By John W. Morehead
Last weekend I learned that you can’t find what you aren’t looking for. Confused by what I mean? Let me explain. I took my wife’s car to run errands, and after my first stop shopping I went out to the parking lot, looking for my car. I walked up and down the lot, focusing on where I could have sworn I parked my car, but I couldn’t find it. I pulled my key fob out of my pocket and started pushing the button, hoping I would hear a beep when I got close enough. Nothing. Then it dawned on me. I didn’t take my car; I took my wife’s. It was parked right in front of where I was standing. I couldn’t find what I wasn’t looking for.
It’s the same with our understanding in many other areas, including religion. When we see something in the headlines we immediately go with our assumptions. That’s what we “see” first. When we do this, however, we can easily misunderstand. Sometimes with big consequences.
This is what happened recently with comments made by Vice President J.D. Vance. Speaking at a Turning Point USA event, he publicly shared that he hoped that in the future, his wife, Usha, who grew up Hindu, might one day embrace his Christian faith. Hindus reacted strongly against his statement. For many evangelicals, this reaction seems baffling. After all, what could be more natural than wanting the person you love most to share what you believe is ultimate truth and eternal life? At least that was the perspective many conservative Christians had in relation to Vance’s comments.
And yet, the sharp response from Hindu voices in the United States and India—ranging from criticism to outrage—signals that something deeper is happening. This is not merely a disagreement about one politician’s marriage. It is a collision of profoundly different religious histories, assumptions, and moral frameworks. If American Christians are to bear faithful witness in a pluralistic world, we must learn to recognize when sincere Christian convictions are being heard through very different ears—and why.
This moment offers an opportunity, not to retreat from Christian belief, but to grow in wisdom, humility, and understanding.
Acknowledging the Reality of Conflict and Misunderstanding
Let us begin with honesty. There is real misunderstanding between many American Christians and Hindus today. Christians often perceive Hindu objections to evangelism as hostility to the gospel or resistance to truth. Hindus often perceive Christian evangelism as unnecessary, disrespectful, coercive, or even threatening to their way of life. Both sides feel morally justified. And both sides often talk past one another.
For evangelicals, and many other Christians, evangelism is not an optional activity. It is an essential part of our faith identity. It flows directly from Jesus’ command to make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20) and from the conviction that reconciliation with God through Christ is humanity’s deepest need (Romans 5:8). To not want others—especially loved ones—to know Christ is unloving and opposed to the faith.
But for many Hindus, evangelism is not heard as loving concern. It is heard through layers of history, religious philosophy, and cultural memory that radically alter its interpretation. To understand the reaction to J.D. Vance’s comment, Christians must step back and examine the assumptions we bring into the conversation—and the assumptions Hindus bring as well. Power dynamics and political considerations were also at play in this situation, but with the analysis below I will focus on theological, historical, and cultural considerations.
The Christian Starting Point
Christian faith begins with a particular diagnosis of the human condition: humanity is estranged from a holy, personal God because of sin. Salvation is not self-achieved but God-given. It comes through the unique person and work of Jesus Christ—God incarnate—whose life, death, and resurrection reconcile us to God.
Because this reconciliation is seen as universally necessary and uniquely available in Christ, Christians feel compelled to share it. Evangelism is not about cultural dominance or moral superiority, although it has been abused in this way; it is, at its best, about love and truth.
Thus, when J.D. Vance expressed a desire for his wife to embrace Christianity, many Christians heard a simple and sincere statement: I want the person I love to share in what I believe brings ultimate life.
The Hindu Starting Point
Hinduism, however, begins from a very different place. While Hindu traditions are diverse, many share several core assumptions that shape Hindu responses to Christian evangelism.
First, the fundamental human problem is often understood not as sin against a personal God but as ignorance—a misperception of reality that binds us to suffering and rebirth (samsara). Liberation (moksha) comes through realization, devotion, disciplined practice, or selfless action.
Second, many Hindu frameworks are pluralistic or inclusivist. They assume that ultimate reality is vast and that multiple religious paths can lead toward it. From this perspective, Christianity is not false—but neither is it uniquely necessary. A common Hindu assumption, especially in Vedanta and modern Hindu reform movements, is that many paths lead to the same ultimate reality. For this reason, religions are complementary routes, and no single tradition has exclusive access to ultimate truth, and everyone is already on a spiritual path appropriate to them.
