And Chairman of Evangelical Church of God established in 1977. He is the former General Secretary of Evangelical Fellowship of India. (1997-2015) and of Asian Evangelical Alliance for ten years. He was Vice President of World Evangelical Alliance of Four Years. And a founding member of Global Christian Forum.