Adding to this is a common Hindu theological instinct to absorb other religions into a larger framework. Jesus may be admired as a great teacher, a holy man, or even an avatar-like figure. Christianity is seen as containing truth—but partial truth. From this perspective, the Christian desire to convert Hindus makes little sense. If Christianity already points toward the same ultimate reality Hinduism describes more fully, why switch traditions at all? This logic does not persuade Christians—but it does explain why evangelism feels unnecessary, even presumptuous, in a Hindu worldview.
Third, religion is deeply tied to culture, family, and communal identity. To convert is not merely to change beliefs; it can feel like leaving one’s people, ancestors, and civilizational inheritance.
These starting assumptions radically reshape how evangelism is perceived.
The Weight of History: Colonial Memory Still Matters
Beyond differing doctrines and worldview, there are important historical considerations. Christianity in India arrived alongside European colonial powers. Even when missionaries acted compassionately and courageously, their presence was often entangled with systems of political, economic, and cultural domination.
Over time, conversion became associated—fairly or not—with Western superiority, cultural erasure, and loss of indigenous identity. Hindu reformers and nationalists came to see conversion not just as a religious choice but as a threat to social cohesion and cultural survival.
As a result, when a powerful American Christian figure speaks of hoping a Hindu spouse will convert, many Hindus do not hear a private expression of love. They hear echoes of a familiar narrative: The inadequacy of our Hindu identity; Christianity replacing Hinduism; Western religion absorbing Eastern identity.
This does not mean Christians must accept that narrative as accurate—but we must recognize that it exists and that it shapes perception.
Why Evangelism Feels Harmful in a Hindu Framework
For many Hindus, Christian evangelism feels unnecessary at best and harmful at worst.
If one assumes that:
- all sincere religious paths can lead toward the divine,
- spiritual maturity unfolds over many lifetimes,
- and different traditions suit different temperaments and stages,
then urging someone to abandon their tradition appears misguided. It can even seem arrogant—suggesting that one path invalidates all others.
Moreover, Hindu ethics often emphasize social harmony and non-harm. Evangelism, especially within families, can feel disruptive: introducing tension where there was continuity, division where there was inheritance.
Thus, when J.D. Vance expressed hope for his wife’s conversion, many Hindus did not interpret this as marital affection. They interpreted it as an assertion that her tradition is ultimately insufficient—and that assertion landed as a moral offense.
What Christians Can Learn—Without Surrendering Conviction
Understanding these differences does not require Christians to abandon belief in Christ’s uniqueness or the call to witness. But it does call us to greater clarity, humility, and care.
First, we must recognize that when we speak about conversion, we are not only making theological claims—we are engaging histories, identities, and wounds.
Second, we should distinguish between faithful witness and cultural assumption. Wanting someone to know Christ does not require dismissing their tradition as worthless or inferior.
Third, we must remember that evangelism is not persuasion alone. It is embodied love, patience, and trust—especially in intimate relationships like marriage.
J.D. Vance may have spoken sincerely and appropriately within a Christian doctrinal and moral framework. But the reaction to his words reveals how easily good intentions can be misunderstood when we fail to account for radically different starting places.
Toward A More Faithful Christian Witness
In a pluralistic society, Christians will continue to face moments like this. Our task is not to double down on our beliefs without consideration of others, but to deepen wisdom.
We can affirm, without apology, that Christ is Lord and that reconciliation with God comes through him alone. And we can also affirm that our neighbors hear our words through histories and worldviews we did not create, even if some of our faith’s forebears contributed to it.
If evangelism is to be good news, it must be spoken with an awareness of how it sounds—and with a willingness to listen as well as speak. Moments of conflict, like the reaction to J.D. Vance’s comment, can either harden misunderstanding or invite growth. For Christians committed to truth and love, the path forward is not retreat—but deeper understanding, grounded in confidence and humility alike.
John W. Morehead is the Executive Director of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, and the Director of its Evangelical Chapter (Multifaith Matters). You may contact him at johnwmorehead@msn.com .